week 6 Discussion 1
arita381181
Week6LiteratureReviews_8.pdf
Students’ Attitudes towards Peers with Disabilities: A review of the literature
Anke de Boera*, Sip Jan Pijla,b and Alexander Minnaerta
aSpecial Needs Education, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands; bNorwegian University of Technology and Science, Trondheim, Norway
The trend towards inclusive education has led to an increase of studies focusing on peer attitudes. This review study presents an overview of studies describing attitudes of students, variables relating to students’ attitudes, and the relationship between students’ attitudes and the social participation of peers with disabilities. Based on a literature search we selected 20 studies that were conducted in seven different countries. Outcomes were described in terms of negative, neutral or positive accord- ing to three attitude components (cognitive, affective and behavioural). The results show that students generally hold neutral attitudes towards peers with disabilities. Several variables were found relating to their attitudes (i.e., gender, age, experience with and knowledge about disabilities, parental influence). Moreover, the results indicate that attitudes of peers relate to the social participation of students with disabilities. Implications of the findings are discussed in terms of promoting positive attitudes of peers.
Keywords: attitudes; behavioural problems; disabilities; inclusive education; peers; regular primary education; social participation; special educational needs
Introduction
The development towards inclusive education has gained momentum in the past few decades, certainly in the western world. A direct effect of this development was that in many countries separate schools for special education closed in favour of growing num- bers of students with disabilities attending regular schools (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 1995). Research on inclusive education has fol- lowed this development closely. Its focus has long been on identifying the segregating mechanisms in educational settings and on describing factors considered relevant in implementing inclusive education (Pijl & Meijer, 1997). However, nowadays, research has started to address the experiences and outcomes of students with disabilities in inclusive settings. In the last decade, an increasing number of studies addressed the social dimension of inclusive education (see Koster, Nakken, Pijl, & van Houten, 2009). Based on a literature study, Koster et al. suggested using the term social partici- pation, which refers to four themes: interaction between the student with disabilities and his/her peers, acceptance by peers, friendships, and social self-perception.
The increased interest in the social dimension is most probably explained by the direct link between the main philosophy behind inclusive education and the social
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
International Journal of Disability, Development and Education Vol. 59, No. 4, December 2012, 379–392
ISSN 1034-912X print/ISSN 1465-346X online � 2012 Taylor & Francis http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2012.723944 http://www.tandfonline.com
participation of students with disabilities. After all, one of the core ideas behind inclusive education is that students with and without disabilities experience social benefits in attending regular schools together (Flem & Keller, 2000). It is anticipated that students with disabilities in regular schools—as opposed to attending special schools—have more possibilities for interaction and friendships with typically developing peers. Studies show that although the majority of students with disabilities seem to function well socially in regular schools, certain individuals experience difficulties in obtaining acceptance and friendship (Bramston, Bruggerman, & Pretty, 2002; Chamberlain, Kasari, & Rotheram- Fuller, 2007; Kuhne & Wiener, 2000; Pijl, Frostad, & Flem, 2008; Smoot, 2004).
Why students with disabilities experience difficulties in making and keeping friends is not quite clear. It is argued that several aspects play a role in the process of including students with disabilities in regular schools, such as attitudes of teachers (Norwich, 1994), class size (Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1996) and type of disability (Stoiber, Gettinger, & Goetz, 1998). Another aspect described as important are the attitudes of typically developing students. Stoneman (1993) states that negative attitudes may be just as obstructive as physical barriers, limiting those with disabilities from participating fully in schools and communities. Nowicki and Sandieson (2002) even suggest that the attitudes of regular students towards those with disabilities are one of the major problems in inclusive education.
Negative attitudes may result in low acceptance by peers, few friendships, loneliness and even being rejected and/or bullied. This can have dramatic effects on the lives of young students with disabilities, resulting in difficulties in joining group activities, declining academic performance, dropping out of school and/or problem behaviour (Jackson & Bracken, 1998; Ollendick, Weist, Borden, & Greene, 1992). In worst-case scenarios, rejection and bullying may lead to negative long-term outcomes, such as depression and other mental health issues (Aluede, Adeleke, Omoike, & Afen-Akpaida, 2008; Lund et al., 2009).
Owing to the possible consequences of negative attitudes, it is important to know which variables relate to the attitudes of typically developing peers. Ultimately, this may lead to appropriate interventions to predict, explain and manipulate reactions toward the attitude object. Previous research on peers’ attitudes did examine variables such as gender, age, and experience with inclusive education (Nowicki & Sandieson, 2002), but a clear overview of these variables is lacking.
The ongoing trend towards inclusive education and difficulties experienced by stu- dents with disabilities in social participation led to an expansion of studies focusing on the attitudes of students without disabilities over the last decade. An overview of these studies, including their outcomes and variables in relation to peer attitudes, would seem a requirement. In addition, the importance of the social dimension of inclusive educa- tion suggests it is reasonable to investigate whether there is empirical evidence for the relationship between the attitudes of students without disabilities and the social partici- pation of students with disabilities. In order to broaden our knowledge about these three aspects, a review study was set up to describe: students’ attitudes towards peers with disabilities, which variables relate to students’ attitudes, and the relationship between students’ attitudes and the social participation of peers with disabilities.
