This manuscript has been reproduœd from the microfilm master. UMI films the

text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and

dissertation copies are in typewriter face, mile others may be from any type of

cornputer printer.

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy

submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or p o ~ r quality illustrations and

photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment

can adversely affect reproduction.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and

there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright

material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

Oversize materials (e-g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sedioning

the original, beginning at the upper left-hand corner and continuing from left to

right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in

one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book.

Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced

xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white photographie

prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for

an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order.

Bell & Howell Information and Learning 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346 USA

800-521 -0600

Social Acceptance of Children w i t h Developmentaï Handicaps i n Integrated Daycamps

Douglas 3. McMahon

Ei thesis submitted i n confomity w i t h the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts

Department of Human Development and Applied Psychology Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the

University of Toronto

8 Copyright by Douglas J. McMahon 1998

National Library Bibliothèque nationale du Canada

Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliographie Services services bibliographiques

395 Wellington Street 395, nie Wellington Ottawa ON K1A ON4 Ottawa ON K1A ON4 Canada Canada

The author has granted a non- exclusive licence allowing the National Library of Canada to reproduce, loan, distribute or sell copies of this thesis in microform, paper or electronic formats.

The author retains ownership of the copyright in this thesis. Neither the thesis nor substantial extracts fiom it may be printed or otherwise reproduced without the author's permission.

L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive permettant à la Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou vendre des copies de cette thèse sous la fome de micro fi ch el^ de reproduction sur papier ou sur fonnat électronique.

L'auteur conserve la propriété du droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse. Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés ou autrement reproduits sans son autorisation.

Social Acceptance of Children with Developmental Handicaps in Integrated Day Camps

Master of Arts 1998

Douglas J. McMahon

Department of H u m a n Development and Applied Psychology

University of Toronto

Senrice providers have become increasingly concerned with the

quality of life of persons who have a developmental handicap. Many

settings in which integration efforts are being made remain

unresearched with respect to this issue. The social acceptance of

peers is hown to foster m a n y social adjustment benefits. This

study examines the social acceptance of chilàren with developrnental

handicaps in integrated daycamp settings. Multiple measures

revealed an overall picture of low social acceptance of campers who

had developmental handicaps. Individual dif f erences in levels of

acceptance of these children was largely explained by diff ering

social skill cornpetencies, the presence of difficult to manage

behaviour, and setting variables. Acceptance of chilàren with

developmental handicaps in camp settings appeared to more closely

resemble tolerance than the full unconditional acceptance which

leads to the establishment of more enduring social bonds.

Strategies for intervention which could improve the social

acceptance of these children are discussed.

number people m u s t give their consent

stiley of this naturz to be completed. 1 have enjoyed not onll- tkiis

consent, but invaluable assistance from my colleagues in al1 st-s

of the research process. 1 am extremely grateful anc? indeSted to

N o r t h York Parks and

LzrecE Eodiam ûf EtoSicoke Parks and Recreation Services, Kithout

thess two people, this document could not have beec coqletec2.

S p c i â l tkzLnks to 5%. John Er îuer , M ç - Colette Groll, P i s . X~lên

Christodoulou, and M s . Lisa firmstrong of the Metropolitan Toronto

Asscciatior, f o r Comrnunity Living. Dr. Judith Wiener deserves

auknowlsdzpn~zt for her valuable feedback and assiçtanc~ as doss

2 z . E â f r y ÇcIaeider. Finally, I exprsss ml- sincere gratitude to al1

pârticipants and the i r parents who f elt this 3nBeavour to be

â w o ï t b h i l s one.

T & ï e of Contents

Zâckground ~ * C C I ~ C L L Z C C

Skills an2 S e t t i n g =alysis

Background Aczeptanzv Skills and Setting Xiüiysis

Behaviour

Behâvi our

- Socîal Skillç and Social Behaviouz Settins Iqsst S tâf f accepta,:^^ an2 Trainin5 Susport Karker Skiil and Role Camp Struct~re, ~ctivities and Routines S u r m q

Intervention Strat~gL~s Routines and Group YIagement Cooperatlv~ L c a r r ~ i ï q Peer T U t c r L i q and Peer m e d i a t e d , T o p an2 E w i p e n t

Intervention

Social Skills Training Bducation and Training of Staff and Chilken

Study Limitations and Future Research onc cl us ion

Appendix A Appenllix E Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E Appendix F References

List Tables and Figures

T & k 1 : Participant Damgraphics

Camp Characteristics

Figure 2: Chadrs Social Interaction Behaviour

F i - p r e 3 : &NZattrs Play ane Social In te rac t io~l ~ e h a v i o u r

Fiqdre 4: Bab's Play and Socia l Interaction ~ehaviour

Jef f ' s Play and Social Interaction Behaviour

T a b l ~ 3 : Camp Staff Peer Acceptance Ratings

T&l= 4 : SSRS Social Skills anil Problem Behaviour Total and Subscale Scores

Peer Acceptance

C!HXFTER 1

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to determine ta what extent

children with developmental handicaps are socially accepted in

integrated daycamps and to identify the variables associated with

these acceptance levels.

Service providers have become increasingly concerned about the

quality of life of children and adults with developmental handicaps

(Ouellette-Kuntz, 1990; Rowitz, 1989) . Being accepted by peers and

having close friendships are identified by researchers and

clinicians as a key component of quality of lif e (Rowitz, 1989) . Children who are rejected by peers have been shown to be at risk

for a vaïiety of social adjustment problems ( m i n , 1980) . Friendship is a felationship which has been shown empirically to

foster many benefits. Included here are opportunities to learn how

to intcract ef fectively with others ( R u b i n , 1980) , increased

altruistic behaviour directed towards peers (&Xamtarino, 19 76 ,

Unproved play skills (r8usselwhite, 1985) , and enhanced

cormnunication ability (Donnellan et al., 1984) . In addition,

fr iends are seen as instrume~tal in the consolidation of personal

identity (Asher L Gottman, 1981), and positive self concept

(Mannarino, 1 9 7 E ; Reiter & Levi, 1980).

A large body of research has shown that shown that children

with developmental handicaps are poorly accepted by peers and, have

impoverished social networks (eg. , Sabornie, 1985 ; Sabornie &

Rauffman, 1987). Given the importance of good peer relations for

children research which examines variables which contribute to

social acceptance and subsequent friendship formation is needed in

varie ty

developmental

settings.

handicaps

typical

that they

f o r with

have opportunities for

social interaction (Barber & Hupp, 1993; Crapps et al-, 1985;

Stainback Stainback, limited opportunities

conjunction with an impoverished social ski11 base (Faught et al. ,

1983; R o b e r t s e t al., 1991; Stainback & Stainback, 1987; Zetlin &

Murtaugh 1988) appear to have contributed to peer rejection and few

close friendships. Limited opportunities for social interaction

have led to increased lobbying for access to integrated

environments due to the potential for the acquisition of adaptive

skills an6 richer social contacts (Affleck et al., 1988; Brinker,

1985; Federlein, 1979; Guralnick & Groom, 1988; Meece & Wang, 1982;

Strain et al., 1985).

T h e r e has been considerable research effort in examining the

r o l e of specific environmental conditions which £acilitate or

inhibit the social acceptance of chilaen and adults with

disabilities (Jellison, 1984; Johnson & Johnson, 1983; Madden &

Slaven, 1983 ; Millsr, 1983; Yager, 1985) . This has likely been due to the relative ease with which the academic and residential

settings in these studies may be accessed for research purposes. It

must also bo remembered that perçons with developmental handicaps

have an established s e r ~ i c e history spanning decades within such

programs thus allowing more t h e for study. ~ntegration efforts

within setrings which offer other life experiences such as

employment and recreation have not been as long established.

The one integrated service

research attention. result increased advocacy

l a s t decade, children with various

handicaps may spend up to two rnonths of the year

With infrequerit zxceptions (Wiener, 19 8 0 , there

in these settings .

has b e e ~ a paucity

as cornpared xith devoted services

education and settings. Papers have dealt with

th2 s d j e c t highlight factors thought to be conducive to successful

integration for those who have handicapping conditions (Hensley,

19 79 ; . L i t t l e is off ered, however, i n the way of ernpirical evidence

for assertions made (Braaten, Gold, Murray

there a need social acceptance

handicaps this

not y e t long established service histories.

If t h e social acceptancc of children with developrnental

settings, least not s trong

that for nondiagnosed peers , methods should devised

to amelicrate this outcorne. - To do nothing contributes to an

lif e through negat ive, social

cxperlences whieh challenge the v e r y arguments f o r integrated

placement. Innovative prograrmniny efforts no% being attempted in

settings positive peer re la t ions

cûopeuative task engagement (Eichenger, 199 0 ; Johnson et al. , 1986;

Johns on, peer

modelling and appropriate social behavior ( Fox al.,

1992; Goldstein, 1393; Hamre-~ietupski et a ï . , 1992 ; Lym FOX,

1989; Sasso et al., 1 9 8 7 ; S t r a i n 6c Odom, 1986; Wacker C Serc~,

1925), environmental reorganization (Nordquist & Twardosz, 19901,

and the use ûf toys and other devices to engineer social

interaction (Burroughs & Murray, 1992; Mart in et al., 1 9 9 1 ;

McCodclc, 19e7; spiegal-McGill, et a l . , 1989; ïaugfui, 19551, m a y

be allaptable to community daycamps in ways which could enhance both

the social f iinctioning of children with developmental handicaps and

the abjectives of the recreation professional. There has already

been precedent f o r the application of cooperative strategies in

r x r e a t i o n oriected environments (Orlick, 1978 ; Orlick, i W 2 1 . The

20sitiv1 results of these efforts encourage investigation of

further alternatives.

This stüdy w i l l be guided by the following researzh questions:

2 . TG %bat ~ ~ x t e n t are children with handicappins conditions

soc ia l ly accepted xithin camp environments by their

non2iagnosed peer group? Research in the scfiool syStem

has reported l ox peer acceptance. It is expected that

childrsn Nlth devzloprnental handicaps xi11 also be less

accepted in comunity daycamps.

2. What behavioral, other personal, and setting variables

might influence tht social accaptance of children

handicaps

influence the

camps? What the

socioeconomic status ,

(SES) and background? are influential other

setzings (Asher & Gottman, 1981) . What role dc

cornmunicatior, and other adaptive skills play? 1s p r i o r

experienco within an integrated setting for a child with a

developmental handicap an advantage? Are there specific

beha-riorâl correlates governing acceptance or re j ection 0.f

children n i t t developmental handicaps in camp settings?

m a t role do differîng play styles, the a b i l i t y to contend

with aggressive or disruptive behaviors, and negotiate

successful group entry have in affecting peer acceptance

(Guralnick, 1988) ? Does the size of the camp group, number

of supervising staff, and types of activities and routines

kiav~ an impact? Such considerations are hown to influence

peer interaction in school and rosidential settings

(hlcia, i978; Cooper et al., 1992; Narlowe, 1979;

Mc~illiam, 1987; Shaw, 1976; Whaley & Bennett, 1991).

The presence of a one-on-one support person whose function

is tc f a c i l i t a t e adjustment on the sart of the child has

a high probability of exerting ef f ects on interaction with

one's pêers. The role of t h i s influence also requires

study. Syst2rnatic examination of these variables may prove

useful i n sredictins social success and i n instances of

poor social adjustment, could suggest strategies for

intervention.

