Increasing Achievement for Students in Poverty: A Historical Examination of Literature

Abstract

This work examines literature about increasing academic achievement for students living in poverty. The research for this paper comes from the past four decades within the United States and studies the ways in which student achievement has increased with various resources and changes. The result is three identified areas that lead to an increase in student achievement: funding, highly qualified educators, and early education programs. The studies examined the historical evidence in literature needed to conclude that student achievement, for those in poverty, could be increased if given additional funding, highly-qualified educators, and access to early education programs.

Fifteen million students live in poverty within the United States (NCCP, 2018). Poverty is defined as living below the Federal Poverty Level (FPL), which for 2018 is $25,100 for a family of 4 (HealthCare.gov, 2018). Due to the passage of the U.S. policy addressing school accountability called, No Child Left Behind [NCLB] in 2001, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [IDEA] in 2004, and Every Child Succeeds [ECS] in 2015, schools have been tasked with a larger role than in previous years in serving economically disadvantaged students (McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, 2009). In 2016, 12.7% of American households were living at or below the poverty line (Semega, Fontenot, & Kollar 2017). Furthermore, poverty is indiscriminate of location and found throughout the United States.

Students experiencing poverty typically experience low academic achievement (Boyd, Lankford, Loeb, Rockoff, and Wychoff, 2008). This low achievement is often the result of a number of variables. One such variable is the limited options for those in poverty to get a quality education (Whipp and Geromine, 2017). These limited options can lead to fewer opportunities in the workforce resulting in perpetuating the poverty cycle (Whipp and Geromine, 2017). In light of these limited opportunities, efforts in the U.S. have been made to raise individuals up and out of poverty by focusing on improving the quality of education students in poverty receive.

Several governmental policies and acts have attempted to combat the spread of poverty with little to no success. According to Brown v. Board of Education (1954), U.S. schools must provide an equal education for all students regardless of race, religion, or economic status (Brown v. Board of Education, 1954); however this is often challenged by poverty (Whipp & Geromine, 2017). Although President Lyndon B. Johnson declared war on poverty and enacted the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, the plague that is poverty still exists today (Semega, Fontenot, & Kollar, 2017).

Most research conducted on the effects of poverty between 1972 and 2007 (Avalos, 2013) showed that the efforts to combat poverty rates have not lessened its spread throughout the United States. The amount of individuals in poverty has risen from 31 million in 2000 to 46.2 million in 2010 (DeNavas-Walt, Proctor, &. Smith, 2010). As poverty has spread, more families fall into, or continue to be in poverty. The effects of this increase in poverty trickles into the classroom (DeNavas-Walt, Proctor, &. Smith, 2010). The increase of the population in poverty amongst school-age children has placed a higher importance on increasing their achievement.

Therefore, with the intention to bring awareness to these challenges in education, the purpose of this literature review is to examine the governmental involvement, and educational initiatives that are being implementing in order to increase academic achievement for students living in poverty. In regards to the multiple studies and research that will be examined, the terms, “poverty” and “SocioEconomic Status (SES)” are often used interchangeably throughout much of the studies conducted in the 1980s and 1990s (Esnsminger & Fothergill, 2003). Furthermore, these efforts are categorized into funding and educational improvements.

Governmental Funding

Historically high poverty schools have had financial difficulty. The creation of The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (Title I) was an influential piece of legislation to the broad field of education. Title I provides funding for Local Educational Agencies (LEAs) where at least 10% of the school age population lives in poverty (U.S. Department of Education, 2018). In the 2009–2010 school year more than 56,000 US public schools received Title I funding to provide additional academic support and educational opportunities (U.S. Department of Education, 2018). This realm of research conducted with school funding and student achievement occurred in three distinctive waves: The early years (1970–1990), Pre-No Child Left Behind (1990–2001), Post-No Child Left Behind (2001–2018).

Increasing Funding for Schools

Prior to the creation of Title I, per capita funding was $1,544 per student in 1950. But since Title I, the increase in Federal financial investments in education during the 1980s, per capita funding per student reached $4,760 in 1990 (Holcombe, 1996). The increase in funding provided the need for additional research.