Definition of the Term “Attitude” in the Context of Inclusive Education
Within the field of social psychology the concept of “attitude” is generally described in various ways. In spite of this, no uniform definition can be made about this concept.
380 A. de Boer et al.
For this current study, we therefore chose to use the following broad definition of attitude: “an attitude is an individual’s viewpoint or disposition toward a particular ‘object’ (a person, a thing, an idea, etc.)” (Gall, Borg, & Gall, 1996, p. 273). Attitudes are furthermore considered to consist of three components: cognitive, affective, and behavioural (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993; Triandis, 1971). The cognitive component con- sists of an individual’s beliefs or knowledge about the “object”. Feelings about the “object” refer to the affective component. With regard to the behavioural component, this reflects someone’s predisposition to act towards the “object” in a particular way. Owing to the wide use of the aforementioned components of attitude, it was decided to use these as a framework in this current study. In the Analysis of Studies section, more detailed explanation is given about the use of this framework.
Method
Search Procedure
To search for relevant studies, a comprehensive search was performed in August 2011 using “EBSCOhost Complete”. This browser includes a total number of 30 databases, such as ERIC, MEDLINE, PsycARTICLES, PsychINFO and SocINDEX. To search for potential references, the term “students/classmate/childhood/children’s attitudes” was combined each time with “inclusive education”, “inclusion”, “special educational needs and peers”, “impaired and peers”. Moreover, we selected seven journals that have a prominent role in the field of special needs education for a hand search (i.e., Interna- tional Journal of Inclusive Education, European Journal of Special Needs Education, British Journal of Special Education, Exceptional Students, British Journal of Educa- tional Psychology, International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, and International Journal of Special Education).
Selection of Studies
The aim of this study was to give a recent overview of studies describing attitudes of typically developing students towards peers with disabilities. Hence, we attempted to select studies including empirical data that were published between 1998 and 2011 in international scientific journals (peer-reviewed). The search with the browser resulted in 472 references. To select relevant studies for this review, a study had to meet the following criteria:
(1) Focused on attitudes of regular primary school students towards peers with dis- abilities (age range 4–12 years).
(2) Focused on the inclusion of students with disabilities in regular primary educa- tion, and specifically their social participation;
(3) The instrument used focused on attitudes of typically developing students towards peers with various disabilities. This means we included studies on one specific type of disability (e.g., physical), but also studies focusing on general terms (e.g., disabilities).
(4) Included an instrument to measure the attitudes of elementary school students which is considered to be psychometrically robust (Drenth & Sijtsma, 2006).
From only reading the titles and/or abstract, 425 studies were deleted from the data- base because they did not fully meet the selection criteria. The majority of studies were excluded based on one criterion (see Table 1). However, it is likely that more than one
Students’ Attitudes towards Peers with Disabilities 381
criterion was not met. The outcome of this first filtering resulted in 47 studies being assessed for further analysis. Of those studies, four were untraceable (e.g., not available on the Internet or library), resulting in a database of 43 studies. The search in the journals did not yield any new studies. After reading the 43 studies carefully, 23 articles were deleted from the database because they did not satisfy the criteria. Some studies did not contain empirical data (seven studies), or did not focus on students in regular/primary education (six studies). Three studies were rejected because they did not examine peers’ attitudes towards students with disabilities. Moreover, two studies presented the same data whereby we decided to exclude the duplicate. Lastly, six studies did not use an instrument that was psychometrically robust. Deleting the 23 articles led to a final database of 20 studies.
Analysis of Studies
Attitudes are often defined according to the nature of cognitive, affective and behav- ioural responses. This three-component theory is widely used in the field of attitude research. Hence, we decided to use this framework to present the results of the selected studies on students’ attitudes towards peers with disabilities, according to the cognitive, affective and behavioural components. In most cases we followed the classification of Vignes, Coley, Grandjean, Godeau, and Arnoud (2008). These authors performed a study in which they analysed questionnaires to examine students’ attitudes towards peers with disabilities and analysed the items of the questionnaires based on the three components of attitude. Hence, a classification of questionnaires was made.
For this current study, we mostly used the classification of Vignes et al. (2008) to identify which components of attitude the questionnaire was measuring. In cases where a questionnaire was not included in the study of Vignes et al., we carefully analysed the used items, which revealed on which component(s) of attitude the questionnaire was focused. Questionnaires inviting students to “Tell everything you know about a person with special needs” were classified under the cognitive component. Items such as “Would you like to be friends with a child who can’t see?” were ranged under the affective component, while items like “I would like to go to a ball game with Robby” were classified under the behavioural component.
Regarding the first research question, we analysed whether the results of the studies revealed positive, neutral or negative attitudes. The majority of the studies used a five- point Likert scale and reported the findings, either in terms of percentages or in terms of mean scores and standard deviations. Mean scores and percentages on five-point Likert scales cannot be linearly transformed to one another. It is of course likely that a higher positive percentage goes along with a mean score clearly above the scale midpoint.
Table 1. Number of rejected studies according to the selection criteria, first filtering.