3. A final consideration w i l l be to examine those strategies

which have proven useful in improving social outcomes for

chilàren w i t h developmental handicaps in educational

settings. Should social acceptance prove to be low, perhaps

progranmiing methods utilized in schools could be adapted to

foster acceptance of children

attending community daycamps . with developmental handicaps

m~ participants in the study were fouz bays xith

these c l C r resided in Metropolitan Toronto and attsndell an

integrated day cari setting during July and/or A u g u s t of i993. Each

par~icipant was part of the author's caseload w i t h i r , a Torcnto

3açed social çorz-ice agency. ~emographic infonnztion rtgarçing the

raxticipânts 3Stained from case files is presented in T a l e I.

davslc~mental hanaicas. E a c h l i ved at home ri th his f wiily. In all

identified xhich necessitated the author's Involvement. Mcxe

E - m c t i o ~ i n r and sociai behaviours is presented in the Results

The parents of nonhandicapped c h i l e e n in the par t ic ipan ts '

pâ~ticipants' pârents to allow theiz childrerz to participate in the

s e l x t i o n of fûus chil&= without handicaps to aet as comparison

c h i l e e n for zcich participant with a developmectal handicap. The

comparison chikker, were matched w i t h esch participant with a

T a b l e 1: Participant Demographics

Single Single Both B o t h parent parent, parents , parents ,

one two one sibf ing siblings sibling

Develop - mental delay

Develop - mental delay

Autism A u t i s r n , Prader- W i l l i Syndrome

CclE~zaL mglo - EachcirounC Jamaicar Jamaican Italian Sax-on

The

two city

S e t t i n s

stu&j Kas conducted in four summer day camps operated by

Departrnents of Parks and ~ecraation. Data outlining the

characteristics of these camps w e r e collected by interviewhg the

S-~2urv i sc r of ozch setting. The Camp Çetting Dcscriptioc Form

(Aspsndix BI was useG to complete this task. Although each

participant with a developmental han&cap attended a C f f erent day

cmp seti-in,, al1 four locations had many commonalities. Ali

~ p r a t o d fcr suvec or eight weeks during July and August with

ch iEren attenVin, anydhere from two to eight weeks according to

theiz placmsr.t needs. Study participants w e r e in att~ndacce from

six to eight weeks. Camps w e r e located in public school settings

and sarvec2 children Setureen 6 to 12 years cf age. In each location

childrer, Mers divided into smaller groups based on their

chrs-?ologicôl age. Six to !2 year c l d s comprised the yumgest camp

c ~ r o u p f ollowed 5y 9 and 10 year olds , and 11 and 12 year olds . Al1

four c m q settings have had at least £ive years experience

integrating children x i t h developmental handicaps into their

IL spi te of the m a n y similarities, there w e r e differences

betxeec settings, sspeuially in terms cf the overall size of the

caxg settiny, staff -child ratio, program emphasis, and staff and

zl"iilc!recrs stritudes towards those with handica;?ping conditions-

Similarities an& differences between settings'are dzscribed in -

Setting School School School

Goxieriz dayrmp activities

daycazq activities

daycamp act iv i t ies

9: OOam- 4: OOpm

9 : O O m - 4: OOpm

UrCLited 7 - 8 w e e k s

UnlUnited 7-8 weeks

Unlimited 7-8 weeks

Variable, 40 - SC! childxen, 3 x i t h handicaps

Variable, up to 7 0 chiMren, 3 - 4 with handicaps

Yariable, 3F) - 5Q chileen, 4 - 6 w i t h handicaps

4 - 8 1 1 , depending upon at tend=ce

Average of L C / ~ , depecding

Average of 4 - 6 / 1 1 depending upon attendancc,

upûn tendance upon

u t t ~ n d m r e

8 f~male, 5 male

10 female, 2 male

8 female, 1 male

1i1 supsart virtually cons tant

111 support constantly

i/l support constantly

GymI playground, staff room, cf assroorr,.

@*ML, stef f rûoni, kitzhsn, 2 classrooms and

Gymr science and staff

Ckad b B t t Bob Jef f

ri-

Attitudes,'

Field trips, sports and games, arts & crafts. children eacouraged to cûopexate and cornmicate.

O v ~ r 5 years 2qerience.

Excellent attitudes f rom al1 . Supervisor hos an iilvestment in seeing Chad succee here .

Field trips, sports and games, arts a crafts. There are lonç w a i t periods which dis courage interaction.

Over 5 years experience . Range from accspting tu not iavolved . Support worker lacks ski11 motivation to promote

Icdif f e r e n Most dsal with M a t t only when he icitiates contact, a=d they d not sus tain

Field t r i p s , sports and games, arts iL craEts. Activitieu promote interaction. Long wait periods discourage this ,

Over 5 years experience.

Range from full acceptance to no involvement. Most accspt philosophy if integration effcrt does not disrüpt routines.

R a n g e from indif f erent to liking Bob. Som2 greet him, but do not sustain contact bzyond s ing le

Field trips, sports and games, arts Sc crafts. Activities both encourage and Eiscourage interaction.

Over 5 years eqerience . Mast favour integration philosophy. There is no staff involvement Sy ayone other than the supsor~ worker and negat ive comment s regarding Jeff are made.

Many will nct engage J ~ f f due to behaviour. Çome will çreet him but contact is not sustained .

this . exchanses.

Diagnostic as well as other needs information on study

participants was obtained through the a=thorJs case files, camp

appliczticn fa--, and a Social Language CheckList l o ra toE i n

~ ~ p î n d i x c (Fiisner, uqublished) .

As rezomended 5y Odom, ElcConne l l and McEvoy (19921 , xiultiple

methoos wsre ut i l i zed to measure peer acceptance for the

p a r t k i p a n t s =ithin their camp settings. Counsellor ratizgs cf

TSs. counsellor rating method was devised by Hallihan (1981).

four groups had four

assiyned to it, one oz whom &-as assigned t o suppo~t the study

p r t i c i p a n t . C o ~ ~ ç e l l û r s vere f irst asked to If s o r t f t al1 children i n

thsir group into the thres general categoxies of "most acceptedlf,

They

to zank order al1 children w-ithin each of the three categories i n

têrms sf socicll accestancr, assi-ing a t i e d rating when they were

~i ï âb lz tc mahe a decision regavding hi ch of t w o children w a s more

ecrnpariscn peer w a s ~ h t percentagz of th2 entire group rânked as

Ths peer scciometric technique was admiriistered in two ways

the the participants. cases, the xaters

w s r e childres in the same group as the participants. Peers were

asked tc rats the participant ano two other children in t k c ~ = , s q .

selastad at r a n d o m on the statement, I r I like to have this parsor, in

ny .;rroupp". A four point Likert scale was used with the fo l loxing

statments: "do not like to a lotm, "do not like to a littlev,

II ; f , P ~ IL- ta a littlev, anci Cike to a lotn. The 6 to €! ysar 318

ml- 2 7 L~.LI&sn xzrs assisted srith this task through ths adc5itio;l of

fiagrans of faces placed above the nrunbers for each rating. Thzsc

msthods of msasuring peer acceptance have been s u c c e s s f u l l ~

employa3 elsawhere (Amish et al., 1988; Cuksts, 1 9 m ; M c M a h o n ,

L E ? Z ) . Sipers te in and B a k (1989) also found the addit ior , of srnilin,

a d frowzins faces 20 be a useful aie for yomger chilZrsr. without

aC!-V-anced r s a d i n ~ skills. It is this methoc which was utilized in

the present study. A happy face was placeo &ove number f criir, Ifl ike

te a lotv. A smaller smila was placed above number thrss, '<like to

r littlew. N-ar t-n, Ifdo not l i ke ta a l i t t l e f f , Sad a slight

f m w z plazê6 &ove i t . NUer one, "do not lik2 to a l o t u , had a

s t ronaor f roo r . placed above it . O l d e r children with hi;her reading

skills did cot r e p i r e this assistance, so the faces w e r ê not

i i t i l i z e d frr thesa ags groups. The r e l i ab ï l i t y cind v a l i a t y of

râtiw s c a l ~ scciarnetrics have b e e ~ well established (Asher &

Gottm=, 19!2I).

B a t h Lormal an8 informal observatior, by the authcr

cnrroborateC the aczqtance measurzs. A series of interriew

questions ( s e s Appendix D) also served this purpose. The parents of

al1 participuits w r e interviewe8 iising thase questions 24 weeks

after camp end& in order to d e t e d n e their perceptions of how

axe

o s p axe u r o o z s s e ~ ~ aqq UT pa3~qrqxû sznopeqaq tuqqoxa - 3 s p e r E 22

-ayods Xaqq se sasnodsax paq~mstre~z: xoy2nP 3y3

Opapua dures x a q p Sri qday s e ~ sxaad q3r.y 23equo3 Lue 3~ a n v z q s p

retast r e l i a b i l i t y ranges f r o m - 8 5 to -93. The S S R S is sha-UJ~I tc

have adquate construct validi ty and moderate correlaticns are

faund betxeen this system and peer sociom~tric and classroom

oSçerv-ztf on mvasures (~lliot et al. , 1988 ; Gresham G Elliat, 1390 ;

Grzsham et al. , 1937) .

The teacher foxm was adapted for use within c a q settings 5y

f c i s k i q micor word changes on classroom related items. The statement

"f inishes class assigaments on timefr w a s changed, f o r e s a q l e , to

r a z , "f inishes tasks on t h e f f .

N? adapte2 version of the Plqground Behaviour Observation

Çcale utiliz22 by H a r r i s and F?iener (1991) was also used t o assess

garticipânt social behaviour. The Scale is included in Aspandix E l

provides i ~ f o r r r a t i o n on specific play behaviours hslpful i n

=@aining the results of the acceptance measures. This ~npublished

a- cbol - requires raters t o note the frequency of the folloxing

5ehavicurs at prescribed time intervzls. Cooperative oehaviour,

Leadership, Comic Sehavioilr, Dependent, ShyIWithdra-m and

~ i s r i p t ive behaviour . Instances of verbal and pwsical aggression

ars ais0 noted. Ths anviromenral context in which these types of

Sshaviozr are Yisplâyed is recorded on the form. Children's

involvanent i n solitary, onlookex, and parallel types of play as

2ïe.11 as theix interaction x i th pecrs an2 adults receives attention.

Finally t h s presance and f requency of group entry, maintenance, and

conflict resolutiû~ s k i i l s is reczrded. Al1 of these three s k i l l s

a rê shoxn t o Se important t o social adjustment (Guralnick, 1994).

Prûced~reç

The Eirst study task involved seeking the consent of txo

Departmentç of Parks and Recreation and the parents cf th2

participants. Consent letters are included in ~ppendix A. Families

srerr assurso bath verbally and in writing that p a r t i c i p t i û n i n thc

ç t ~ & ~ - =as consletely voluntary and that abstainin~ in no xay

affectse eligi3ility for the author's or agency8s professional

a a z i c e s . Confidzntiality safeguards were guaranteed for the

participacts , their f amilies, and participating settinss . B coded

nnm&.tr sys tan Kas used to identify participant date during

=?al tre; c ' 1 - - U r

2 l a y g ~ o ~ C i observation data were collected by the author at

k a s t weokly. The peer acceptance rneasures and SSRS data w e r e

collectacl during the participants ' final w e e k at c a q . Counsellors f ill& îut the SSBS f o m and canper sociograms indqenlent ly . The

a,.c.~, U L A A ~ L --.- me: indi=-idually with childran whose parents gave xritten

=~rrr i iss ion fur then to take pa r t In the peer rating soziometric.

S i n c ~ thzse procedures are capable of prompting unxanted nsgative

social compzrisons, a distracter ta*, one mcre likelg to draw

ctiid interest ancl discussion, was uszd immsdiately upon completion

of the ratin, ~ r o e e 5 i r e . Younger chil&ïen in the 6 tu 8 year age

racse x2rs read sor t ions of a s t o q appropriate for this age range,

=d askvd ta talk with their pers afterwaro to leam unheard story

êvents leading to a conclusion. Peers needed to collaborate in

order to leam the ent i re story. O l d e r children were asked a riddie

iAppndix F) and encouraged to discuss it among tàemselves in order

to f ind its svlution. Thû ansxer to the

follûxing day witt camp

whr~ vere asked

purposs of the

Counsellors.

to do ratings were not

w a s sharza

study until after al1 data w e r e collecteci-

year

Most

Soy

his

his

schooling

c û n & x t u C w i t h i r , istegrated classroom settings . :Terbal skills are

dclayê& ckiaxacterized by short rrtterances and he has a mile

short attention

i rsaspropriat~ touching, pinching and difficulty in f inishing tasks

have hesn re?c r t~U concerns. X t ha= been noticee durins h i s long

L i s t û ï y xithin intagratad daycamp sattings that most of these

3ehaviozs ~ ~ r o v s as Chad c o n t i n u s t o spen2 t ims i n the nev

sztting. Chad sresênts as a highly socizl child who is quite able,

Cf a71 four study

with his peer grûus.

Chad p r o v ~ d to 3e the most

âccey?ted by other campers. Peer ratings, staff sociogxams and

ubservatiûn a l 1 s - q p o r t s d this conclusion. Pter respcnses to the

statêmsnt, ''1 liks ",O have tkiis pêrson in my g r o ~ p ~ ~ , al1 produced

ps i t ivs ra t i rgs ~ 5 t h t x o respondents stating t h a t they "like to a

l i ~ t l z ~ , anC the remaining ~ 2 2 ~ ' stating kie "liked to a lotn. mile

the validity cf the 2 çociometric ratingç is somewhat

questionab12 due CG a lox number of respondents for each

par t i z ipmt , t h e res-ults are preseoted here and are valuable i n so

E a r as t h q su?slesr~snt the findings of other peer acceptance

The ather peer acceptance msasures also shoxed evidence cf

Chad' s popularity . There were no ohserved negative r e s p n s e s tc

Chad at any tUn2 during setting visits by the au~hor by either

staff ûr pozrs. >J;L1 srore awaro of ois prasenca tzitkin tht setting

t hq - appzârec2 highly interested in hirri. Lias adjustment.

