ferred by parents compared to their children. The class “neither” gathered very few preferences among groups (Fig 3). This last result was challenged by the adhesions calculated on the basis of answers to the closed-ended questionnaires, where the “neither” class received the highest consent between groups without difference among groups (Fig 4).
In addition, the adherence to the individual model collapsed vertically with respect to the open-ended in all groups, with no differences among them, whereas the number of those who preferred the social model increased with age (p < 0.05).
Pearson’s correlation between the two composite measures (4 composite models: neither, social and individual, social/no individual, individual/no social x open- and closed-ended questionnaires) revealed: (i) a significant (p = 0.05) positive correlation between individual/no social in open-ended and “neither” in closed-ended and (ii) negative correlation (p < 0.05) between individual/no social in open-ended and social/no individual in closed-ended.
Children’s and parents’ models and custom complex variables
In order to test the relationship between the children’s custom complex—i.e., the interconnected practices, beliefs, and values in which the child is embedded —and their disability model choices, correlations between children and parents’ model choices and (i) Child’s Disability Knowledge, (ii) Child’s Interests and Activities scale, and (iii) the Parent’s Interests and Activities Encouraged scales were carried out. Two consistency scales for parental models for each type of answer (open and closed) were created ranging from -3 to +3. Scores were obtained by subtracting the values obtained on the social model by the ones of the individual model. We proposed, in the Introduction, that the two models are theoretically polarized in a unique conceptual line so that the more an individual prefers a social model of disability the less likely they are to prefer the individual, and vice-versa. Two separate correlations were carried out for each of the two children age groups (6–8 years and 9–11 years) with the new two consistency scales and the custom complex variables.
As shown in Table 1, children 6–8 years’ preference (open-ended) for the individual model negatively correlated with parental encouragement of religious (p < 0.05) and social activities (p < 0.05). Children 6–8 years’ agreement (closed-ended) for the individual model positively correlated with their appreciation of social activities and interests (p < 0.05). Children 6–8 years’ agreement for the social model correlated positively with their knowledge level about disability (p < 0.01) and with their interests and preference for activities of general type (p < 0.05). The more the parents agreed the individual model, the more the children of 6–8 years were interested in religious activities (p < 0.01) and the less in activities related to body and health (p < 0.05).
As shown in Table 2, children 9–11 years’ preference for the social model inversely correlated with their parent’s agreement (closed-ended) for the individual model (p < 0.05), while parental’ preference (open-ended) for the individual model positively correlated with children 9–11 years’ agreement for the individual model (p < 0.05). The agreement (closed-ended) for the individual model in children 9–11 years also correlated positively with their stereotype level about disability (p < 0.05) and their interest in social activities (p < 0.05) and negatively with general interests and activities (p < 0.01). Agreement (closed-ended) for the social model positively correlated with a greater knowledge of disability (p < 0.05) and with interests and activities of a religious nature (p < 0.05).
Disability Explanation—Open-Ended Questionnaire
Considering the open-ended questionnaire, the individual model is most commonly used by all age groups but decreases with age while preferences for the social model increase with age. These results are in line with a previous study where the individual model was preferred to the social model v