Criteria n
Did not focus on attitudes of regular primary school students 351 Did not focus on the inclusion of students with special educational needs
in regular primary education 50
Did not focus on attitudes of students towards one of the specified types of special educational needs
24
Did not include a measurement based on appropriate psychometric properties
0
Total 425
382 A. de Boer et al.
Since most studies reported limited statistical data, it was not possible to calculate a common criterion applicable to all studies. In order to evaluate the outcomes of the studies we used the rule of thumb suggested by de Boer, Pijl, and Minnaert (2010, 2011). Study outcomes counted as positive when the percentage of positive scores was above 70% or when the mean score was above 3.5 (on a five-point Likert scale). The reverse held for negative scores. Scores were counted as neutral if the percentage of positive scores was between 30% and 70%, or if the mean score was between 2.5 and 3.5. For questionnaires that did not use a five-point Likert scale, these boundaries were adjusted. The percentages of respondents who chose a neutral/undecided response were equally divided and added to the percentages of positive and negative responses.
To answer the second aim of this study, we analysed whether the selected studies included variables relating to peer attitudes. Studies showing a significant relationship or a significant difference between groups (p < 0.05) are described in the Results section.
Results
As stated earlier, we classified the used instruments or subscales to identify which atti- tude component the selected study examined. It became clear that the majority of the studies used instruments reflecting one or two of the attitude components (n = 14). The outcomes of these studies were often presented per attitude component, or could be ana- lysed as such. However, some studies used an instrument reflecting all three attitude components and reported the outcomes in terms of general attitudes (n = 6).
The first part of the results section aims to answer the first research question of this study. The section begins with an overview of the studies and a description of their out- comes in general terms. An overview of these studies is given in Table 2. The outcomes of the studies per attitude component are then described, and summarised in Table 3. No specific attention is given to the differences in attitudes according to gender, type of disability or other relating variables. An overview of the latter variables is given in the second results section, which also aims to answer the second research question. The final results section summarises the studies that examined the relationship between students’ attitudes and one of the themes of the social participation of peers with disabilities.
Results 1: Attitudes of students towards peers with disabilities
Students’ Beliefs, Feelings and Behavioural Intentions towards Peers with Disabilities
Six studies used a questionnaire in which all three components of attitude were included (see Table 2). In four studies, a specification of the type of disability was made. Three of these revealed that students held positive attitudes, while one reported negative attitudes of students. The study of Arampatzi, Mouratidou, Evaggelinou, Koidu, and Barkoukis (2011) indicated that students held positive attitudes towards peers with a physical disability. Moreover, the study of Beck, Fritz, Keller, and Dennis (2000) showed positive attitudes of students towards peers with language problems. Nikolaraizi and De Reybekiel (2001) examined students’ attitudes towards blind, deaf or physically disabled peers and revealed positive outcomes. Kalyva and Agaliotis (2009) examined students’ attitudes towards peers with a physical disability and reported negative out- comes. Two studies used the general term ‘disability’. Both studies indicated that stu- dents held neutral attitudes.
Students’ Attitudes towards Peers with Disabilities 383
T ab le
2 .
D es cr ip ti v e su m m ar y o f th e se le ct ed
st u d ie s an d o u tc o m es
o f st u d ie s th at
d es cr ib ed
at ti tu d es
in g en er al
te rm
s (n
= 6 ).
A u th o rs
C o u n tr y
n A g e
In st ru m en t
T y p e o f d is ab il it y a
O u tc o m es
b A tt it u d es
an d so ci al
p ar ti ci p at io n
1 A ra m p at zi , M o u ra ti d o u , E v ag g el in o u ,
K o id o u , &
B ar k o u k is (2 0 11 )
G re ec e
6 5 8
1 0 – 1 2
C A IP E -R
P h y si ca l
+
2 B ec k , F ri tz , K el le r, &
D en n is (2 0 0 0 )
U S A
1 7 4
4 – 1 2
A A T A A C
L an g u ag e
+ 3
K al y v a &
A g al io ti s (2 0 0 9 )
G re ec e
6 0
1 0 – 1 2
A tt it u d e q u es ti o n n ai re
P h y si ca l
– 4
N ik o la ra iz i et
al . (2 0 0 5 )
G re ec e,
U S A
1 9 6
4 – 7
A S K -R
N o t sp ec ifi ed
+ /–
5 N ik o la ra iz i &
d e R ey b ek ie l (2 0 0 1 )
G re ec e,
U K
4 6 3
1 0 – 1 2
A tt it u d e q u es ti o n n ai re
D ea f, b li n d , p h y si ca l
+ 6
T av ar es
(2 0 11 )
C an ad a
5 1
1 2 – 1 3
C A T C H
N o t sp ec ifi ed
+ /–
N o te s:
A A T A A C
= A tt it u d es
T o w ar d A u g m en ta ti v e/ A lt er n at iv e C o m m u n ic at io n ; A S K -R
= A cc ep ta n ce
S ca le
fo r K in d er g ar te n — R ev is ed ; C A IP E -R
= C h il d re n ’s
A tt i-
tu d es
T o w ar d s In te g ra te d P h y si ca l E d u ca ti o n — R ev is ed ; C A T C H
= C h ed o k e M cM
as te r’ s A tt it u d es
T o w ar d C h il d re n w it h H an d ic ap s.
a N o t sp ec ifi ed
m ea n s th at
th e g en -
er al
te rm
“d is ab il it ie s”
is u se d in
th e in st ru m en ts . b S tu d y o u tc o m es
ar e co u n te d as
p o si ti v e w h en
th e p er ce n ta g e o f p o si ti v e sc o re s is
ab o v e 7 0 %
o r w h en
th e m ea n
sc o re
is ab o v e 3 .5
(t h e re v er se
h o ld s fo r n eg at iv e sc o re s) . S co re s ar e co u n te d as
n eu tr al
if th e p er ce n ta g e is
b et w ee n 3 0 %
an d 7 0 %
o r if th e m ea n sc o re
is b et w ee n 2 .5
an d 3 .5 .
