Prejudices towards people with intellectual disabilities: reliability and validity of the Italian Modern and Classical Prejudices Scale.

Hatfield et al. (2019) translated a prejudice scale into Italian. They wanted to see if it still measures two kinds of bias toward people with intellectual disabilities.

They gave the survey to adults without disabilities. Then they checked if answers stayed steady and if the two parts still hung together.

The Italian MCPS kept its two clear factors: old-style prejudice and modern, subtle prejudice. Internal consistency was good for both parts.

Gender and age only nudged scores a little, so the tool seems stable across adults.

de Kuijper et al. (2014) did something very alike. They also took a foreign scale, trimmed it, and proved it still works for disability services. Both papers give you a short, ready-to-use form.

Cramm et al. (2009) likewise showed high reliability for the NCAPC pain checklist in adults with ID. Together these studies build a pattern: brief, focused tools can be trusted if you run the same stats check.

Hamama et al. (2021) push for person-centered outcomes. Their framework says ask clients what matters. The MCPS follows that spirit by measuring attitudes that directly affect client experience.

If you consult in schools or clinics, you can hand the 10-item MCPS to staff before training. A quick pre-post score tells you whether your anti-bias workshop actually shifted attitudes. No extra equipment, no long interview, just a two-minute form that already proved reliable in Italian samples.