One of the leading researchers connecting student achievement and financial resources before 1990 was Karl White, professor of psychology at Utah State University. White (1982) was the first to note the correlation between students’ socioeconomic status (SES) and their academic achievement. White conducted a meta-analysis of over 200 studies to examine student performance and the schools financial spending. As he classified the studies, White accounted for the multiple variables such as poverty levels and family influence, which could have accounted for the result of each study. He concluded that SES affects student achievement. Since White included family characteristics into the SES definition, he was able to find a statistical correlation between SES and achievement. White’s meta-analysis is frequently cited in current literature on similar topics and was replicated and validated by Knapps & Shields in 1990. From a historical perspective, White’s (1982) work set in motion the foundation for further studies to examine the relationship between SES and student achievement and supported the need for additional resources for students with low SES.

From Policy to Instruction (1990–2001)

Knapps & Shields (1990) spearheaded the next generation of research focused on student achievement and student poverty, with the intent to investigate the impact of the new expansion of Title I. Knapp and Shields (1990) theorized that curriculum and instruction had an impact on the academic achievement of students who were identified as a disadvantaged. Replicating White’s (1982) study, they selected three elementary schools in the United States, all of which were identified with a high disadvantaged student population. Knapp and Shields’ (1990) study validated White’s (1982) original results noting that students with lower SES, also had lower academic achievement. Knapp and Shields further identified two emerging trends that White (1982) did not. These two trends were an increase in student participation, and activation strategies within the classroom (Knapp & Shields, 1990). Specifically, Knapp and Shields (1990) concluded that student achievement of those in poverty might be increased by either increasing student participation, or by using activation strategies on a regular basis. Their findings supported the broader notion that academic achievement for students experiencing poverty can be increased by escalating the quality of instruction and increasing student engagement though governmental programs such as Title I (Knapp & Shields, 1990). Thus, White’s (1982) study in conjunction with Knapp and Shields (1990), proved the quintessential connection between SES and student achievement.

School Accountability and Achievement (2001–2018)

With changes occurring within the classroom, schools lacked a means of measuring student achievement. Prior to the passage of the US policy, NCLB (2001), Hanushek (1997) concluded that there was no consistent relationship between student performance and school spending, when examining only per student spending in high poverty districts. Hanushek identifies the trends within the classroom as previous researcher identified, but he did not determine the direct causation of the changes that were noted by himself as well as Knapp and Shields (1990). This is to suggest that with the increase in per student funding during the ‘80’s and ‘90’s in U.S. schools was a probable causation for the changes with classroom instruction.

Hanushek’s 1997 analysis on the change of school funding and student performance through the 1980s examined over 400 studies. His research was one of the first studies to compare financial resources, Title I, to academic outcomes in regards to student achievement for areas of poverty. Recently, Hanushek (2018) concluded that by simply reducing class size, it would not lead to an increase in achievement.

After the passage of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) act of 2001, schools were required to have a measure of student understanding through state standardized testing. It was this push of standardized testing that enabled the research of Kober, McMurrer, Silva, and Rentner (2011) to occur. They examined the effectiveness that Title I has had on student achievement. They are one of the first to compare Title I funding to student test scores.

Kober, McMurrer, Silva, and Rentner (2011) identified that elementary schools received more Title I funding than middle and high schools, expressing the unequal distribution of Title I services. With much of the funding going to elementary schools since the creation of Title I, much of the research, starting with White (1982) tends to focus on students in early grades. The increased research in younger grades supports the need to focus on early childhood interventions to better student achievement, especially for students living in poverty. They concluded that students would need additional services provided in the forms of more academically rigorous curriculums, and highly qualified educators (Kober, McMurrer, Silva, and Rentner, 2011).

Connecting Funding and Instruction to Increasing Achievement

One of the key components of increasing student achievement in Kober, McMurrer, Silva, and Rentner’s 2011 study was the quality of the educator, which was found to be impactful in student achievement. In a seemly miraculous manner, the Federal legislature passed Title II in 1965 which was created with the intention to increase student achievement for impoverished students through the improvement of educators and administrators (U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, 2005). It must be noted that although Title I and Title II are two separate Acts, the funding formula is identical since their passage. This suggests that any Title I funded schools will also receive Title II funding. Since schools are both Title I and Title II, it is only through a historical view that the impact of Title I not be skewed by Title II. In short, with the creation of additional financial resources, student academic achievement can be increased if used for increasing the quality of the education (Kober, McMurrer, Silva, & Rentner, 2011).