384 A. de Boer et al.
T ab le
3 .
D es cr ip ti v e su m m ar y o f th e se le ct ed
st u d ie s an d o u tc o m es
o f st u d ie s th at
d es cr ib ed
at ti tu d es
ac co rd in g to
(o n e o f th e)
at ti tu d e co m p o n en ts (n
= 1 4 ).
A u th o rs
C o u n tr y
n A g e
In st ru m en t
T y p e o f d is ab il it y a
O u tc o m e p er
at ti tu d e
co m p o n en tb
A tt it u d es
an d so ci al
p ar ti ci p at io n
C A
B
7 C am
p b el l, F er g u so n , H er zi n g er ,
Ja ck so n , &
M ar in o (2 0 0 4 )
U S A
5 7 6
8 – 1 2
A C L /S A Q -S F
A u ti sm
+ /–
+ /–
8 D y so n (2 0 0 5 )
C an ad a
7 7
4 – 6
P S S H S
N o t sp ec ifi ed
+ /–
9 G an n o n &
M cG
il lo w ay
(2 0 0 9 )
Ir el an d
11 8
8 – 11
A tt it u d e q u es ti o n n ai re
In te ll ec tu al
– + /–
1 0
G o d ea u et
al . (2 0 1 0 )
F ra n ce
1 5 0 9
1 2 – 1 3
C A T C H
N o t sp ec ifi ed
+ /–
+ +
X 11
K im
, P ar k , &
S n el l (2 0 0 5 )
K o re a
3 0 0
4 – 1 2
N PA
S N o t sp ec ifi ed
+ /–
1 2
L aw
s &
K el ly
(2 0 0 5 )
U K
2 0 2
9 – 1 2
PA T H S /B IS
P h y si ca l, in te ll ec tu al ,
b eh av io u r
+ /–
+
1 3
M o rg an , B ie b er ic h , &
W al k er
(1 9 9 8 )
U S A
1 2 0
9 – 1 2
S A Q
P h y si ca l
+ /–
1 4
M o rt o n &
C am
p b el l (2 0 0 8 )
U S A
2 9 6
8 – 1 2
A C L /S A Q -S F
A u ti sm
+ /–
+ /–
1 5
N o w ic k i (2 0 0 6 )
C an ad a
1 0 0
4 – 1 0
M R A S /P S /B IS
P h y si ca l, in te ll ec tu al
+ /–
+ +
1 6
O k ag ak i, D ia m o n d , K o n to s, &
H es te n es
(1 9 9 8 )
U S A
3 6
3 – 6
P S /S P S T -R , d o ll s
P h y si ca l, la n g u ag e
+ /–
+ /–
X
1 7
S ip er st ei n , P ar k er , B ar d o n , &
W id am
an (2 0 0 7 )
U S A
5 8 3 7
11 – 1 4
B IS
In te ll ec tu al
+ /–
1 8
S li n in g er , S h er ri ll , &
Ja n k o w is k i
(2 0 0 0 )
U S A
7 9
8 – 11
A C L /B IS
S ev er e in te ll ec tu al
+ +
1 9
S w ai m
& M o rg an
(2 0 0 1 )
U S A
2 3 3
8 – 1 2
A C L /S A Q
A u ti sm
+ + /–
2 0
V ig n es
et al . (2 0 0 9 )
F ra n ce
1 5 0 9
1 2 – 1 3
C A T C H
N o t sp ec ifi ed
+ /–
+ /–
+ /–
X
N o te s:
A C L
= A d je ct iv e C h ec k li st ; B IS
= B eh av io r In te n ti o n S ca le ; C A T C H
= C h ed o k e M cM
as te r’ s A tt it u d es
T o w ar d C h il d re n w it h H an d ic ap s;
M R A S
= M u lt i-
R es p o n se
A tt it u d e S ca le ; N PA
S = N o n d is ab le d P ee rs ’ A cc ep ta n ce
S ca le ; PA
T H S = P ee r A tt it u d es
T o w ar d th e H an d ic ap p ed
S ca le ; P S = P ic to ri al
S ca le ; P S S H S = P ri -
m ar y S tu d en t S u rv ey
o f H an d ic ap p ed
P er so n s;
S A Q -S F = S h ar ed
A ct iv it y Q u es ti o n n ai re -S h o rt F o rm
; S P S T -R
= S o ci al
P ro b le m -S o lv in g T es t—
R ev is ed . a N o t sp ec ifi ed
m ea n s th at
th e g en er al
te rm
“d is ab il it ie s”
is u se d in
th e in st ru m en ts . b S tu d y o u tc o m es
ar e co u n te d as
p o si ti v e w h en
th e p er ce n ta g e o f p o si ti v e sc o re s is
ab o v e 7 0 %
o r
w h en
th e m ea n sc o re
is ab o v e 3 .5
(t h e re v er se
h o ld s fo r n eg at iv e sc o re s) . S co re s ar e co u n te d as
n eu tr al
if th e p er ce n ta g e is b et w ee n 3 0 %
an d 7 0 %
o r if th e m ea n sc o re
is b et w ee n 2 .5
an d 3 .5 . C = co g n it iv e;
A = af fe ct iv e;
B = b eh av io u ra l.