During the c a q l e t i c n of the Playground Baaviour Okservaticn

Scalz, Ckad icitiated entry into various graups of chilcken G tctàf

eight

Eatkss by thsse latter t w o staff members s t a t e d t ha t only 12% and

3 ) . Tûkec togetkier, the sociogram results of al1 four stzf f members

than Char? in this settfng (Table 3 ) . Bis level of acceptance w i t h i n

partizipar,t tc 2auc bsttsr on socic~rams than the raïïdomiy selected

zhild xhc wâs alco rate5 for c o m p r i s o ~ p r i ~ ~ o ç o s (T&,hle 3 ) . Chad's

rk3th2i- noted that chileen who lLved w i t h i f i the same bürilding would

Skills and Behavioür

In additioz to beinr the rmst accepted of a l 1 f o u r study

?articipants, Chad alsû had the strongest social ski11 rspertoire.

consistent

&,+- ,,~,-,g the paxÊnt interview that he generally does well and 12ams

5&at is r u c p i r e d of him once others mode1 apprcpriate S~havioirr c r

task requirments.

mile resultç m ~ s t be interpreted trith cauticn eue to minor - - ci .rd;.-.- cLang2s or, sons s tatements , the SSRS revealed av2rag2

vzcial skills whex Chad8s ratings w e r e compare2 2 7 i t h the

ao,?h=YicappU standardization sample (see Table 4 ) . This f icding

is consisteot azross Cooperation, Assertion, and S e l f Coritrol

s7Ascâles and th2 total score. Ris level of cooperation within

comparable tha t

chil&sn. Assertion, or the degree to which Cliad would initiate

others and their initiations, was

czzpiïa51z to that of his peers. The Self-Control subseale results,

situations and those srhich require waiting or restraint, were again

Zhzlc's SSRS Problem Behaviour Scale score was at the 98th

psrcent i le showin3 him to display significantly more difficult

b&at-lours th= th2 nonhandicapped standaxdieation sample (see

Sehaviotirs intZiratinç anxiety, loneliness and poor self esteem

di f f iml t i e s are confimed by Chad's service records and his mother

;;ho explained that these usually occur when he first encounters a

CtacY s PlaygrounC Observation Scale results are gra~hell in

Figuros 1 m d 2 . 4 t o t a l of =igbt observations 2:-re congleteCi

- --. L t h i n both unstructured play situations and structured active

sanes. Eazh tlTe- of act iv i ty w a s conductee in anc? out cf dcars.

attempts entry and peers this

in e-~ery case. mile sol i tary and onlooker types of play wer= noted

thsr2 was also par t ic ipa t ion i n interactive games and activities.

This participation took place independently of sup?ort worker

prûwtin~ and assistance. Seventeen instances of cooperative

resülEs are consistent with SSRS findings.

ChaC is a verbal child who tends to speak in shcr t t w o or

tkree XOTU utkaraaces and only at reqilired t h e s . Nuch of his

Lm3;;agv use note2 on the Social Language Checklist invûlved making

i x i i ~ i a t i o n s toiiards p e r s or responding tu their initiations. He

xoulc' e t others arid respona to questions âppropriately. Ths

a k i l i t y t~ cûminicate needs znd wants Fias apparent. Chad did not

mâs t z q - af cûnversaticnzîl t u r n tâking . H2 woüld sornetUneS interrupt

zthers, pc,rseveratc ûr, the sane topic, and make inappropriate

xmLâ;--ks . He zould hoxtver , maintâin brief verbal interaction. These

f inclines J w e r s consis tsnt with f repent observations of Chao moving

E r o x i group ts srou2 &ter spsnding brief periods of time with each

one.

rfi dele camp period

C h a d ' s: play Sehaviour

Noninteractive play Interactive play Peer conversation Adult interaction

based on 8 observations

Fidele E n d OF camp serioe camp period

Chad's sccial interaction bohavicur

Cooperative behaviour Dismptive Sehaviour Comic Sehavimr Group e=?,try behaviour

based on !3 observations

the

?articipants, and this serves as a partial esplanatiorr for Sis

acceptance ratings, it must be emphasized that his camp settizg Iras

Table thr

m d ~ . 111 a d S t i o n to the fact chat no children w i t h i r i this canq

e sêen r2=üsiny a social overture f r o m Chad, thêy woulc !

that other

this setting well

protective towards

Link rlaking cêrtaic he was monitored on field t r ips to usfamiliar

locales. P e ~ r s se-emsd to feel it was their responçiSility tu assist

that she would

son him

noted t h a t peers psrsist

and

tended -t ake place

The

herself having investment this . Ctf.,c,r staff erxs-xa.se2 cbilCirvn tc interact w i t h and assist Chad on

point answer

act ivi t y time within this setting was

was move

his things

w i t h groups .

--Y- was evidsncs of both the camp settins and Chadf s secial

his acceptance S SRS

interact with others,

pzrt to his i n t q r a t e d school placement. ~ h i s f i n d i n ~ b;as s q p o r t e 2

would that

Verbal and the

also peer

ds nut by thanselves, however, cornpletêly -lain ChaU' s acceptance

the peer

poor

result was contradicted two other staff

persons wi tk i s the samo setting . Manqy cf - the prcSlsx Sehaviours

describzd or, ths SSRS xere seen dz~ in , - obsênratior,. would

oftsr , ac t ~ p u l ç i v e l y , n o t staying ~ 5 t h a q on2 acti-".ity f o r long

would no t sus t a i n

interaction eff crts get

were repor ted and would choose

problem behaviour was responded this

setting s==~ed tc slay a rols in maZ1 s adjustmeat an? =~cezt=_o_~s.

PrcSlan kehavicur did not terminate social overtures Sy eiths1-

attitude clearly that this child had

cnzûurass h i s participation. A;? orientation session rerardinr th2

nature sf clisability w s field for afl children at the start of thc

s'l;?tX2z. Caunsellors freqrrently held discussions w i t h campers or, hox

5eçt tc accmmodate PAaO anC encourage him tu participatê. A1lo;t;ing

L i m z; moire frasly between groups is an example of an adaptation

feeling along

ic2 c t l i ~ r s f o r at lêast brisf periods of t h e . Th2 assiynêd

sEs?crt xorker vas ~cnspicuously &sent from viex, w c r k i n g with

~ b b . e * r k 4 1 -3- V C I Z C L LZIAA~Cerï and âlloxing Chad to acczss his peers on his own.

ml+ -..-s ; noceszitateç that ~ o r k out issues with his ;sers himself

- e c J a**- thq- 35th h b . Chad's mother reporte& that n2x positive social

line were taught

p s r s âz c m ? . mile it Kas true th& Chad had m a n y good social

ski112 g o i s Ln, the c m p encourages him t o dernonstrate these and

described one with

positive attitudss toxards ssxrviny chilGIen w i t h disabilities. It

- *as --. highly flexi31e in apprûach. Chad1s behavioural needs became

somethinr t o b2 xorked w i t h and accomodated. The willingness of

z l l tu. continue e f f o r t s to engage him was reported to have an

hm23iate pay o E f x i t h pinching behaviour disappearing a few days

the cther

continued.

fl year o l d boy w h c

s a long history of

ives with h

attendance sister. There i

sm.cr c~mping prcgrams. Matt attends a private residential schocl

Çn- ,,, hsaricg inpairsa students during the academic yaar spenllin,

a p p r t - m i t y Eûr continued contact with peers at the cûnclusion of

the f ac t within

building. his hearing impairment,

has

Ss-~~lc?rnsr,tal Disorder (PDDD) . HE doss not speak. There are long-

and adul t

câr2*-~ers. ?~oncoxqliant behaviour has also been an issue,

the within new

engages s e l f stimulatory handf Iapp ing behaviour.

ges t u r e s . of tên aloof,

frewectly responas to initiations Yy others.

ratings participant were

worker work being

the pcpular Table

staff socioyrams with this result . O n e

cu~~sellcr e s t k t e d that a full 82% of t he campers fz z ~ ~ t 0 1 . 1 5 ~ ~ 7 ~ ~

xere mare popular than N a t t while the camp supervisor assign2U hLx

nore mcderate acreptance level with 54% of the cthsr c h i l ~ k z c

Ssing more popular (Table 3 ) .

P, çiujle pcer rating of acceptance w a s obtained fcr mtt >ilth

tLis chi12 sta~ing C h a t she oid not like Co have M a t t in her grous,

"a littlen. This same child vent on to sta te that she did nct l i b

ts kûTs another rmdoxnly selected peer without a disability ir, her

groz? "a Lot". The result suggests that Matt w a s not the least

acezpted chi le at this camp.

SSze=zticx 5.1 the zuthcr confirme6 that thore .=TE?Y no e f f o r t

peers interaction with him. This was

i~ 2art, to the f z c t that he would sometixszes run away frorn other

once interaction had been started. This

cczaçicns M a t t contact.

Sbse-ed exchang2s with peers consisted of sreetinyr H a t t , and

prockcing desired responses to his nonverbal requestç . Tm requests

for entry were noted w h i l e complet in9 the Playgxound

B~haviour Obsenratior? Seaïe (Figure 3 ) , anl both of these entry

U l d s w e r e successfirl. Natt's mcther has exxlained that peers would

contimzs to greet hi r r , in the elsvator i n her apartmerit building

aftêr th2 camp periad had ende& These greetings became more and

msre infrequent as the academic year progressed.

acceptance ratings for were not

was indication acceptance

least within his setting.

r.lidZle camp period

play social intexact ion behaviour

E n d of c m 2 period

x x Interactive play it---# Pear conversation, (sign) - - Adult interaction E F Grou;? errtr). behaviour

based on 5 observations

r : I a t t r s skill repextoire w a s not as diverse as UAadfs - SSES

percentile. Elatt displayed lower levels of cooperative behaviour

:.:itEr_ 9 ~ ~ ~ 2 s 2s w211 as less assertion in interzcticg 95th othcrs

- A A L ~ A A -t. r r r corgar& xith the ~onhandicappeo standardization sanple. O c l y

ir,Yicating same appro~riate responàing to the d-ds of uûiting

peer

ProU1exri Behavicüï scales of the SSRS indicated rates of

srits of scme reported difficulties in this area at camp. Matt's

ctar idurZ sccrs of 1 1 2 on the Problem Behaviour sectfon of the SSRS Y

r. 1 - ,Aaced Lin xithin trF12 79th percentile (Table 41, on this dimensian,

rugsesting that wkile behaviour issues are present, t h ~ s o are net

(Figure

süsgests sons âge appopr ia te interaction with peers although this

minutes w e r c for

aztivities corisisteC oE watchifig movies with his peex group (two

o S r e r ~ l a t ï o ~ s ) , free play activity i n a school g-imnasium (two

cSçcrvations) , and a "breakn from the camp group sitting on school

E; high levei GL 3n1oaker play and ressonding was observed with

this kizd of b&üviour onlooker play was also seen dtrring ~ n - . f r22

play act3vity whicfi has the potential to =ïûurag= grcater

interaction. Interactive activity without conv2rsation a,1d wi thout

aclJl~lt p r o q t i r ? ~ was obsemed un 5 C C C ~ S ~ O ~ S (~igure 3 ) . Xsst of tnn

tLis Tas i~itiated by others during play activities. As note2

&ove, MaCZ r ide two observed attempts to enter an âctivity a l b e i t

fox brief oÿzations each time. Both of these attem~ts were

successEu1 xith his peer group.

The Sûcibl Sanguage Checklist coillc! no t be coq le t e l l for E Q t t

as h ~ , ZDIS nct çpeak. He was ohserved cmplet ing four of i ts

cûArnLuc"ricative behariours. Matt woulc respond nonverbally to

q~esticoç, iaitiats a conversation throug2 s i n a ?C use sign

lan,-usgs tû either ask for assistance or demand somethiny.

t:i",hin th; - camp setting, attitudes of both staff persons and

eisinterzsted. The large oiscrepnncy between the sociogram ratings

discüssion =U observation by the author. It is ~ifficult to accept

E ra t ing cf X a t t as Seing the most accepted ch i l e at camp when peer

in~,eraction was not sustained by him or others . Natt was often

f o m d physically sqaratec? from hFs peer group. At no time was thc

suppûrt worker observed making efforts to encourage M a t t to

interact with the group or them to interact with him. During one

observation, the worker was located on the school grounds watching

f o r and the

acceptance. here poor

H a t t f s success at winning some acceptance within tkis c a p may

h1 attri9uted Co. the fact that despite strong deficits, he does

Lave some social cornpetence. He w a s consistentiy &le . to

cc)mm~icatu his needs and wants sonverbally and occas ionally

c k m z s ~ r a t e d the a i l i t y to successfully negotiate pear group

cntry. Aoditiooally, his SSRS ProSlem Behaviour standard scsre

grûvzd not tû Se indicative of çignificantly high Sehav io~ra l

i i f f iczlties within this setting suggesting that >:hile such

b e h â v i a x s h a v ~ been reported ir. h i s histozy, peers and staff did

sr: 04xperionce thase from him with sufficient frsquency to

â&exsely affect his âcceptance ratings.

This canp e~vircnment vas probably a poor chcice for Matt. The

xct ivât ion a n B e f f o r t of his assigned support worker raised

p o s t i o c s for the arrthor d ~ r i n g al1 ~Sservations ccn&xted. While

somz seers s e m e d receptive in their attitudes towards Matt and

azsept& hi= r a r e cïerturez, systematic and sustained efforts to

ezyags kim ~ 2 i e na t seen. T h i s same 05se~rvat ion was made f o r staff

rr.zmbers in this setting. Nc prepration of any kind for serving a

-.-: . d ~ ~ - A , n th; this settinç di£ f ered greatly from Chad's cm? location with

rr;lnimal e f for ts bzins made for many children actending. K i t h very

feu task d-ds Seing placed on children there is less

encoirragement LG interact and thus reduced likelihood of

zcceptanc=. Tfiese setting f actcrs probably explain m ~ s h cf X ~ t t ' s

T L h i ~ h levels of solltary, onloaker and paxallel play (Figure 3 ) . A L

speaks vel l of bis potential that Matt dues on r a r e occesic= moi=

Szyoad these play styles.