High Quality Education for High Poverty Districts

Continuing from the assumption that additional financial resources (Kober, McMurrer, Silva, and Rentner, 2011) leads to an increase in achievement, the use of those resources must be examined further. Siren (2007) announced that a high quality education will have a positive impact on student achievement.

Increasing Educators and Future Educators

Since the qualifications of the teacher have an influence on student performance for those in poverty, researchers noted that further investigation was needed to help identify how to increase teacher qualifications for the purpose of increase student achievement. Mulvihill and Swaninathan (2006) conducted a study of undergraduate students enrolled in teacher education courses from seven universities and colleges during the 2000–2001 school year. They found that many of the undergraduate students associated themselves as middle class individuals, and viewed poverty as a choice (Mulvihill and Swaninathan, 2006). Their findings assist in building the notion that teacher preparation programs hold potential value in increasing student achievement, especially with those students experiencing poverty. If the goal is to increase the qualifications of new teachers, then the preparation programs of future teachers is pivotal.

Although Mulvihill and Swaninathan (2006) identify possible avenues for increasing the quality of future teachers, this does not address how to improve the current educators of today. To investigate this further, researchers have also examined the influence of professional developments and continuing education on current educators. The importance of the quality of the teacher is emphasized within two key studies (Silvernail et al., 2014) and (Boyd et al., 2008).

Silvernail, Sloan, Paul, Johnson, and Stump (2014) studied the potential relationship between teacher experience and education level to student performance in schools with high rates of poverty. The study was conducted by comparing middle school teacher surveys throughout the state of Maine. They concluded that teachers having more experience in a school setting and attaining higher degrees of education resulted in an increase of student academic achievement, especially for areas of high-poverty (Silvernail, Sloan, Paul, Johnson, and Stump, 2014). Their study suggests that student academic achievement, with a focus on impoverished students, can be increased by growing the experience and education of the teachers.

Boyd, Lankford, Loeb, Rockoff, and Wychoff (2008) theorized that teachers with increased qualifications would increase impoverished students’ performance on state standardized assessments. They examined the New York City Department of Education’s data on teacher credentials and New York State Education Department’s student achievement data on state standardized tests (Boyd et al., 2008). Many of the students were identified as impoverished by the New York State Education Department’s collected data. They analyzed the data, concluding that higher qualified educators, those with graduate school experience, resulted in higher state standardized test scores for students living in high concentrations of poverty. Their research supports the need for schools, especially with students in poverty, to have access to highly qualified teachers to increase student achievement. Although their research is of a smaller geographic area than that of others (Silvernail, Sloan, Paul, Johnson, & Stump, 2014), the findings are nearly identical.

Previous claims that high poverty schools lack access to high quality educators support the rationale that high-poverty schools have lower quality educators compared their counterparts by studies from Boyd (2008) alongside Silvernail (2014). This conclusion suggests that high-poverty schools need to attract higher qualified educators in order to increase student achievement.

Barnett (2003) studied the impact of the qualifications of early education interventions workers. Through his study, Barnett claims that the students’ financial situation limits their access to highly qualified educators and opportunities. His research led him to give recommendations that early childhood educators should be: required to receive a four-year degree, required to receive state certification, employed by a school district, and compensated with a salary comparable to that of educators within public education (Barnett, 2003). Although Barnett focused on the quality of educator, he suggests the need for additional financial resources to be able to support the inclusion of early education programs into the public school system.