Students’ Attitudes towards Peers with Disabilities 385
Students’ Beliefs and Knowledge about Peers with Disabilities
A total number of 12 studies included the cognitive component, whereby students’ beliefs and knowledge about peers with disabilities were examined. Eight studies speci- fied the type of disability in the instrument used, while four used the general term “dis- ability”. The majority of studies focused on children with a physical or intellectual disability. Results revealed that the majority of studies reported neutral attitudes of stu- dents (nine studies). Two studies indicated positive outcomes, while one study found negative attitudes.
Students’ Feelings towards Peers with Disabilities
Three studies were found with a focus on the affective component. The study of God- eau et al. (2010) revealed positive outcomes, while Vignes et al. (2009) revealed neutral feelings of students. Nowicki (2006) used a pictorial scale to assess students’ feelings towards peers with a physical and intellectual disability. The study revealed that stu- dents hold positive feelings.
Students’ Behavioural Intentions towards Peers with Disabilities
Twelve studies examined the behavioural intentions of students towards peers with dis- abilities. The target group of the studies differed: some studies focused on attitudes towards children with autism, physical or intellectual disabilities, while others used “dis- abilities” in their instruments. Eight studies revealed that students held neutral behav- ioural intentions, whereas four studies found positive behavioural intentions of students.
Results 2: Variables relating to students’ attitudes
The majority of the studies examined the relationship between one or several personal and environmental variables and the attitudes of students. Owing to the fact that there was insufficient data per variable across the three attitude components per type of dis- ability, the results are described in general terms. Table 4 presents an overview of the variables, relevant studies and overall outcomes.
Gender and Age
Seven studies addressed gender differences in attitudes towards peers with (different types of) disabilities. The results clearly showed a significant effect of gender; girls were found to hold more positive attitudes than boys.
Three studies examined the effect of age on students’ attitudes. Two studies indi- cated that older students held more positive attitudes. The study of Swaim and Morgan (2001) found that younger students were more positive.
Type of Disability
Two studies revealed that students’ attitudes differed according to the type of disability presented in the instrument. Laws and Kelly (2005) indicated that students were least positive towards peers with behavioural problems and most positive towards students with intellectual or physical disabilities. Nowicki (2006) reported that students were least positive towards peers with intellectual disabilities, compared with peers with physical disabilities.
386 A. de Boer et al.
Other Variables
Several studies examined the effect of experience with inclusive education/peers with disabilities in class on students’ attitudes. In these studies, groups with and without experience were compared. Five studies showed a positive effect of experience, while three studies found that experience with inclusive education had a negative effect on students’ attitudes.
The effect of knowledge about (different types of) disabilities on students’ attitudes was examined in seven studies. Three studies performed an intervention study that pro- vided knowledge about disabilities within an educational project. By means of pre-tests and post-tests, differences in attitudes were examined. Both the studies by Kim, Park, and Snell (2005) and Tavares (2011) showed a positive effect of the intervention on stu- dents’ attitudes. Vignes et al. (2009) investigated whether students had received infor- mation about disabilities in the past; for instance, by reading a book about someone with a disability. They reported a positive effect of such knowledge on students’ atti- tudes. The studies by Campbell et al. (2004) and by Swaim and Morgan (2001) exam- ined the effect of descriptive information about autism on students’ attitudes. Campbell et al. showed that such information positively affected students’ behavioural intentions but had no effect on the cognitive component.
The study by Vignes et al. (2009) examined whether receiving information about disabilities from parents relates to their children’s attitudes and found a positive relationship between the two variables.
Results 3: The relationship between students’ attitudes and the social participation of peers with disabilities
Three of the 20 studies investigated whether there was a relationship between students’ attitudes and the social participation of peers with disabilities (i.e., interaction, accep- tance, friendship or self-perception). Okagaki, Diamond, Kontos, and Hestenes (1998) found that students who expressed more willingness to play with peers with disabilities
Table 4. Summary of variables examined in the selected studies.
Variable Studies Overall significant outcomes
Gender 2, 5, 12, 15, 17, 18, 20 Girls hold more positive attitudes Age 15, 20 Older students are more positive
19 Younger students are more positive Experiencea 3, 4, 5, 17, 18 Positive effect of experience on students’ attitudes
1, 10, 20 Negative effect of experience on students’ attitudes
Knowledge 6, 7, 11, 20 Knowledge about disabilities showed positive effect
Parental influence 20 Positive parental attitudes are related to their children
Type of disability 12 Most positive attitudes: sensory and physical disabilities Least positive attitudes: behaviour problems
15 Most positive: physical disability Least positive: intellectual disability
Note: aExperience is measured in terms of the presence of inclusive units in schools or the presence of a peer with a disability in class.
Students’ Attitudes towards Peers with Disabilities 387
were more likely to interact with these children in free play situations in the regular class. Godeau et al. (2010) and Vignes et al. (2009) examined the effect of friendship with a peer with disabilities on students’ attitudes. Both studies found a significant positive relationship.