Eob is t ~ a yezrs old a115 the youngest of t h roe chil~en. Ee

:ives st Goms xith his parents. Diagnosed at an early age xfth

actisrn, BOWS S C - F ~ O G ~ history has been one cf sartially integrated

slacsrnents al1 ---. thkk smll class aumbers. He is also milc?ly

intellect=l&ly challenged. There has been a long his tzq- sf service

--- +'i-. 4 - .LbAAALA th2 P a i k ~ ar,U Recreation Department. Behaviour issues have

Yeen present since Bob8 ç early schocl zttendance have consiste6

oz hitting and kicking others, uzinating ir, p b l i c , and

n o ~ c c ~ p l f mce. Bob sornetimss co-icates v e r h l l y uçing single

- - -y ~ . ~ d i;tterances bi;t very seldom does so.

EoSr s level of p22r acceptance within his camp setting was

two w h c xesponded

t h e çtat~,'~~e_rlt, ''1 like to hzve this serson in my group stzted t h a t

tL2y likec! tc L a - ~ e Eob participate "a l F t t l e w and "a lotm. The

assertions. BOS was oEten seen playing by himsel f in a sandpit

sometimes with his support worker monitoring him and at other times

nût . mile it was explained that Bob often required t h e alone to

svûid chaos und lengthy setting t rms i t i ons , peers a E nc t acti'1'21J

ssêh oüt Lis c q a n y and paid no attention to the fact that he xas

missing . There w e r e no observed instances of childre~ independently

initiating contact with Bob. He similarly did not seek oat contact

with hi5 pecrr mless prorrpted to do so 5y an adult.

D-.-" the parent interview E o W s mother disclosed that he did

riot =-e=iezce contizued contact or even polite greez iq s vith camp

seers after the summer despite geographic proximity. The notfier

nctad that peer contact which took place during the c s p sessions

asseare2 to bs brief and limites to single exchanges such as sayirrg

k a l l c or assistixq 9cb in the co~leticn of a one step task. There

peexs the

-t. ~ ~ e e v cut of EOUZ staff sociograms coxqletell for Bob sumest

estire camp group beins mare accesteo (Table 3 ) . Khile the Camp

Ydyc.li c---=-74 - A-Y- cny was smewhat more genercus in Dis estimatisn of BOS'S

acceptance status, a11 four staff ratings averaged 84 -5% of the

tc ta l cm.? groz? as k i n g mcre accested by peers than ScS.

Skills ane Behavioür

YU- s SSRS resu l t s were similar to Matt's with his total

social skills score at the 4th percentile showins him to have a

lover cverall let-el cf skill corrpared to the nonhandicapped

standardlzation sample (Table 4) . Self control within groups and asser t ion 3x1 r e s~ond ixq to and initiating contact were lower than

n o m s for the no;lhanCicapped. Levels of cooperation within group

when the

xere not rated as being significantly greater than the

p û r s21f esteem (Internalizing ~rablems) , and l q ~ e r a c t i ~ i t y were

fcazU iri Figure 4 . Five obs2rrvationç &-ere completed ir, t h i s settins

The arts

zrzEts , ar, ü-an- f reqday xater activity, and various active teaxri

this scale long periods solitary

his

prsxs, this s c a l ~ cûtes co~sistent and Erequent ifitexactive

cooperative

Ins~âzces r ,c te l l ) . p .%i le s e d n g l y a contradiction of the informal

r l a c ~ xitk-, the f acllitation of the a&dlt support woxker assigned to

l o b . T h icference iç th;t SOS is capable of appropriate

intezaction an& cooperative acrivLty but does not conduct this on

his oxm. The r-emai~der of hiç OSsemation Checklist results w e r e

unremârkaSle consisted of onlooker play (always taking place

Xi ddl e camp pexiod

No~interactive play - - Interactive play, (adult prornFed) Cooperative behaviour , (adul: puompted)

- - Shy behaviour

~ a t t in that Bof, initiated contact with others far morz rzra1;-, -z2

on l y xith a d ~ l t prompting. Aï1 successful group entry, a c t i v i t y

maintenasce a d cooperation took place with adult assistance. BOS

showed no motivation t o engage others preferring insteacl t o spend

timê at s ~ l i t u q . play when permitteci to do SC.

T3ile reportee ievefs of problem behaviour on the SSRS w e r e

cct extreme, such results contradict Bob8s clearly dacumented

liistoxy of difficulties i n this area. Bobrs behavioural problms

have been corrobvrated by the author's past consultation

invol-~em~nt , current inf ormal camp observations and staff reports.

positive SSRS behaviour

e x ~ i â i n e d by the diligence shom by Bob's support uorker- i n closely

his activity participation and interacticn.

t=ile constantly monitoring him and taking immediate action when

e i f f icu l t i es presented. themselves, the worker playes a large r o l e

i n Ziçcoura~in~ the frequent expression of difficult bahaviour on

B o Y s ?art. As these w e r e rarêly encountered and quickly dealt with

thaïAs to wcrkei intervention, significantly high levels of problem

Sebaviour were ,riet evidunt on- the SSES. A s h i s level of acceptance

is lûn it sean& likely that the early and infrequent display of

Ech ' s dif f i m l t tc m a g e beh~~iours played a sole in alienating

kirri :rom h i s peers.

This zam? setting w a s seen te be 'If a s t pacedu with a large and

inconsistent enroiment. Such comZitions are known t o be d i f f i c u l t

for perçons with behaviour f requently asserts

i+ ,=elf -. under such canditions, and activity as well as social

engagement xith others

appared when no adult

againç t B c b ' s achieving

prevent the attitudes

4 c

b=coni,e hzrder to attain. Thes= sützûx-.zs

facilitation was taking place and workea

strong peer acc~ptance. They alsc ssemed tû

of staff and peers

positive over t h e which woulC! have 'fostered

more

R a & q r . ~ ~ ~ - Zfff is I; years o l d and lives at home xith his parerits and

yoTzng=r sister. There is a dual diagnosis of autism a=id Prader-

T.T; 1 i. . Synllrrû,?ie. The latter condition is characterized by an

continuously eat .

Lti LLLIS ; s y ~ ~ o n e are predisposed to serious weight problans f ron an

e t r l y a l = a.x2 to cmmon heu l th problems ruazerfiatoo by weight gain.

ZsEf is âlsc davelopmsntally delayed although thers: is nc record of

ir,~s;r;-ieus xith involveo case professionals estimate him to be

bekiaviour cuncarns have included food stealing, ingestion of

c3jectç, çïaS13ir;g at other persons, particularly fornales, ~ o p p i n g

L-

LG t l ~ ~ grounll ,-efusinr tc move, and other foms of

ncnzonp1iance. He fias no -gerba1 ~ c m ~ i c a t i o n skills . Fan i l y strain

ic carin5 Lor Jeff is svident and this has encouzaged consistent

zsege of iztegrated s m e r cm? ûptions for Jeff since the age of

four. These serve as a respite option for the family.

JeEf provêd to 5s the least accepted of a l1 four boys studied.

~ i r h dr.nipzhere from 7 1 to 96% of al1 caqers rated as more popular -

3n average a full 8 4 -75% of camp participants were ra t& as mcrz

accepterJ than Jeff (Tab le 3 ) .

ûSssrv-aticc a112 parent interview. P e r s would approacà Jeff

and only with

p r u n p t i a g . C m ? cozmsellors also showed extreme reluctance to

z ~ p r o a c h Jeff as it w a s ~xplaiaed he would "grab" at thm. This

behâvioür was êspecially problernatic for women w i t h l o n ~ haïr . Jeff

kâ3i': of rrab5lng womenrs breasts. Because of these and other

regarding Jeff b, both staff and peers.

chila reporting "net liking having th i s person i n his group a l o t K ,

T i T C JGLL vas the only one of the four boys to receive an extreme

ncgative r a t i n s r o t like to a lotu) f ran a peer.

iri ail domains. The tuzal score was less than the secone percentile

(Tab le 4 ) . Cccperation w i L h i n groups, assertion in initiating and

responding ta contact xith others, aad self control were al1 at

significantly f o w e r levrls than those found for the nonhandicapped

standardization saasle. The Problem Behaviour subscales and total

both and reported

the Ncne scores

levels above t h a t u-hich riould be expected f o r t h e n ~ ~ m d i c a p p e d

s tmdâsVi ra t i~c saxqle.

w e r e Jeff the

Playgrculid Observation Scale . Total

included f ree the

and are

cooperat ive behaviour interactive

note, that these are

noted that Jef f the

support wcrker Eûb . This assigned

facilitated peers and not worker .

routics had the worker

cc a rotatins basis xorild take turns breaking off pieces of Jef f ' s

sem23 tc keer hin; =rom eatins too fast, stealing others' iuncl-ies,

alsû one methods the

devise encouïâge othsrs interact

vas successful Jef f

Tri ordeï t~ secure hiç lunch. Positive interaction did not

generalize beyond lunch tims, however, and no other positive

i3s tances interaction w e r e Jeff was only

4-

obs~rrred to q g ï e s s toxares his pers when initiating csxtz.cZ . r i t h

t t ê m independently a t times othex than lunch. Remaining behaviours

notee on the Pfaygromd Observation Scale consisted primarily of

solitary and paralle1 play ( ~ i g u r e 5).

T k Sccial Lznguage Checklist coule not be-ccm?leted. as Jeff

Ps r,or,verbal. Infcrmal observations, however, shoxed tkat he w a s

respond questions well

abilities w e r e through

stzf f reports.

The aZtitudes of both camp staff and peers towards J=f f are

w e r e easily the most negat ive enco7at ered

four settings. The was the

attended large active and

s p r t i n g eveztu 5eiag conducted. participation cf kicd in such

actirity ;cas oif f icult f o r Jef f due to his poor stamina so he would

apenG lar3e a i ~ ~ u n t s of tinte engaged in alternative one-on-one

his support woxker . part arts and craf ts

off srings w a s â l v o problematic and h=dled in similar fashion Z u e

continual efforts tc ingesî materials. These activities

52 a3-oided for this reascn unless eeible materials xere

The one inconsistency in Jefff s findings was that his score

was in the normal range on the Problem Behaviour Scale of the S S R S .

Tfier~ are two possible explanations for this . First, some of Jef f ' s

prbbï=matic behaviours such as

matcrials are not measured

explmation is tha t Jef f had an

45

hair pulling and ingsstin, i n W - 2

by this instrument. The secand

=tremely corripetent supsort vorksr,

highly sk i l l ed at behaviour management. Consequently , Jef f

su?presceÇ =y of his negative behaviours in h=r ~res l -aze. Since

t hz e completed the SSRS she simpfy reparted xhat she

e u ~ û - ~ t e r e d which wau his behzviour when it was most ccntrolled.

D e q i t s : Jeffrs SSE3 results, he tïas clearly and consistently

idsnt i f ied 5y al1 others who had contact with h h as the child who

dlsplayed the nast challenging, persistent behatriours out of al1

theiz zx~ress ion throughout his entire camp attendance with no

re&ccticn i n frecpincy 2;ccest ia the prisence of his support

- c-brkel-. -- This f indins has been xell documented throughout Jef f ' s

~ f ~ y i c s k iç taq - in th= Psrks and Recreation Departnent m d does

171'1211 to exslain his low accej&ance levels. Al1 thosê at t h e camp

rsaort-d that ~cff's behaviour w a s unprzdictablo- and r e r y

i;nplêâsant to deal with. This w a s a powerful deterrent ta people

Jsffrs sscial skills vexe foiad to be the lowest of al1 four

prt izip.nts. As wo-zld be 2xpected, 50 wzs his acceptmce at camp.

It could no: Ge ascertained whsther the negative attitudes of staff

an9 p e r s towaros Jeff w e r e a rzsult of his challengin5 beriaviours

or- iE these staff ha& an initial negative attitude toward children

witS spsciol cabds. In any caso, theae attitudes did prove to be

prûbluiatic for Jef f . Opportuni t ies for- successful interaction were

provia& becauce cf th= unlesç prompted by his sil;=ort z c z k z .

Likz Eo5, Jeff was largely seên as being the wozker's

r = s p o n s a f l i t y a d no one else's. This situation rkt=rioratsS 5y

th2 late introduction of an additional male support worker who Kas

the orf çical

This even less

other staff.

ef f osts inclusion. The

awsiziny fu r the r iaclusion a t t q t s w i t h i n the groups aftzrxards.