Pathways for Certification for Schools with High Poverty

In the US, there are near infinite ways that inspired individuals can become a certified educator. Each way is unique with multiple requirements and opportunities. Boyd, Grossman, Lankford, Loeb, and Wyckoff (2006) questioned the effectiveness of non-traditional pathways for educator preparation programs in high poverty areas, and whether it would be as effective as traditional programs such as through universities and colleges. They further identified the importance of their study by declaring that the disparity of the lack of highly qualified educators in districts of high poverty will only get worse due to the lack of financial resources available for districts to attract more qualified educators (Boyd, Grossman, Lankford, Loeb, and Wyckoff, 2006). They concluded that regardless of the certification route, impoverished students as well as minority students make lesser academic gains compared to students of higher income levels and non-minority students (Boyd, Grossman, Lankford, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2006). Their study concluded that teachers regardless of how they acquired licensure see equal student achievement after the third year of experience (Boyd, Grossman, Lankford, Loeb, and Wyckoff, 2006). With such positive findings on the effectiveness of alternative pathways toward certification, it may be concluded that high-poverty schools may be able to attract highly qualified new educators and, as a result, increase student achievement.

Quality Educators for Schools in Poverty

The final component explored in this section addresses how to improve the professional perceptions and beliefs of teachers in order to increase achievement for student in poverty through professional development. Yun and Weaver (2010) studied the effect that teacher perceptions have on achievement for students in poverty. They conducted a survey to identify the attitudes of 389 undergraduate educators in Canada toward students in poverty. They identified that those educators who had a perceived negative view about impoverished students had lower standardized test scores compared to their counterparts who had a positive or neutral view of students in poverty (Yen and Weaver, 2010).

In a replication study conducted by Gholson (2015) of Yun and Weaver’s study (2010), Gholson examined the views that principals in a rural setting had toward poverty and whether this view affected the achievement of students within school of high rates of poverty. Gholson (2015) expanded Yun and Weaver’s 2010 study by investigating how the views of poverty influenced school experiences for those students in poverty. Gholson (2015) explored the relation between the views of building principals on poverty to student achievement. Gholson’s (2015) conclusion identified that the principal’s beliefs about the stigma of poverty had more influence on academic achievement than simply years of experience.

Gholson (2015), along with Shields, Bishop, and Mazawi (2005), deduced that the attitudes educators hold about students in poverty directly impact student academic achievement. Gholson (2015) does not conclude that increasing student achievement is as simple as changing the principal’s view about students in poverty. However, her research notes that schools with principals who had a more favorable belief toward poverty had more professional training/development dedicated to addressing poverty, or at least raising awareness (Gholson, 2015). Furthermore, by increasing staff awareness about poverty, students in poverty attained higher academic achievement than students whose teachers had less awareness or training. Districts with high-poverty rates should focus on bringing awareness of the impact poverty has on students to all educators and administrators if they intend to increase academic achievement amongst their student population.

Early Intervention of At-Risk Impoverish Students

Camilli, Vargas, Ryan, and Barnet (2010) conducted a meta-analysis on early education interventions with impoverished children. Their belief was that early interventions in children in low SES settings would increase cognitive development in later grades. Camilli, Vargas, Ryan, and Barnett (2010) theorized that preschool programs have an impact on a child’s cognitive development. Their meta-analysis compared 123 studies in early childhood education (Camilli, Vargas, Ryan, and Barnett, 2010). They established the following three themes influencing student achievement: direct teacher instruction, small groups, and attending preschool programs. They found that each individual theme increases cognitive development, and therefore student achievement. The most significant finding was that the research has found that children who attend preschool programs have higher cognitive development than those who do not attend preschool programs, regardless of group size and type of instruction (Vargas, Ryan, and Barnett, 2010). This is to suggest that preschool programs should be made available to high-poverty areas either through district governance or through funding.

Additional research on influential factors on student achievement was conducted by Gullo and Burton (1993) after an expansion of Title II. They studied the effects of SES, class size in kindergarten, and prior prekindergarten experience on early childhood education in relation to achievement. Their work examined assessments given to 1,573 kindergarteners in urban school districts to establish academic achievement markers. Gullo and Burton (1993) concluded that children who were exposed to prekindergarten experiences along with small class sizes reduced the effects poverty has on student achievement. These findings indicate the need for high quality education in order to increase student achievement for students in poverty.

Help From High Poverty Communities

A high quality education for the purpose of increasing student achievement does not have to exist only within the classroom, especially is high poverty schools. The school should be a reflection of the community, and therefore the community should be involved (American Youth Policy Forum, 2014). One such approach to providing a high quality education was to increase parental involvement, in areas of high-poverty, with the intention of increasing student achievement. Shaver and Walls (1998) researched the effects of parental involvement for students in grades 2–8 who attended a Title I school, a school with poverty rates above 10%. They theorized that if parental involvement increased, then student achievement would also increase, especially for those students experiencing poverty.