Discussion
Proponents of inclusive education have argued that students with disabilities attending regular schools should lead to increasing opportunities for their social participation (United Nations, 2006). However, being physically included in regular schools does not automatically result in positive acceptance or friendships (Pijl, 2005). It is assumed that attitudes of typically developing students towards peers with disabilities play a role in this. In this current study, we presented an overview of studies that examined attitudes of students and classified outcomes according to the three attitude components (cogni- tive, affective, and behaviour). Moreover, we described which variables relate to stu- dents’ attitudes and the relationship between students’ attitudes and the social participation of peers with disabilities.
To answer the first research question, it can be concluded that the majority of stud- ies showed that students held neutral beliefs, feelings and behavioural intentions towards peers with disabilities. One could argue that the neutral outcomes of this study are no reason for concern as, at least, they are not negative. However, it is important to consider that the averages indicating neutral scores are based on data with sometimes considerable variance. Despite the overall neutral score, there were also students hold- ing far more positive or far more negative attitudes. Even a small group of students holding negative attitudes can make life at school for a child with a disability very diffi- cult (McDougall, Dewit, King, Mille, & Steve, 2004). Hence, this indicates that such neutral scores also imply a number of students with negative attitudes.
Regarding the three attitude components, this study showed that the majority of studies focused on the cognitive and the behavioural components of attitude. It was expected to find more positive results in relation to the cognitive component than the behavioural one. It seems reasonable to suppose that students would respond more posi- tively to items like “I think that children with disabilities like to play” rather than to items reflecting their behavioural intentions (e.g., “I would play with …”). However, the results revealed no differences in outcomes per attitude component. A possible explanation for this unexpected outcome might have to do with the difference in the questionnaires used. Many studies examined one or two attitude components for which different questionnaires were used. Within the cognitive component, several authors used an adjective checklist to examine students’ beliefs towards peers with disabilities, whereby students had to circle the adjectives that best described a hypothetical child. This research method is quite different from standard questionnaires asking students to respond to items like “I think children with disabilities are often sad”. This lack of coherence in the way that questions were presented may affect the way students’ responses reflected their attitude. An instrument in which all three components are included is therefore recommended, as findings may vary according to the type of component assessed (Vignes et al., 2009).
With respect to the outcomes of the first research question, it can be argued that our criteria to evaluate study outcomes may have been too conservative. It is true that in some cases average score questionnaires were originally interpreted as positive by the authors of the studies reviewed, while our rule of thumb did not support this. According
388 A. de Boer et al.
to this rule, mean scores between 2.5 and 3.5 (on a five-point Likert scale) or percent- ages between 30% and 70% were indications of neutral attitudes. Changing the rule of thumb into a less conservative one would increase the number of studies with a positive outcome, but it would, however, also result in more negative studies.
Regarding the second aim of this study it can be concluded that students’ attitudes are influenced by several variables. We found that both personal as well as environmen- tal variables relate to these attitudes, such as gender and age, experience with inclusive education and knowledge about disabilities. It is interesting to note that the meta-analy- sis of Nowicki and Sandieson (2002) also found gender, age and experience as relating variables, but did not describe an effect of knowledge about disabilities on students’ attitudes. This study showed that students become more accepting when their knowl- edge and understanding about peers with disabilities increase. It seems that more under- standing has been gained in the past decade about how to improve attitudes using interventions. With respect to such interventions, it seems logical to focus on variables that can be used to manipulate attitudes such as knowledge about disabilities. This is a valuable result as it can be seen as a starting point for intervention, as proposed in recent intervention studies (Holtz, 2007; Krahé & Altwasser, 2006). Within the educa- tional context it seems possible to use information about disabilities—such as storytell- ing, books, posters and videos—to foster more positive attitudes among typically developing children (Favazza, 1993). Principals and teachers should be aware of this when implementing inclusive education.
Based on the outcomes of this study it seems that students with behaviour problems and intellectual disabilities are particularly vulnerable in terms of negative attitudes of peers. Although we found only a few studies in which attitudes towards different types of disabilities were examined, it is reasonable to believe that peers are especially nega- tive towards students with behaviour problems. The behaviour typical of such students (i.e., difficulty with normal behaviour and social relationships) might explain why peers hold particularly negative attitudes towards them. This outcome, together with the increased prevalence of students with psychiatric disorders (e.g., attention deficit/hyper- activity disorder) (Batstra et al., 2012), shows a need for future research focusing on students with behaviour problems.
With respect to the third research question, this review revealed that scant research has been conducted into the relationship between students’ attitudes and the social participation of peers with disabilities. Three studies were found supporting this relationship with empirical data. Based on those outcomes it can be carefully con- cluded that positive attitudes of peers are important for successful social outcomes of inclusive education. However, it seems a challenging route to foster more positive attitudes among peers as their attitudes are influenced by different variables. Based on the outcomes of this current study we want to recommend focusing in future stud- ies on interventions to improve the attitudes of students. Such intervention should incorporate different perspectives, such as parental involvement, knowledge about and experience with peers with disabilities. Ultimately, this may lead to effective interven- tions whereby students with disabilities can better participate socially in regular education.