T a b l e 3 : ~ a n p Staff Peer Acceptance Ratings

Rater 1 R a t e r 2 Rater 7 Rater 4 Mean

c - Camp supervisor rating b - Participant's support worker xating c - Adjusted mean xith support worker rating removed

T a l e 4 : SSRS Soc ia l Skilîs and Problem ~efiaviour Tctal and Subscale Scores

Chad tt Bob Jeff

Social Skills

S tandari! Score

Percectile Rank

Cooperation

Assertion

Self Contrcl

32

average

average

average

4

f ewer

f ewer

average

4

average

fewer

fewer

<2

f euer

F e w e r

f ewer

Psrcentile Rank

ExtemalizIng Probluns more

Intemalking PrcSlsins more

average average average

average âverage average

Hmeracti-ve more avexase averase averase

first examined the degree to which children with developmental

sst~ings. T secona w a s t o identify behavioural, personal and

setting vzriables which influence this social acceptance. puesticn

r i b e r t l i res considered strategies shown to be helpful in

develosin~ pcsitive peer accsptance for childrvl with dvelosmental

liandicaps in zducational settinss. It was thought that at least

sane cf these strategies could be adapted for use witkir recreation

zmFlroAmects- me results w i l l n o w be considered ir, terns of these

Social Accentaxe

Tke results ineizated that a l l four ckildren w i t h

l e v ~ l o p n e n t a i hancicass ~ 2 r a genezally less accepted by their peers

ek L ~ ~ z the non-hanCicqpd comparison children on both sociornetric

measures employed. There rcas strong agreement across the two

nesacrss an2 the f incling is consis tznt eespite var ia t ion in

axsptancs levels f c x each participaqt.

Chad xaa clsarly the mDst a c c q t e d of ths four par t ic ipmts .

:&yerthelass, even he did not acquire any lasting friends or

sxperieoce anything beyood superficial contact in the form of

p o l i t e greetings when meeting children in his camp group after the

sassion vas over. In spite of his relatively positive acceptance

ratings he was recogaized and treated as being "differentn by both

çtaff ~ q d p e r s . Some chi l&en re2orted feeling prctectPza, C ~ x z r C s

the need patient, provide extra assistance,

establish and maintaio

c2iffers from most peer relations and has been seen with adults with

derelqmental hmdicàps in commmity settings

simply tolerated and Jef f WâS

se j ected the

Factors Xnfluencing ~artici~ant Acce~tance

Aiialysis suggests that some variables did not senm to have a

participants social acceptance - For these four

s t a t u s background not

aEf ect their acceptance their peers .

The data sugges ted tha t participant

interact the degree

tha t off es& peers .

~ r a v i d s s a schematic representatioa of these variables and the

nat-cre of this interaction. Chilikon who have ~0siti.r- social and

skills internalizing

Sahavi3ur grûS1erns are more likoly to enjoy peer acceptance than

ctilcZran whosa skills are no= as well developed, or have severe

outlined however ,

social skills can bolstered and

staff have positive attitudes

activities and routines are caref uily planned, and

arc and not

too much.

/ SOCIAL SKILLS AND PROBLEM BEHAVIOURS

-interest i n sociûl i n t e r a c t i o n -convsrsatiûn skills , (oral l a q u a g e ) -âttention span - f r q u ê c q r / i n t e n s i t y of noncornpliant anU a,-sressive behaviour

s SETTING VARIABLES

-stâff attitude and trzrinins

-rnotivzition/skills of support workers -camp structure, activity, rou t ines

F i g a r e 6 - Variables influencing peer acceptance

social skills are more accepted by peers than ctildren xho dû not

al., 1932; RoSerts $ Z u b r i c k , 1952; Stone i; La Greca, 19901, and

Botk Clad ane Matt obtained higher scores or, the SSE3 and xere

cûspsrative ?lay =C ccnversed with p e r s . His ab i l i ty ta use shor t

rrttarânces clearly fac i l i t a tee h i s i r , t e rac t ion . H e greeted others ,

ir,itiaLions. Kûtt ini t ia ted contact occasiorialfy, typically

rsspnll ing to other chilken. His rcle ss~med tc 5e that of

cslooker . A n i n a h i l i t y t o commtmicate oral ly inhibitecl his

iatsracticz tc a large =:tsnt. This dif f ic-c l ty v a s further

canii;o-~aVsd the Eact that other campers were not taught to

intsL-prat 1-Z-tt' s ~ i f n r . EoS also diC not cornmicate vsrbally with

th ex childr-ren, HE fzrther se~med tc be uninterestsd in social

interactio~, not iaitiating contact with p e r s , ancl not responding

t r +F LA~eir overtures . Jef f s only unprompted interactions w i t h his

peers vrere aggressive in nature resulting in t he i r avoidance of

interaction

the

with even relationships did not

children

sustain a complex play interaction or conversation for an atended

period. This f l e e t i q quality of Chad's interactions co~firms

F-..,- alni ni ch' s [ 199 4) observation that interaction maintenance ski l ls

2ro an irrrpcrtzn: conponont of social relationships. C,ïadrç pers

- d 4 , L C - n v Y play w i t h h h , interact with him, and seemed tc like him.

They aalso protected him and allovred him to move from activity to

activity 'ruithout sus taining an interaction. In essence, they

1s additior, ta social ski11 deficiencies, three oE the four

50.i~ B i c ~ l a y e ~ negativo behaviours which could gotentially

ir,ra-Eere n i ~ h social intaraction and acceptance. Iri ChaB's case,

thes- Sahavicurs inrluded noncoxïqliimce and inappropriate touching . Arc~~mada t ions made within the camp setting led to a significant

f o s t e r his

pcsxs. M a t t was alsc someti.res noncornpliant w o r r l d pinch new

aCStç zcZ p e r s . This behaviour vas ssen as an a&jnstment to the

3 2 1 ~ ~ 2 3 s oE a cai settins. H ê xoüld also engage in self stimulatcLq

k z S . Nzze cf M a t t f s behaviours w e r e of sufficient

i r , t s c ç i Z y ax Ezequancy tc çignificactly alienate him from other

childrsa. Zef f ' ç ncnconplizint aggressive Sehzvioilrs w e r e SC

intense that others actively t r i ed to avoid interactin,- with kim

and aisliked hk..

The a~alysis GE 611 four case staàies süggests that chlldren

setEings, providsd that the children with disabilities are

interest& in interacting, initiate interactim at t h e s , aaC

respond to the i~itiations of others. Children without disai l i t ies

accept children witb

k=dicaps ~ ; h e ~ they w i t h d r a w f r o m interaction, do uot respocd to

others,

tha t they

issue the

f o r w i t h

and

have that variables

t he

have not been

had integration

there cons iderable evi denc e that the years

spent integrating disabilities not influence

success at this. Each setting varied considerably in the methoos

attitudes and t ra ining staff, the

the assignod suspzrt workers ir ad jwt ing their respcnse tc ths

c h i k k e ~ ~ s needs, and the structure of activities a d . routines.

51s faux Baycmp differed considerably in th2 attitudês of

those camps Eob ,

sugges te3 that best these w e r e

that children were viewed the

the dcsignzted support three

in'-,e=racts& micimally with other children within the settins, ofter

and not

Instead, they spent the i r either

scl i tzq- f c m s cf play, or interacting solely with thcir susport

S ome l i n e staff not view integration

was suggested that other staff

c h i E r e n in Mattrs setting lear~ s i p s , for example, the staff did

this w o u l d

Lonversely, the attitudes of staff at Chad's camp w e r e

strongly soçiEive. Although not a l1 staff within thiç set t ing w e r e

givar, extensive special needs training, the camp supervisor Tas a

with integration. skills

carry out this task were obviously well developed. rom the

she stsong leadership r o l e this ares. The

w a s proactive that staff worked prevent

55

K a s consistent productive proY1~;n sckin,.

of camp, the supervisor held a question and

campers to answer their questions about

ckiildran with disabilities. The staff group as a whole seemed to be

c c d t t e c ? to including a l1 chil&en whenevey pcssiMe. They

Zmonstrated patience, creativity, modified activities to include

and w o r e frighly sensitive to his needs . It was nct char if tkFs Kas eue s0121y to the influence of the supervisor or if al1

ataf f shared this cormnitment at the beginning of camp. In any case,

ths p s i t i v e attitudes of supervising a d u l t s in this setting were

transferrrd t~ many of the carrpers. Staff within this setting had

th2 a 2 i l i t y to act as positive role models for children on h m to

includs somecne who had a developrnental handicap. In addition to

the positive outcornes Chad experienced, these conditions helpecl to

crsazc a settinç wkich was receptive tc consultation iqut, problem

sslïins and continued training.

In those camps attended by N a t t , Bob, and Jef f, the support

wo,rlrc,rs sperit al1 of their t h e w o r k i r g with children who had

zcntrzry, theix role ûften seemrd to be to take care of these

chiltiren's needs xather than facilita~e integration into the camps.

Certainly this uias the view of most other staff within theae camps.

TIF,& silppoxt: workers seldom orga~izee gaines or other activities with

al1 children and cther staff rarely interacted with the children

11ho had developmental handicaps. At t h e s when such interaction

te& slace, it waç most cft- prompted by the supScr: zcrkzr. ~ 2 1

t!-xeê of these s~?pcxt workers were somewhat accepting of theix

i q l i z i t role, not eqect ing that they should wcrk zith cthzr

pertained the children The

rale cf ChaB' ç support w c r k e r vas d i f f erent . Her ro le imnlvod xcrk

- -- A t k â l L campers ~ h i & l a w e r e d the r a t i o of staff to chiklrer,. Tkris

won= :;as able to mode1 ways for other staff and children to

interact x i th Chad, without taking over or controlling the

interaction.

Tt should be noted that in contrast to the otLFler study

prt i r ipaz. , t r Cb2d ha2 a lower need for one on one assistance. He

diCi reqvlire support when groups moved to unf mLiliar environments or

snga3eU in new zctivities. Orcasionally he would become

no==cc,nrli&tt CL aggessive necessitatlng support worker or other

CL. j roq did something new became a r o l e assumed 5 y other campers.

nsr,intrusive su;?er~ision cf counsellors- This carefully

support appropriate for

and

and motivatior,. Eob Jef f assigned s k i l l e d

icdivid~al . There wEre minimal oppcrtunities for her to promote

ir,teraction between the children she worlced w i t k i and other campers.

In Bob's case, she alwayç needed to prompt him to interact with

also necessary prompt other children interact

SE

workee hard to control Jefffs aggrcs z il-=

children at times developing creative ways

T E S p , d r ~ ~ n

toware other

lunch she asked other

turns into pieces, f r o m

icteraction with other children. Constructive and '

s t ixmla t ing individual activities were also derive-? for Scth B c S

integrat ing Bob and were due part

attitudes staff these more dif ficült w o r k

and discussed, the

addition, activities the other children

t ha t was

with adaptations, how could participate w a y s

f u r his

and and This could

n ~ t Sc 12% t.=! other campers or untrainee stzff.

bIâZtrs support worker appeared less motivated and skilled.

This xa m m w a 3 eld don 03served prompting him tc inteia~t, did not

d- L A -FI- ~tt ' lêz ckildrên O to co111~~1'micate witt hh, and did not

de.;rlvs ac t i v i t i e s they coril# do togcther. Therc vas much downtime

f û r 1.Ztt at this camp t&en fis was no: actively cngaged in ar,y

str~ctüreS actirity. Consequently, opporti?.nities for him t o

iateract children minimal.

C q s varied in their structure, activities and routines. Al1

=-, C.-. iss bs paid. Cl i i l dxen arrived at rougtly the same tims each day,

E n r o h s n t periods of two to eight weeks uiere permitted w i ~ h campers

s î ~ - ~ t u ~ allo~eC E o r ths building of cohesive g r q s h-LF& coald

dcvzlcpmsntal handicaps, this occurred for Chad but not th2 others ,

11; ad5ition to vaiying s t a f f attitudes, camp settings differed

ir, thsix actlvity organization as well. There Kas a consistent

attended active,

enj oy=ble

occupy

consistent

The preçent

s q g s s t s tLat ben& its aay be f urther enkanced br G e i q flexible

ssmed Larder settings, however , predict the who

each Drop made for larger

made f ully

The data

w i t h

indicated

would

that the social

cm& of routices and efficient 9raap ma~acp.ment, mosïrative

4- -- Tm an2 com?~ters to promote positlvê social interaction, social

as@icabil i ty of r a c t of these strategies i n daycamps x i l l noii ba

iiaiaga211t of chilVrer,, and xeil planried, interestin, programs has

& Odarr,, 1389; Voeltz, 1982) . This involvss a careful assignment of

tasks to children in gr-, equitable distribution of resources,

clear, yet flexible rcle assignments f o r staff, and smooth activity

mers are f sxer episodss of aggression and more time may be dsvoted

to f u and eduzational tasks insteao cf behavioür management. Fer

children xho have devslopmental handicaps, having cûnsisteat

AlLhou3h atkicx Eactors were involvsd in thê differen~ial level

of soc ia l atceptance of Chad anB Matt, the fiodio3s suggsst that

corsistsnt routinss, stimulatingprogxamming and sm~oth transiticns

ssnrsrl '-,O decreaue both the frequency and inteosity of Chad's

iicqzti%-e Sehaviours C h o incraasing his social acceprance at camp.

r--7 Y C ~ ~ . ~ s 4- - Y - ma62 it d i f ficult for tim to f i t in given his existing

cE cûûperativs leamicg and participatioc approaches desiwed to

"'k. '' 1 ' ma?' ' .* r r c ,, specific methods and stuategiês are discussed in the

l i teratxre, zccperatfve approaches al1 . have i-, zommon the

i2ec:iEicatiûn of a srecific group goal, the allocation ~f explicit

taskc to eâch 3 m u p ns.z.z5erl and the rewirment that al1 group

rr,2n5s=rs hslp eack oth~r when difficulties in perfoming their

i-dime~al tacks are oncounterer?. Teachers who utilize cooperative

learning ef fec t ivdy for children who have various spscial needs,

slan th~ir group c o q o s i t i c n carefully and assign tasks in

accordance wizh the capabilities of participants. Cooperative

apprctches have been shom to srornote the social accep tz~z -= cf

ckilcfrên xho have special needs (Orlick, 1973; O r l i c k , 19U2) and to

G Jolïinson, 1981; Lew, 1986).