Shaver and Walls (1998) theorized that any form of parental involvement would increase students’ reading and mathematics achievement in schools with high-poverty levels. They selected several high poverty public schools throughout the United States to implement parental outreach programs in order to increase parental involvement, focusing on grades 3–8. Such parental outreach programs are created with the intention of increase parental participation within the school community. The change in parental involvement was cross-referenced with the students’ test scores on the state standardized assessment. These researchers found that an increase in parental involvement led to an increase in academic achievement in reading and mathematics on state standardized tests for students experiencing poverty (Shaver & Walls, 1998). They further concluded that parental involvement has a profound impact on student achievement, especially with high poverty schools (Shaver & Walls, 1998).

Even with the increase in parental involvement, schools can only control the students’ experience within the school. Munoz and Dossett (2014) examined school-based variables and non-school based variables to determine which have the most impact to student achievement in high-poverty districts. In this study, school-based variables were identified as being anything in which the school had direct control of. These school-based variables could be factors such as class size, teacher experience, and financial resources. Non-school variables were classified as the “baggage” students bring with them from home (Munoz & Dossett, 2014). Examples of those variables included child’s physical and emotional needs. Their study was conducted on school age students within the state of Kentucky. The data used was collected from state demographics and student performance. Their regression analysis provided the information needed to connect student performance to multiple demographic and economic variables. Ultimately, they reached two distinct and impactful conclusions. First, Munoz and Dossett (2014) concluded that there was no single variable that independently impacted a student’s academic achievement. Secondly, the combination of school-based variables, such as class size and teacher experience, has a strong influence on student achievement, especially for students in poverty (Munoz and Dossett, 2014).

Their findings further support the conclusions of other researchers (Kober, McMurrer, Silva, and Rentner, 2011), (Siren,2005), (White, 1982), (Jiang, Ekono, and Skinner, 2016) and (Knapp and Shields 1990), that increasing financial resources increases student academic achievement for students experiencing poverty.

Conclusion

According to the literature presented, increasing student achievement to better allow opportunities that they have been denied due to SES is not an easy task and not one taken in solidarity. Student in poverty will need high quality instruction from the moment they enter a building until the moment they leave (Yen and Weaver, 2010), (Kober, McMurrer, Silva, and Rentner, 2011), (Siren,2005), and (Silvernail, Sloan, Paul, Johnson, & Stump, 2014). The literature reviewed indicated that the early years of a student’s schooling should focus on closing the gaps that have resulted from their economically disadvantage education (Camilli, Vargas, Ryan, and Barnett, 2010). Students in poverty will need highly qualified educators to believe in them and educate them in order for student achievement to be increased. They will need those highly qualified educators to understand what living in poverty does to students. The literature presented shows that student achievement can in fact be increased. Students in poverty must be given those opportunities so they can achieve academic success.

References

Bloom, H. S., Orr, L. L., Bell, S. H., Cave, G., Doolittle, F., Lin, W., & Bos, J. M. (1997). The benefits and costs of JTPA Title II-A programs: Key findings from the National Job Training Partnership Act study. Journal of Human Resources, 549–576.

Bower, H., & Griffin, D. (2011). Can the Epstein model of parental involvement work in a high- minority, high-poverty elementary school? A case study. Professional School Counseling, 15(2), 77–87.

Boyd, D., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., Rockoff, J., & Wyckoff, J. (2008). The narrowing gap in New York City teacher qualifications and its implications for student achievement in high‐poverty schools. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 27(4), 793–818.

Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).

Civic Impulse. (2018). H.R. 751–102nd Congress: National Literacy Act of 1991. Retrieved from https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/102/hr751

Clotfelter, C. T., Ladd, H. F., & Vigdor, J. L. (2006). Teacher-student matching and the assessment of teacher effectiveness. Journal of Human Resources, 41(4), 778–820.

