s) and true content (knowledge).
After checking the child’s questionnaires, one child’s parent completed three closed-ended and one open-ended self-administered questionnaire. The open-ended questionnaire and one of the closed-ended questionnaires were based how they as parents explained the concept of disability to their child (Disability explanation). Child activities or interests that the parent encouraged (Parent’s interests and activities encouraged) and how they explained diversity to their child (Parent’s education about diversity) were assessed using two closed-ended questionnaires (S2 File–Details of Measure).
Disability Explanation—Open-Ended Questionnaire
For the present article, in order to force data in the room of a scientific article, we decided to report the only quantitative data, reserving a qualitative analysis for a future article. The disability model frequency scores were analyzed in a 3 (disability model: individual, social, biopsychosocial) x 3 (age group: children 6–8 years, children 9–11 years, parents) mixed-design analysis of variance (ANOVA). Results are shown in Fig 1. The analysis revealed a main effect for disability model, F(2, 148) = 402.257, p < 0.01, and a significant interaction, disability model x age group, F(4, 296) = 15.678, p < 0.01. Three univariate ANOVAs clarified the nature of the interaction by demonstrating a significant effect of age for the individual, F(2, 149) = 27.212, p < 0.01, and the social model, F(2, 149) = 27.146, p < 0.01. Fisher’s post-hoc LSD showed that children were more likely to use the individual model (p < 0.01) while parents were more likely to use the social model (p < 0.01).
Disability Explanation—Closed-Ended Questionnaire
The disability model agreement scores were analyzed in a 3 (disability model: individual, social, biopsychosocial) x 3 (age group: children 6–8 years, children 9–11 years, parents) mixed-design analysis of variance (ANOVA). Results are reported in Fig 2. A main effect for disability models emerged F(2, 147) = 78.828, p < 0.01, and a significant interaction: model of disability x age groups, F(4, 294) = 12.238, p < 0.01. Three univariate ANOVAs (one way) were conducted on agreement scores. A significant effect of age for the individual model, F(2, 148) = 13.513, p < 0.01, and the social model, F(2, 149) = 6.912, p < 0.01, emerged, while none was found for the biopsychosocial model. Fisher’s post hoc LSD showed that children’s agreement for the individual model was significantly higher than their parents (p < 0.01). Parents’ agreement for the social model was significantly higher than their children (p < 0.01).
Mean frequency agreement for the three disability models by age.
Parents preferred the social model and significantly more so compared to children aged 6–8 years (p < 0.01) and 9–11 years (p < 0.01) whereas no significant difference between the two children’s groups was found. No significant age difference emerged regarding the biopsychosocial model.
Parents’ Education about Diversity: Was the disability a special case?
The parental endorsement scores for the disability models were analyzed in a 3 (disability model: individual, social, biopsychosocial) x 2 (group of parents: parents’ children of 6–8 years and 9–11 years) x 2 (diversity condition: disabled and non-disabled) mixed-design analysis of variance (ANOVA) with disability model as the repeated measure. A main effect for model of disability F(5, 70) = 28.853, p < 0.01, and no significant interaction for children age were found. Planned comparisons revealed that the biopsychosocial model was preferred to the social, t(75) = -7.139, p < 0.01, and individual model t(75) = -11, p < 0.01. Parents of children from both age groups significantly preferred the social model to explain stimuli showing non-disability/diversity conditions compared to the disability/diversity conditions, t(37) = -2.149, p < 0.05.
The custom complex: knowledge and stereotypes on disability, interest, and activities of the children
In order to analyze the complex world of culture and habits of children