D e s f i t e th2 - f a c t chat recreation services -havs historically

~tiliz& coopsrativz approaches, there was no evidence of the use

ûf thêçe techniques in any of the camps stueied. Teaching these

approaches would serve as a training recommendation for front line

staff =d suspcrt workers in their efforts to inteçrate children

xhs have develo?nental handicaps.

has been shown classroom settings

wr, effsctive tool for fostering learning and e-aancing peer

azcrptance for ckildren ho have developmental handicaps. Peer

t r r t v r s receive benefitu as well (Cochran et al., 1993; Holder &

Lister, 1982; 1;ohler et al., 1990; Lynn Fox, 1989; Sassc et a l . ,

I Q Z ? ; PJacker & Eerg, 1985) - Plhile academic tutoring is not relevant

C r q a recreational setting, having peers assist children with

devaloprnec?tal handicaps to c2si.y out game or other activity

r s ~ i r s m e n t s may be appropriate. Thê selection and training of

su i tab ly nature pezrç at d a y c a ~ s may provide benef i t ç f o r both the

chilken with developmental handicaps and their peer helpers. The

helper gets to lmow, play with, and become more accepting of

ckiildxen with disabling conditions. Research has sho-m that when

peers are used as intemention agents they are given opportunities

to bui ld their self esteem (Ambron, 1977) . In recreation progr-

f o r

g~sitive recognition xould easily be given to peer halpsrs.

Peer tut oring and assistance was used

Chad. As a result, he interacted frequently with his peers. His

support wûrker's r o l e was not to stand constantly 5;- his s i d s , but

L LS t r a k a n C encourage peers to do this while serving as a

coüaselfor to th2 whcle group. Similar techniques may ~ 2 1 1 have

Seen sffective with Matt had there been more support by s t a E in

bis s~ttiag. A good stârt w w d d have been to teach hia group Som2

basic si-s to pemit them to communicate with him.

A s EoS xas uninterested i n peer interaction avoided other

children when not prompted by adults, the same type of peer

assistaoce used w i t h Chad woulc? not likely have been effective with

Lim. Peex madiated intervention is a more structured approach

nçgs-, --L-Lrl~~ - i n increasiny the social initiations and rcsponses of

zhildrer xi th autism (Strain and Odom, 1986) . This approach

involvss the trai~ing of peers on how to e l i c i t respcnses f r om

childïez with special needs and reinforces them for doing s o . Bob

-.nigf.,t ho71 Senefite& f r o m p e r s who had received peer mediated

intcrvzntiûn training as par t of their camp activity roztine.

It shculd not be sumised that peer interventions would be

appropriate for al1 chiltiren who havc challenging needs. The

and ciggression and noncornpliance

could quickly compromise the safety of his peers malring t h i s

ina;?propriate choice of strategy.

TOVS and Ecru ianen t

Toys and conputers have been shotm to foster social

interaction between children while reducing problPJn Sefiaviour and

enhancing leaming (Burroughs & Murray, 199 2 ; Martin et al. , 199 1 ;

M c C o d r k , 1987; 'Ssiegel-McGill et al., 1989; VaugPci, 1985) . M a q -

sof "iwâre packages are available w f i i c h encourage interaction and are

appropriate for use in recreation p r o g r m . An example mule 50 th2

CL. Eom package, tTNeed f o r SpeedrT which simulates competitive race

car driving between two players (Electronic Arts, 1997) . Many

~ c p l a r bar6 games such as vMonopolyK, Y3crabblen, anY "Trivial

PursuitIf ar= also now OC CD Rom and could be utilize? with higher

E~nctioniri~ chiloren to encourage peer interaction.

Toys have their uses as t rar is i t ional aids which are benef i c i a l

assisting child point

point E vithin a setting, rcdirecting inappropriate Sehaviour, or

p o v i d i n g a t h e filler while setting us a new activity. Children

who enjoy music, for example, miwt listen tu a w a l l m n while

havicg to wait f o r activities t o be set up. Those who engage in

inzpprosriate self stimulatory behaviours slich as handflapping

mi*= have this behavioür redirectes by providing them with a toy

di?rinç doxntime which acc-omplishes this same fiuictiûn . Using a

R ï l c k s C u b e to keep one's hands busy might reduce handflapping and

might have been ecfectivû with mtt , who frequently exhibited this

bshaviour. For those who have poor a t t en t ion spans, "slinky racesw

in which a child grabs one end of a sli- and has to touch his end

to the one held 5y the support worker while that person moves dom

ch& hall to thsir next destination could be a w a y

t ras i t ioning a child who has difficulty focusing

activity. The toy gives the ch i le both an objoct

Th2 role of direct social skill training

Sen~ficial i n cthsr settings (Antia & Klriimeyer,

while

task

Xietupski et al., 1992; Luf t ig , 198s) shûuld not be overlooked.

~ h i s form of intervection need not necessarily be incompatiale x i t h

chilCran's recreational environments since it may be done on an

iaf crrial Sasis. In the case of recreational programs, childrsn must

oEter 5e reminded of the rules, how and when to be courteous to

systzmatizally at thrz task in order tu ensure tha t laarning takes

place. mis m a y be done through setting up game activities

z ~ ~ r o ~ r i a t e to the racreation se t t ins uihich r e p i r t children t o

dzal with on2 another, negotiate conflicts, compromise, share, and

t-r>re. + u - r i (Aloia, 1978; Marlowe, 1979). This iOea ray Se taken one

stss furthsr w h 2 r . e the process of social ski11 leamin3 becomes a

game . are rewàrded directly and

rzreive immcdiate feedback for solving social problems and

de.ncfistrating âppzopriats social behâviours in the Social L -1. F. E.

game (Griffiths, 1988) .

on ani! Training of Stcff and Children

It is clear that the implementation of approaches outlined

Roberts,

people with d i sab i l i t i es ass i s t

s tud ies ai.,

Salisbury al., nût

must beiieve

pcsitiv~ a t t i tudes toxards the inclusion cf chil5r2z xho have

dc-velvpmîntai disabilit ies . Both staEf and chiL&en m u s t 5s taught

questiocs answered SûtL initially and or: an onpin , - Sasis. Staff

- -; ti. ' h r ~ ~ ~ x ~ the grûup. Training should i ~ c l u d e specific skills for

training toys and

e-ons t rat ec7,

s t a f f . uses cormunication

staff s cme basic

L - - L E L ~ E L ~ in i t s u s ~ .

limitations the current are thc

the shor t

the discussion based four case

studies , assertions made must viewed hypotheses wai t ing

vzrif ied with large children

in various recreational environments-

The model outlined in Figure 6 could provide a theoretical

basis for future s tud ies . Research might involve approximately 50

children with developmental handicaps. Sociometric measures, a

measure of both soc ia l skills and problem behaviour completed by

staff m e m b e r s who know the ch i ld best, and observational measures

of the child and setting are appropriate. The sociometric measures

employed in the present study and the Social Skills Rating System

have provided some useful data . Both the Playground Observation

Scale and the Camp Setting Description Form should be enhanced

primarily by having longer and more frequent observation periods.

With sufficiently large samples, regression techniques could be

applied to confirm whether the variables which facilitate social

cceptance children with developmental handicaps

settings suggested by this study are predictive on a more wide

spread basis.

Conclusion

widely accepted

disabilities

peers. Both

experiences.

has many

groups

that

benef i t s to

learn from

the integration

both

each

persons with

these individuals

other

"1DICn - !'Infinite Diversity in Infinite

It is our differences and our acceptance

strong.

and

and broaden

their

their

of these which make

Star Trek

Consent L e t t e r

ALL FAMILIES PLIUSE READ BOTH SECTIONS

D e a r Parent:

My namf is Douglas McMahon and 1 am a graduate student in the Department of Applied Psychology at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, (OISE) . Some reading this know me as the MTACL Day Respite Services Coordinator. W i t h the assistance of Dr. Judith Wiener and Dr. Barry Schneider of the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, 1 have developed a research study- to learn more about the social acceptance and skills of children with special needs demonstrated within a sumer day camp environment. Some children are readily accepted by a sometines unfamiliar peer group in Aa). camps and others are not. Earlier research in other settings has suggested that children who experience poor acceptance from peers may have difficulty realizing the full benefits of integration. To ansure that these benef its are f orthcoming for all, we must leam more about the functioning of childre~ with special needs within day camp settings.

FOR SUBJECTS WEïO H A . SPECIAL NEEDS

Should you provide consent for your child to participate, 1 will engage in a number of activities to assess his or her social functioning at camp during July and August. First, 1 would like permission to use the information you have already provided on your child's application forms. Secondly, 1 would like to observe your child for two 10 minute periods each week. mile doing this, I will fil1 out a checklist noting his or her play behaviors and social interactions. Next a camp counsellor will complete social skills, language/communication, and social acceptance scales at the end of the camp session. Finaïly, I will ask al1 participating children to rate themselves on how much they enjoy having one another within their group. This w i l l also be done at the end of the camp session and it will be stressed that their ratings must be kept confidential. In order to ensure that this happens, an entertaining activity, one which will distract the children from discussing their ratings will bs done at the end of this procedure.

I w i s h to assure you that should you decide to let your child take part, his/her identity will be kept confidential at al1 times. At the conclusion of data analysis, a results surmnary will of course be made available to al1 who have agreed to assist. In order to request your copy of this sunimary, please f il1 in your full name and address on the appropriate section of the enclosed consent form. Should you all&f your child to participate, you rnay still withdraw your consent at any t h e by telephoning me at the number below. Finally, it is important to stress that should you choose

not to participate, this in gp way affects your eligibility to receive the experimenterf ç mACL professional services.

It is realized that involvement in this project requires conmitment from yourself, your child, and the organization sponsoring your child's camp program. 1 believe however, t ha t t h e potential benefits of this reseaxch for children who have special needs, and for-the programs which endeavour to serve them, are great. 1 hope that vou xi11 choose to assist me- Please return the attached consent f o m with your child during the first w e e k of July indicating whether or not you wish him/her to take part. Please- dc not hes i tate to contact m e at 438-6099 , ext , 245 should you have questions or concerns. 1 very niuch appreciate your &e and consideration.

Services Coordinat or

As this study concerns itself with the social acceptance within camp pxograms of children who have special needs, the consent reqilirements f o r other childreri within the camp grou2 are not as involved. Children who do not have special nceds xhose parents will permit them to take part will be included in the social acceptance scale completed by Counsellors described previously. Thase children vil1 also carry out the ratin,- proceoure describing their 1eve1 of enjcpent i n having other children within their group. Cosrqletion of the other measures described on page one involving s k i l l s and- behavior are not required for these children rith ûne exception. For coqar i son purpoçes, effor ts will be made t o locate a peer x i th in the camp setting who matchcs the exceptional child on sex, and as closely as possible on age. This childfs parents will be contacted direc t ly by the experim~nter t o ohtain perniissiori t o c~xiplete the remaining measures described in the consent letter for parents of participants who have special needs.

I xish to assure you t h a t the same considerations and safe guards affordcd pzrents of children with special needs who are taking part iri th^ study- are in effect fo r your child as well. ïour child's identity will be kept confidential at al1 times. At the conclusion i ; f data analysis, the same s m a r y of researcb firidings will be sêat te yoii should you wish this. In order to requ~st the results, pieas= f i l 1 in your name ar.d address on the appropriate section of the enclosed consent form. Should you choose to allow your child to sarticipatz, you rnay still withdraw this consent at anytime simply by coatactixg me at the number belox.

~t i s realized that involvement in this project requises commitment f r o m yoursef f , your child, and the organization sponsoring your chi1U's canp program. 1 boliêve however, t h a t thê potential b ~ î i ~ f i t s of this research are great, and well worth t h e effort. I hope that you will choose to assist me, Please return the attached consent form with your child during the first w e e k of July indicating whether or not you w i s h him/her t o take part. Please do c o t heçitate ta contâct me at 438-6099, ext 245 should you have questions o r concerns. 1 very much appreciate your t h e and consideration.