DeNavas-Walt, C., Proctor, B. D., &. Smith, J. C. (2010). U.S. Census Bureau, current population reports: Income, poverty, and health insurance coverage in the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office

Ensminger, M. E., Fothergill, K. E., Bornstein, M. H., & Bradley, R. H. (2003). A decade of measuring SES: What it tells us and where to go from here. Socioeconomic Status, Parenting, and Child Development, 13, 14–27.

Fuller, M. B. (2014). A history of financial aid to students. Journal of Student Financial Aid, 44(1), 42–68.

Gholson, M. L. (2015). Rural Principal Attitudes toward Poverty and the Poor. Ohio University.

Hanushek, E. A. (1997). Assessing the Effects of School Resources on Student Performance: An Update. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(2), summer, 141–164.

Herbers, J. E., Cutuli, J. J., Supkoff, L. M., Heistad, D., Chan, C. K., Hinz, E., & Masten, A. S. (2012). Early reading skills and academic achievement trajectories of students facing poverty, homelessness, and high residential mobility. Educational Researcher, 41(9), 366–374.

Holcombe, R. G. (1996). Growth of the Federal Government in the 1920s, The Cato Journal, 16, 175.

Jiang, Y., Ekono, M., & Skinner, C. (2016). Basic Facts about Low-Income Children: Children under 18 Years, 2014. New York: National Center for Children in Poverty, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University.

Kober, N., McMurrer, J., & Silva, M. R. (2011). State Test Score Trends through 2008–09, Part 4: Is Achievement Improving and Are Gaps Narrowing for Title I Students?. Center on Education Policy,4, 1–23.

Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2002). Teacher sorting and the plight of urban schools: A descriptive analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(1), 37–62.

Mulvihill, T. M., & Swaminathan, R. (2006). “ I Fight Poverty. I Work!” Examining Discourses of Poverty and Their Impact on Pre-Service Teachers. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 18(2), 97–111.

Munoz, M. A., & Dossett, D. (2014). Equity and excellence: The effect of school and sociodemographic variables on student achievement, 11(2), 120.

Neufeld, B. (1990). Classroom management and instructional strategies for the disadvantaged learner. In M. S. Knapp & P. M. Shields (Eds.), Better schooling for the children of poverty: Alternatives to conventional wisdom — Vol. 2. Commissioned papers and literature review: Study of academic instruction for disadvantaged students (n.p.). Washington, DC: United States Department of Education, Office of Planning, Budget and Evaluation.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, P.L. 107–110, 20 U.S.C. § 6319 (2002).

Semega, J. L., Fontenot, K. R., & Kollar, M. A. (2017). Income and poverty in the United States: 2016. Current Population Reports, 10–11.

Shaver, A. V., & Walls, R. T. (1998). Effect of Title I parent involvement on student reading and mathematics achievement. Journal of Research & Development in Education, 31(2), 90- 97.

Silvernail, D. L., Sloan, J. E., Paul, C. R., Johnson, A. F., & Stump, E. K. (2014). The relationship between school poverty and student achievement in Maine. Retrieved on March 9, 2018 from https://usm.maine.edu/sites/default/files /cepare/poverty_achievement_Web.pdf

Sirin, S. R. (2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review of research. Review of Educational Research, 75(3), 417–453.

US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2007). US Department of Justice: Civil Rights Division. Americans with Disabilities Act: Questions and Answers http://www. dlrp. org/html/publications/general/qanda_ada. html. Accessed Mar, 3.

Whipp, J. L., & Geronime, L. (2017). Experiences That Predict Early Career Teacher Commitment to and Retention in High-Poverty Urban Schools. Urban Education, 52(7), 799–828. doi:10.1177/0042085915574531

White, K. R. (1982). The relation between socioeconomic status and academic achievement. Psychological Bulletin, 91(3), 461.

Williams, R. L. (2010). The Origins of federal support for higher education: George W. Atherton and the land-grant college movement. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.

Winkleby, M. A., Jatulis, D. E., Frank, E., & Fortmann, S. P. (1992). Socioeconomic status and health: how education, income, and occupation contribute to risk factors for cardiovascular disease. American journal of public health, 82(6), 816–820

Yun, S. H., & Weaver, R. D. (2010). Development and validation of a short form of the attitude toward poverty scale. Advances in Social Work, 11(2), 174–187