Acknowledgements There was no research funding for this study, and no restrictions have been imposed on free access to, or publication of, the research data.
Students’ Attitudes towards Peers with Disabilities 389
References
Aluede, O., Adeleke, F., Omoike, D., & Afen-Akpaida, J. (2008). A review of the extent, nature, characteristics and effects of bullying behaviour in schools. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 35(2), 151–158.
Arampatzi, A., Mouratidou, K., Evaggelinou, C., Koidou, E., & Barkoukis, V. (2011). Social developmental parameters in primary schools: Inclusive settings and gender differences on pupils’ aggressive and social insecure behaviour and their attitudes towards disability. Interna- tional Journal of Special Education, 26(2), 58–69.
Batstra, L., Hadders-Algra, M., Nieweg, E. H., van Tol, D. G., Pijl, S. J., & Frances, A. (2012). Child emotional and behavioral problems: Reducing overdiagnosis without risking undertreat- ment. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 54, 492–494.
Beck, A. R., Fritz, H., Keller, A., & Dennis, M. (2000). Attitudes of school-aged children toward their peers who use augmentative and alternative communication. AAC: Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 16, 13–26.
Bramston, P., Bruggerman, K., & Pretty, G. (2002). Community perspectives and subjective quality of life. International Journal of Disability, Development & Education, 49, 385–397.
Campbell, J. M., Ferguson, J. E., Herzinger, C. V., Jackson, J. N., & Marino, C. A. (2004). Com- bined descriptive and explanatory information improves peers’ perceptions of autism. Research in Developmental Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 25(4), 321–339.
Chamberlain, B., Kasari, C., & Rotheram-Fuller, E. (2007). Involvement or isolation? The social networks of children with autism in regular classrooms. Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders, 37, 230–242.
de Boer, A. A., Pijl, S. J., & Minnaert, A. E. M. G. (2010). Attitudes of parents towards inclusive education: A review of the literature. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 25, 165–181. doi: 10.1080/08856251003658694
de Boer, A. A., Pijl, S. J., & Minnaert, A. E. M. G. (2011). Regular primary school teachers’ atti- tudes towards inclusive education: A review of the literature. International Journal of Inclu- sive Education, 15, 331–353.
Drenth, P. J. D., & Sijtsma, K. (2006). Reliability. In Test theory: Introduction in the theory of psychometric tests (in Dutch, pp. 190–253). Houten, The Netherlands: Bohn Stafleu van Loghum.
Dyson, L. L. (2005). Kindergarten children’s understanding of and attitudes toward people with disabilities. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 25, 95–105.
Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The nature of attitudes. In A. H. Eagle & S. Chaiken (Eds.), The psychology of attitudes (pp. 1–21). Fort Worth, TX: Hartcourt Brace College.
Favazza, P. C. (1993). Effects of social contact, children’s books, and guided discussions on the attitudes of kindergarten-age children toward children with disabilities. Nashville, TN: Van- derbilt University.
Flem, A., & Keller, C. (2000). Inclusion in Norway: A study of ideology in practice. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 15, 188–205.
Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R., & Gall, J. P. (1996). Research methods. In M. D. Gall, W. R. Borg, & J. P. Gall (Eds.), Educational research: An introduction (pp. 165–370). New York: Longman.
Gannon, S., & McGilloway, S. (2009). Children’s attitudes toward their peers with Down syn- drome in schools in rural Ireland: An exploratory study. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 24, 455–463. doi: 10.1080/08856250903223104
Godeau, E., Vignes, C., Sentenac, M., Ehlinger, V., Navarro, F., Grandjean, H., et al. (2010). Improving attitudes towards children with disabilities in a school context: A cluster random- ized intervention study. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 52(10), e236–e242. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8749.2010.03731.x
Holtz, K. D. (2007). Evaluation of a peer-focused intervention to increase knowledge and foster positive attitudes toward children with Tourette syndrome. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 19, 531–542.
Jackson, L. D., & Bracken, B. A. (1998). Relationship between students’ social status and global domain-specific self-concepts. Journal of School Psychology, 36, 233–246.
Kalyva, E., & Agaliotis, I. (2009). Can contact affect Greek children’s understanding of and atti- tudes towards peers with physical disabilities? European Journal of Special Needs Education, 24, 213–220. doi: 10.1080/08856250902793701
390 A. de Boer et al.
Kim, J., Park, E., & Snell, M. E. (2005). Impact of information and weekly contact on attitudes of Korean general educators and non-disabled students regarding peers with disabilities. Men- tal Retardation, 43, 401–415.
Koster, M., Nakken, H., Pijl, S. J., & Van Houten, E. (2009). Being part of the peer group: A lit- erature study focusing on the social dimension of inclusion in education. International Jour- nal of Inclusive Education, 13, 117–140. doi: 10.1080/13603110701284680
Krahé, B., & Altwasser, C. (2006). Changing negative attitudes towards persons with physical disabilities: An experimental intervention. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychol- ogy, 16, 59–69.
Kuhne, M., & Wiener, J. (2000). Stability of social status of children with and without learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 23, 64–75.
Laws, G., & Kelly, E. (2005). The attitudes and friendship intentions of children in United King- dom mainstream schools towards peers with physical or intellectual disabilities. International Journal of Disability, Development & Education, 52, 79–99.