Douylas McENlah,or, Day Respite Services Coûrdinotor MTaG'

CONSENT FORM

CGild's Name: Birthdate:

Check hsre:

1 give permission for my child to participate in the study on social acceptance conducted by Doug M c M a h o n of the on tari^ Institute for Studies in Educutiox

I do NOT give permission f o r m y ch i ld t c par t ic ipate i n the study on social acceptance conducted by Doug McMahon of the O~tario Institute for Studies in Education

I wish to receive a copy of the final surmnary report .

HOURS OF OPEPATION - ,q~ttina times, es. 8:OOam - 4 : 0 0 ~ r n dailv

ENROLMENT - tota- in attendance and n@ers of Dartlclpa . .

ntg W ~ c i a 1 needs

STAFF RATIO - -e numbus of staff Fersons to children

COUNSELLORS - n umber nf f male Counsel J o r s , m e r of males

SUBJECT RAT18 - ? What is this rat ratio? How often

PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT - descrih~ settina. - Do activities take lace jndoors, outdoors., both. 3 Use smool çlass rems lame - outdoor fields, e t c .

TASI: DDIAIDS - describe act ivities routinelv do ne in this settins. A r e these active or ~wsive in nature? Do thev encouracre/ e t c .

INTEGRATIOI,r HISTORY - does set tincr have ri or e4meri ence ring those in teara with challen~ins needs?

How extensive?

STAFF ATTITUDES - w h at are staff fetlincis towards in tesrat ion .

i ~ ' n

USER ATTITUDES - are the at-m of the c c f f f owards those with mecial a&? T p ~ d s the subject with samial nee- in the stuiiv?

Responds to questions

Initiates a coaversation

Sustains topic in a ccnversatio~

%âs riçt=rc,d conversational tu-=

Greets others appropriately

1.lakzs sr r ia l l talk

simple

i z t e rnq t s others who are speaking

(rspz:s s m e thing over and over)

topics

makes

ask for help

inappropriate

support for others

TELL ME AROUT ' S SOCIAL EXPERIENCES AT CAMP L S T SUMMER. HOX D I D YOU FIND HIS EXPERIENCE ==TING WITH 0-R CHILDREN?

WRAT CHANGES, (IF ANk'), HAVE YOU NOTICED IN YOUR CHIZD'S SOCIAL CO1,J'TACT WITH O m R S A F n R TKE INTEGRATEÛ SUMMER -CAMP EYPERIENCE?

-DESCRIBE ALL POSITIVE CHANGES. -DISCUSS HOW TEESE ARE DIFFERENT FROM BEFORE CAMP. -FMAT FACTORS DO YOU BELIEVE HELPED THIS TO HAPPEFI? -DOES Yom CfIILD NOW SEE ANYONE FROM CAMP NOK THAT TIME THEPZ IS FINISHED?

K,q','E TEEPLE BEEN ANY NE-TIVE SOCIAL EFFECTS RESULTING FROM YOUR CHILD' S TIME AT CAMP?

-DESCRIBE THESE. -E.IOtC DID YOU HANDLE TEfEM?

DG YOU BELIEVE THAT CAMP OR OTHER I I X E G m T E D EXPERIENCES HAVE ANk' SORT OF EFFECT AT ALL ON YOUR CHILD'S SOCI-AL DEVELOPMEl!lT? W H Y OR

XOK DOES STILL HATJE TO IMPROVE SOCIALLY, (IF

ARE REQUTRED IN ORDER

.?HAT IS THE ROLE OF TEE AGENCY, OF THE CAMP, (PARKS

AT ALL) ?

FOR THIS

DEPT. ) , AND OTHER ORC?!J?IZP,TIONS IN PROMOTING POS ITIt'E SOCIAL RELATIONS FOR CHILDPJN WHO HATJE SPECIAL ,WEDS? IS THERE ONE? HOW SHOULD ORGANIZATIOPLTS ATTEMPT TU DO THIS?

Date

APPENDIX E

BEKAVIOm OBSERVATION SCALE

Subject 1 3 .

Time

A = l.Zzile, E = Female, C = Integrated camp, D = SegregateC! camp, E = 'r'ounger chi ld , F = Older child, G = P e e r

1, S s Z i t a r y play 2. Onlooker ?lay 3 . Faxallei play 4 t . ~zteractive game 45. Interactive activity, (no conversation) 5 . Conversing with 1 peer 6 . Lûzvzrsing with 2 or more peers 7 , 9ri3cin~ a d u l t interaction

3eha7~icrrra* Attributes

5. Leadership -

22. Dependent -

12. SWy/xithdrawn -

sharing, giving, praising, conf irming, weïcoming, listening, complying, a£ f ection

play organizing, asserting, spokesperson, resolving conflicts, offering ideas which get accepted

telling j okes riddles, s lap alwayç laughter

stick,

asking for help, whining, pouting, nagging cryicç

non-aggressivz refusal to participate, unrêsponsive to play or interaction of p th ers, self stimulation

non-aggressive attention-seeking which is not responded to by laughter or followers such as interrupting, inappropriate giggling or affection

14. Verbal aggreçsion - A = initiator B = responder teasing, name calling, excluding , defiance

15. Physical aggression - A = initiator B = responder hitting, kicking, pushing

Social ~ntexaction

aspropriate, B unsuccessful

Uroup entry -

= inappropriate, C = successful,

at tempts to enter a sroup of childzen who are playing or conversing

attempts to prolong an interaction with group of children whs ara playin3 or conversing

Conflict resolution - attemptç to resolve a conflict with one or more other children

PLAYGROUND OBSERVATIOIT N m : DATE :

APPENDIX F

RIDDLE READ TO CHILDFtEN AGED N I N E AND UP

ï'm going to t e l l you a story and ask you a question &out it ok? There was this m a n w h o 1ived on the seventeenth f l o o r of his apartment building. Everyday, he' d get up to go to work and take the elevator in hïs building al1 the way do-wn f r o m f l o o r seventeen to the main floor. He'd go to work, and at the end of the day, corne home. Once he got to his apartment building though, he wouldnl t take the elevator up to the seventeenth f l o o r , hefd take it up to the tenth and walk the last seven flights O £ stairs up to his apartment everyday .

Can you t e l l me why he did this?

ANSWER - He was a short man and couldnft reach up number ten in the elevator.

past button

Affleck, 3 . Q . , Madge, S . , Adams, A. , & Lowenbraun, S . (19 8 8 ) - Integxated classroom versus resource model: ~cademic viability and effectiveness. -onal C h i l a , %, (41, 339-348.

Altman, R. , & K a n a g a w a , L . (1994) . A c a d d c and social engagement of young children with developmental disabilities in integrated and nonintegrated settings. . . . Retardation a n B Develo~mental Di srihil~tws, 2, (3) , September, 184-193.

Aloia, G. F. (1978). ~ncreasing interactions among integrated emr students and their nonretarded peers in a game playing situation.

f mntal Deflcl~ncv . . American Journal O , , (61, 573-579.

Ambron, S . A. (1977). -Id deve1opment. Holt, Rinehart and Wins ton.

Amish, P. L., Gesten, E. , Smith, J. K., Clark, H . B.. & Stark. c - ( and (31,

19 8 3 ) . Social problem-soking training for severely exkotionally beha-~iourally disturbed children. a 13,

Antia, S . DI, & Kreimeyer, K. H. (1987) . The effect of social ski11 training or, the peer- interaction of preschool hearing-impaired children . J o u r n a o _ f a o f d , Chilribond,, ( 3 ) ,

Asher, S. R., & Gottman, J. M. ( E d s . ) . (1981) . The development of childrenfs f r i e n d s h i o ~ . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Barber, D., & Hupp, S. C. (1993) . A cornparison of friendship patterns cf individuals with developmental disabilities. Education and Trainins in Mental ReJar-tion, 28, ( 1 , c h 13-22.

Braaten, J. (1077) . The integration of moderately retarded children into regular residential camps - A demonstration program. Journa . . 1 pf Leisurabxl itv, 4, (3) , 27-31.

Brinker, R. P. (1985). Interactions between severely mentally retarded students and other students in integrated and segregated public school settings. w i c a n J o u a l of Mental Deficien= .

f E L (6) , 587-594.

Burroughs, E. 1 ., & Murray, S. E. (1992) . The influence of play material on discourse during play. Journal of od

rders, 14, ( 2 ) , 119-128.

~ o h e n . S . S . , & Zigmoncl. N. (1986) . The social integration of learning disabled students fron self-contained to mainstream elementary school se t t ings . ,To- of r,e&nu X)jjs-lt les . . .

r El, (101, 614-618,

Cochran, L., Feng, H*, Cartledge, G., & Hamilton, S . (1993). The ef f ects of cross-age tutoring on the academic achievernent, social behaviors, and self-perceptions of low achieving african-american males with behavioral disorders . B P ~ v ~ oral Disorders, ;LB, ( 4 ) , 292-302.

Cooper, L.J. , Wacker, D. P., Thursby, D., Plagmann, L. A., Harding, S . . Millard. & Derby, M. (1992). Analysis of the ef fect of task demands and adult attention on child behaviour in outpatient and classroom settings . J o w l of ed Behaviour a l s i s , , (4) , 823-840.

Crapps, J. M., Langoue, J., & Swaim, S. (1985) . Quantity and quality of participation in community environrneots by rnentally retarded adults. Bducation and Trainincr of the Msntallv Retardeg, a, ( 2 1 , June, 123-129.

N c s t s , B. (1988) . Peer accentance. frj~n-~s and attitudes .-ically i n t e rat-ed ~ m i c a l l v - disabled adolescents. Unpubiished Masters thesis, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, Toronto, Ontario.

D e K l y e n , M., & Odom, S. L. (1989). Activity structure and social int-ràctions with peers in developrnentally integrated play groups. Journal cf E a r l v Tntervention, 13, ( 4 ) , 342-352.

Donneilan, A. M., Mirenda, P. L., Mesaros, R. A., & Fassbender, L. (1984) . Analyzing the c~mm~icative functions of aberrant behavior . J Z o f sociation f o r Perçons wj th Severe Han-, 2, ( 3 ) , 201-212.

Electronic Arts - (1997) . Need for s ~ e e d CD Rom, 1455 Fashion Island Blvd., San Mateo, Ca., 94104 2064.

Eichinger, J. (199 0) . G o a l structure ef f ects on social interaction: nondisabled and disabled elementary students. Excwtional Chudren, , (5) , 408-416.

E l l i o t , S . N . , Gresham, F.M., Freeman. T., & McCloskey, G. (1988). Teacher and obsenrer ratings of childrenf s social skills: Validation of the social skills rating scales. J O U ~ of Psvchoeducational Assessment, 6, 152-161.

Faught, K. K., Balleweg, B. J., C r o w , R . E., & Van Den Pol, R. A. (1983). An analysis of social behaviors among handicapped and nonhandicapped preschool children. -cation and h a w o of the . . Mentallv Retarde& J&., ( 3 1 , October, 210-214.

April) . studv of ~ I a v behaviors and of pyeschool W c a ~ d -en mmailast-remed ana

isearegatsd se t thg is . Paper presented at the Annual International Convention, The Council for Exceptional Children, Dallas, Texas.

Fiedler, C. R., & Simpson, R. L. (1987) . Modifying the attitudes of nonhandicapped high school student s t oward handicapped peers . Exce~tional Children, a, (4) , 342-349.. Fox, J. J . , Niemeyer, J., & Savelle, S. (1992) . Contributions of siblings to the development of social competence interventions for young children with disabilities. In Samuel L. Odom, Scott R. McConneïl, & ~ a r y A . ~ c m o y ( ~ d s . ) , Social Cornetence o . . . f Younq m-with~isa4illt.i~~ (pp. 215-244). Toronto: Paul H. Brookes - - ~ubiishing Co.

Gold, D. [1986) . C h i l à r e n ' s f riendships . Journal of ~eisurability, a, (1) , 4-21. Goldstein, H. (1993) . Use of peers as communication intervention agents. Teachincr Excemtional Children, 25, (21 , 37-40.

Green, F. P., Schleien, S . J . , Mactavish, J . , & Benepe, S . (1995). Nondisabled adultsr perceptions of relationships in the early stages O£ arranged partnerships with peers withmental retardation.

In Mental Retar-tion and Deve_loPmenta& Pisabilities, a, 2 , June, 91-108.

Gresham, F. M., Elliott, S. N. (1990) . Sccial Skills R a t i n c r Svst~m. Grades K-6. Soc al. Ski37s Ouestionna re . Teacher Form. m n t a r v Levef. American Guidance Service Inc.

Gresham, F . M . , E l l i o t , S . N . , & Black, F. L. (1987). Teacher-rated social skills of mains t reamed mildly handicapped and nonhandicapped children. Journal of School Psvcholoq, 25, 85-92.

Griffithç, D. (1988). Social L.I.F.E. a ~ r o s r a m t o teach -al s k i l l s to ~ersons wi th . de v elo~menta de3,av.s. - Mediator t ra ining package. York Central Hospital. Richmond H i l l , Ont.

Groll, C. H . , & McMahon, D. 3. (1994). mats she like? L ~ t s a u plav tosether! Educatinu vouna - n e o ~ l e about Dersons who havg s~ecial needs, A joint training on the nature of special needs for preschool age children- N o r t h Y o r k Parks & Recreation, & Metropolitan Toronto Association for Commuîity Living, Toronto, Ontario.

Guralnick, M. J. (1994). You can Plav . . . but You cantt; A Wo- al C o w ~ t e n r e . Workshop hosted by The Hanen

Program, Ontario I n s t i t u t e fo r Studies i n Education.

mralnick, M. J,, & Groom, J, M. (1988) - Peer interactions in mainstremed and specialized classrooms : a comparative analysis . -&endren, 54, (5) , 415-425.

HaIlihan, M. T. (1981). Recent advances in sociometry- In Steven R. - Asher & John M- Gottman ( E d s . ) , The Develn~ment of Childrenfs Friendship~, (pp. 91-115). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ham-e-~Tietupski, - S., Nietupski, 3.. & Strathe, M. . (L992). Rrnctional life skills, acadernic skills, and friendship/social relzltio~ship development: What do parents of students with moderate/severe/pro£ound disabilities value? Journal of the Association for Perçons with Sever~ Handicaoç, l7, (l), 53-58.

Harris, P. J,, gL Wiener, J. (1991) - Plavsround Behaviour Obsclïvation Scale. Unpublished.

Henslêy, D. H. (1979 ) . Guidelines for integrating mentally retarded children =d youth into regular day and residential camps. Journal pf ~eisurabilitv, 5, (4), 4-10.

Hcldcr, E., L Lister, B. (1982). 2 p e r r No. u. Task Force for the Improvement of Secondary Special Education in N s x ~ampshire, Concord.

Jsllison, J. A. (1984) . Structuring small groups and music reinf orcement to f ac i l i ta te positive interactions and acceptance of ssvareiy handicapped students in the regular music classroom. JJ rch in Music Education, 32, ( 4 ) , 243-264.

Jotnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1981). The integration of the hanllicapped into regular classroom: Effects of cooperative and individualistic instruction. Contem~oranf ducat ion aï Psvcholow, 5, ( a ) , 344-253.

Jo~kson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., Warring, D., & Maruyama, G. (1986) . Different coogerative Ieorning procedures an&- cross-handicap relationskips. Exce~tionaï Children, SI ( 3 ) , 247-252.

Jomson, R. (1983 ) . ~ntegrating severely adaptively handicapped seventh-grade students into constructive relationships with -

nonhandicasped peers in science class . America~ Journal of Mental Def iciencv, 87, (6) , 611-618.

Johnson, R. T., & Johnson, D. W. (1981) . ~uilding friendships bezxeen handicapped and nonhandicapped s tudents : ef f ects of cooperative and individualistic instruction. -m Research Jour-, 18, (4) , 415-423.

Johnson, R. T. , & Johnson, D. W. (1983 ) . Ef f ects of cooperative, cornpetitive, and individualistic learning experiences on social

gxce~tional Chileen development. , , (4), 323-329.

Yaapczyk, D- R. (1989) . Peer-mediated training of cooperative ria.; betwcen special and regular class students in integrated play

- . . settings . Edilcà;tion and n -1 R e t - t j m , a, ( 3 ) ; September, 255-264,

Kohler, F. W., Strain, P.S., Marets-, S., Decesare, L. (1990) . Promoting positive and supportive interactions between preschoolers: an analysis of group oriented contingencies. Journal of E a r l v Intervention, 14, 4 , 327-341.

Lew. EI. (1986) . Components of cooperative learning: effects of collaborative skills and academic group contingencies on achievement and mainstrearning . ContemDorarv Educational Psvcholocnf, 11, ( 3 ) , 229-239.

Luftig, R. L. (1988) . Assessment of the perceived school loneliness and isolation of mentally retarded and nonretarded students. - Arnerican Journal of Mental Retarda++ on, 92, (51, 472-475.

Lynn FGX, C. (1989) . Peer acceptance of learning disabled children ional Childre i r r the regular cïassroorn. Fxce~t n , (1) , 50-59,

Madden, IL A G Slavin, R. E. (1983). Effects of cooperative learning on the social acceptance of mainstreamed academically handicapped students . J o u r n a l e c i a l Education, 17, ( 2 ) , 171-

P:iânnarino, A. P. (1976) . Friendship patterns and altruistic behavior in preadolescent males. D e v e l o r i m e n t a l Psvcholosv, U, (6) , 55s-556.

Mamarino, A . P . (1978) . ~riendship patterns and self concept developrnent i n preadolescent males. The Journal of Genetic P S V C ~ O ~ O W , J33, 105-110.

14arlowe, M. (1979) . The games analysis intervention: a procedure to iacrease the peer acceptance and social adjustment of a retarded ckild. E ducation and Training of the Mentallv ~etarded, u, (41, 262-26s.

Martin, S. S., Brady, M - P., & Williams, R. E. (1991). Effects of tcys on the social behavior of preschool children in integrated and nonintegrated groups: investigation of a setting event. Journal of E a r l y Intervention, s, 2 ) , 153-161.

McCormick, L. (1987). Comparison of the effects of a microconputer activity and toy play on social and communication behaviors of . . . young children. Journal of the Division of E a r J v C h W o o d , u, 3 , 195-205.

M c ~ ~ J o ~ , M. Pi., Shores, R . E., W e h b y , J. H., Johnson, S . ri., 2 Pz=.=, J. J. (199 0 . Special education teacherf s implementatioo cf proce&drrs to promote social interaction among childrsn in . . integïated settings. E ducation an-~~nincr in Mental Retardation, , ( 3 ) , Scptember, 267-276.

BicMahon, D. J. (1982). ChilWood f ri- emectations : a developenLa1 studv. Unpublished B. A. Honours thesis. University of W i n x i i p e g , Winnipeg, M a n .

MCE4ahan, D. 5 . (1992). Environmental Reorsanization: or Rehaviour Manasement - made sasy. Workshop on practical behaviour managemien'. strategies for Parks and Recreation settings. Metropolitan Toronto ~ssociation for Community Living, Toronto, Ont.

McWilliam, R. A. (1987) . Fostering engagement in handicapped - - - - prrschoolers: organization methods 6nd outcomes. Proiect Sunrise S a o ~ r e s c h o o l P r o a m - Wsstern Carolina Centre. Morgantorr, North Carolina.

Neecv, Y. L. & W a n g , M. C. (1982, March) . k A L A l t e ç o c i a l a t t i t u d e s g ~ e d children in two mainstreamins nroarw. Paper presented at the ANIual Meetin9 of tne American Ed~cational Research Association, New York, Ne?; York.

a A. L., & Wilkinson, P. F. (1976) . Retarded children and f Leisurab integrated camping. murna1 O t v 2, (4) , 34-38.

lav for s ~ e c i a l N u s s e l w k i t e , C. R. (1986). Ada~tive n needs children . ateoies to enhance communication and learninq. Toronto: k Coliege-Hill Publication.

Nordquist, V. M., & Twardosz, S. (1990) . Preventing behavior problems in early childhood special education classro~ms through

ion and Treatment of Clhildre environmental organization. a c a t nt

Ochoa, S . H. (1991) . fi sociometric analysis of between-group diffêrences and within-group status variability of hispanic learning disabled aria nonhandicapped pupils in academic and play contexts. ~earnincr - e v , 14, ( 3 1 , 208-218.

Odom, S. L., McConnell, S. R., & McEvoy, M. A. (1992). ,Social com~etence of vou hildren with disab~lltieç :

m . . ns c tervention. Baltimore : Paul H . Erookes Publishing

Co.

Orlick, T. (1978) . Th e c o o D e r a t i v e s ~ o r t ç & _ c r s bçaok:le- . . without comDetltion. New York: Pantheon Books.

Orlick, T. (1982) . e e r a t i v ~ Th s90rts OE crames book: ovzï 3-ta

both. NEW York: Pantheon Books.

Ouellette-mtz, H , (1990) . A p i l o t study in the use of the quality of l i f e interview schedule. m ~ n d i c a t o r ç c h , 23, 283-

Rapxï, P. E. (1393) . Cooperative learning can work in resident ial 'ncr Exce~tional C u e care settings. Teacb n X I (2) , 48-51.

Reaves, J. Y., & Roberts, A. (1983). The effect of type of information on childrenfs attraction to peers. Child D e v e l o ~ m ,

lOS4-lO3l .

Rsiter, S., & L e v i , A . M. (1980). Factors affecting social integration of noninstitutionalized mentally retarded adults. Amexicac Journal of M _entai Deficiencv, B, (1) , 25-30.

Roberts, C., P r a t t , C . , & Leach, D. (1991) . Classroom and p l q s r o i i n b interaction of students with and without disaSilities. Bxr-znt~onal Children, z, 6 , 212-224.

Roberts, C., 8 Zubrick, S . (1992) . Factors inf luencing the social statils of chiI&en with academic disabilities in regular

ional Child clasçrooris . Excent ren, SI ( 3 ) , 192-202.

R o m e r , L. T., & ~aring, N. G. (1994) . The social participation of students with deaf-blindnesç i n educational settings. ducat ion ai! Traininc in Mental Retarda* 'ion and Devel~~mental D i s a b i l i t i e s , 29, ( 2 ) , June, 134-144.

Eowitz, 1;. (1989). Trends in mental retardation in the 1990s. M s r i t a l Re~ardation, z, (1) , iii-vi. R u b i n , Z. (1980) Vzi~êrsity Press.

Sabornie, E. J. students : Facing Ec!~:caticri, &, (21,

Children' s f riendshi~x. Harvard: Harvard

(19 85 . Social mainstrearning of handicapped an unpleasant reality . med di al and S ~ e c i a l 12-16.

Sabornie, E . J. , & reciprocal social mental retardation

Kauffman, J. M. (1987). ~ssigned, received and status of adolescents with and without mild Fd~cation and T 8 . r a l ~ n o m ~ n t a l a Retar&itlon,

Salisbury, C. L., Gallucci, C., Palombaro, M. M., & Peck, C. A. -

(1995). Strategies tha t promote socia l relations among elementary students xith and without severe disabilities in inclusive schools.

sasso, G. M., Hughes, G. G.. Swanson, H . L., 6; Novak, C. G. (1987). A compaxison of peer initiation interventions in promoting multiple

mucatiori and Traxn;lns in Mental . . peer initiators. Retardation, September, 22, ( 3 ) , E O - I S 5 .

Shaw, M. E. (1976) . Gxoup d m c s the ~ c h o l o ~ o f . s m a E i ~ ~ behavior . McGraw-Hill , Inc , Siperstein, G. N: , & Bakr J. J. (1989) . social- relationships of

1 adolescents with moderate mental retardation. Menta, Retardation, 7 - , (II, s-IO*

pieg gel-McGill, P., ~ippiroli, S. K., & Mistrett, S . G . (1989) . Microcomputers as social facilitators in integrated preschools. Journal of E a r l v Intervention, u, (3) , 249 -260.

S t a i ~ b a c k ~ W. , & Stainback, S. (1987) . ~acilitating friendships . -1 ~ e t w i o n . .

1 mrcht 2.2, (1) r 18- 25.

S t û n e , P . L., & La Greca, A. M. (1990) . The social status of cfiLlaen with learning disabilities: A reexamination. Journal of Learain- Disabilitie~, 2, (1) , 32-37.

Strzin, P. S., Hoyson, M., & Jamisson, B. (1985). Nomalïy devsloping preschoolers as intervention agents for autistic-like chiloren: Effects on class deportment and social interaction. JoüLïnal of the Division for Earlv Childhood, 2, 105-115.

Strain, P. S., & Odon, S. L. (1986). Peer social initiations: effective intervention for social s k i l l s development of exceptional chil&en. Exce~tional Childreq, 52, (61, 543-551.

T,'augIm, S . R. (19 85) . Facilitating the interpersonal development of y o y q handicapped children. Journal of the Division of Earlv Ch113hood, Spring, 17 O -172,

Vûsltz, L. M. (19UZ). E f f e c t s of structured interactions with sevexefy handicapped peers on chiïdrenrs attitudes. Werican J od -rn a 1 of Mental Defiziencv, &, (4) , 380-390.

Khacker, E. P., & Berg, 7 . K. (1985). Use of peers to train and monitor the performance of adolescents with severe handicaps. Education and Trainina of the Mental lb- Retarded, 20, ( 2 ) , 109-122.

Fmaleyl K. T., & Bennett, T. C. ( 1 9 9 1 ) . Promoting engagement in early childhood special education. ~each ino Exceptional C m d r e q , a, (4) , Sumner, 51-54.

Wiener, J. (1980) . A theorectical mode1 of the acquisition of peer relationships of learning disabled children. J o u a of Disabilities, L3, (9)

of cooperative and individüâlistiz learning experience on positive and negative cross -handicap relationships. C o n t w o r a r y BducationaI Psycholow, i0, (2 ) , 127-

Zetlin, A. G., & Murtaugh, M. (1988) . Friendship patterns of mildly learning handicapped and nonhandicapped high school students.