Lund, R., Nielsen, K. K., Hansen, D. H., Kriegbaum, M., Molbo, D., Due, P., et al. (2009). Expo- sure to bullying at school and depression in adulthood: A study of Danish men born in 1953. European Journal of Public Health, 19, 111–116. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/ckn101
McDougall, J., Dewit, D. J., King, G., Mille, L. T., & Steve, K. (2004). High school-aged youths’ attitudes toward their peers with disabilities: The role of school and student interpersonal factors. International Journal of Disability, Development & Education, 51, 287–313.
Morgan, S. B., Bieberich, A. A., & Walker, M. (1998). Children’s willingness to share activities with a physically handicapped peer: Am I more willing than my classmates? Journal of Pedi- atric Psychology, 23, 367–375.
Morton, J. F., & Campbell, J. M. (2008). Information source affects peers’ initial attitudes toward autism. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 29, 189–201.
Nikolaraizi, M., & De Reybekiel, N. (2001). A comparative study of children’s attitudes towards deaf children, children in wheelchairs and blind children in Greece and in the UK. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 16, 167–182.
Nikolaraizi, M., Kumar, P., Favazza, P., Sideridis, G., Koulousious, D., & Raill, A. (2005). A cross-cultural examination of typically developing children’s attitudes toward individuals with special needs. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 52, 101–119.
Norwich, B. (1994). The relationship between attitudes to the integration of children with special educational needs and wider socio-political views: A US–English comparison. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 9, 91–106.
Nowicki, E. A. (2006). A cross-sectional multivariate analysis of children’s attitudes towards dis- abilities. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 50, 335–348.
Nowicki, E. A., & Sandieson, R. (2002). A meta-analysis of school-age children’s attitudes towards persons with physical or intellectual disabilities. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 49, 243–265.
Okagaki, L., Diamond, K. E., Kontos, S. J., & Hestenes, L. L. (1998). Correlates of young chil- dren’s interactions with classmates with disabilities. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13, 67–86.
Ollendick, T. H., Weist, M. D., Borden, M. C., & Greene, R. W. (1992). Sociometric status and academic, behavioral, and psychological adjustment: A five-year longitudinal study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 60, 80–87. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.60.1.80
Pijl, S. J. (2005). Interventions for social integration: Training of social skills for students with disabilities in regular education (in Dutch). In B. F. van der Meulen, C. Vlaskamp, & K. C. van den Bos (Eds.), Interventions in special needs education (pp. 122–135). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Lemniscaat B.V.
Pijl, S. J., Frostad, P., & Flem, A. (2008). The social position of pupils with special needs in regular schools. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 52, 387–405.
Pijl, S. J., & Meijer, C. J. W. (1997). Factors in inclusion, a framework. In S. J. Pijl, C. J. W. Meijer, & S. Hegarty (Eds.), Inclusive education: A global agenda (pp. 8–13). London: Routledge.
Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1996). Teacher perceptions of mainstreaming/inclusion, 1958–1995: A research synthesis. Exceptional Children, 63, 59–74.
Siperstein, G. N., Parker, R. C., Bardon, J. N., & Widaman, K. F. (2007). A national study of youth attitudes toward the inclusion of students with intellectual disabilities. Exceptional Children, 73, 435–455.
Students’ Attitudes towards Peers with Disabilities 391
Slininger, D., Sherrill, C., & Jankowski, C. M. (2000). Children’s attitudes toward peers with severe disabilities: Revisiting contact theory. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 17, 176– 196.
Smoot, S. L. (2004). An outcome measure for social goals of inclusion. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 23, 15–22.
Stoiber, K. C., Gettinger, M., & Goetz, D. (1998). Exploring factors influencing parents’ and early childhood practitioners’ beliefs about inclusion. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13, 107–124.
Stoneman, Z. (1993). Attitudes toward young children with disabilities: Cognition, affect and behavioral intent. In C. Peck, S. Odom, & D. Bricker (Eds.), Integrating young children with disabilities in a community program: From research to implementation (pp. 223–248). Balti- more, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Swaim, K. F., & Morgan, S. B. (2001). Children’s attitudes and behavioral intentions toward a peer with autistic behaviors: Does a brief educational intervention have an effect? Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 31, 195–205.
Tavares, W. (2011). An evaluation of the kids are kids disability awareness program: Increasing social inclusion among children with physical disabilities. Journal of Social Work in Disabil- ity & Rehabilitation, 10, 25–35. doi: 10.1080/1536710X.2011.546296
Triandis, H. C. (1971). Attitudes measurement and methodology. In H. C. Triandis (Ed.), Attitudes and attitude change (pp. 26–59). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
United Nations. (2006). Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and Optional Pro- tocol. New York: Author.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (1995). Review of the present position in special education. Paris: Author.
Vignes, C., Coley, N., Grandjean, H., Godeau, E., & Arnaud, C. (2008). Measuring children’s attitudes towards peers with disabilities: A review of instruments. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 50, 182–189.
Vignes, C., Godeau, E., Sentenac, M., Coley, N., Navarro, F., Grandjean, H., et al. (2009). Deter- minants of students’ attitudes towards peers with disabilities. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 51, 473–479.
392 A. de Boer et al.
Copyright of International Journal of Disability, Development & Education is the property of Routledge and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
