Content uploaded by Seonyeong Yu
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Seonyeong Yu on Apr 12, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Topics in Early Childhood Special Education
32(3) 132 –142
© Hammill Institute on Disabilities 2012
Reprints and permission: http://www.
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0271121412453175
http://tec.sagepub.com
The inclusion of young children with disabilities in regular
education classrooms has become a primary service option
in early childhood special education (e.g., Odom, 2000;
Sandall, Hemmeter, Smith, & McLean, 2007). Across spe-
cial education theory, research, and ethical perspectives,
there is a strong belief that children with disabilities should
have opportunities to interact with their typically develop-
ing peers in inclusive school settings (e.g., DEC/NAEYC,
2009; Hestenes & Carroll, 2000). As children with disabili-
ties increasingly attend inclusive education programs, one
of the first challenges teachers face is to create classroom
communities whereby all children welcome and accept stu-
dents with disabilities as friends and members of their class.
Participation in inclusive classrooms can provide many
opportunities for typically developing children to interact
with peers with disabilities. Research has shown that chil-
dren enrolled in inclusive settings tend to have more
positive attitudes toward peers with disabilities than chil-
dren who rarely spend time with peers with disabilities
(Diamond & Hestenes, 1996, Dyson, 2005; Tamm & Prell-
witz, 2001). However, including children with disabilities
in inclusive classrooms is unlikely to spontaneously enhance
interactions between children with and without disabilities
(e.g., Diamond & Tu, 2009). Thus, some researchers have
developed and implemented intervention programs to pro-
mote children’s positive attitudes toward peers with dis-
abilities (Cooper, 2003; Favazza & Odom, 1996, 1997;
Piercy, Wilton, & Townsend, 2002) and to ultimately sup-
port friendships between children with and without
disabilities.
However, much of the empirical work in special educa-
tion has focused on the outcomes of children with disabili-
ties as a result of enrollment in inclusive programs. The
benefits that typically developing children achieve as a
result of participation in inclusive programs have largely
been overlooked (e.g., Okagaki, Diamond, Kontos, &
Hestenes, 1998; Peck, Carlson, & Helmstetter, 1992). Yet,
research has shown that typically developing children may
learn about and show greater acceptance of individuals with
disabilities as a result of their interactions with peers with
disabilities in inclusive classrooms (Hestenes & Carroll,
2000). Therefore, positive attitude development can be a
benefit that typically developing children obtain from par-
ticipating in inclusive programs. Thus, some researchers
have focused on young children’s understanding about
peers with disabilities (Diamond, 1993; Diamond & Hong,
2010; Diamond & Huang, 2005; Diamond & Kensinger,
2002), and the relationship between children’s understanding
453175TEC32310.1177/0271121412453175Yu et
al.Topics in Early Childhood Special Education
© Hammill Institute on Disabilities 2011
Reprints and permission: http://www.
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
1
University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, Champaign, IL, USA
Corresponding Author:
SeonYeong Yu, University of Massachusetts Amherst, 117 Furcolo Hall,
813 N. Pleasant Street, Amherst, MA 01003, USA
E-mail: seonyeon@educ.umass.edu
Measuring Young Children’s Attitudes
Toward Peers With Disabilities:
Highlights From the Research
SeonYeong Yu, PhD
1
, Michaelene M. Ostrosky, PhD
1
, and Susan A. Fowler, PhD
1
Abstract
Young children with disabilities are increasingly attending inclusive early childhood programs with their typically developing
peers. Within these programs, research efforts and practice have supported young children’s understanding and acceptance
of peers with disabilities. However, there is limited information about the measures used to assess young children’s
attitudes toward peers with disabilities. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to critically review the literature on young
children’s attitudes toward peers with disabilities with an emphasis on measurement issues. Assessment instruments and
the type of information that these assessments provide about the dimensions of attitudes toward peers with disabilities
based on a conceptual model of attitude formation suggested by Triandis are highlighted. Implications for future research
are addressed following the literature review.
Keywords
inclusion, focus on measurement/instrument/test design, research methodologies, friendship
Articles
at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST on April 12, 2016tec.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Yu et al. 133
and acceptance of peers with disabilities and their actual
play behaviors with their peers with disabilities (Diamond,
2001; Hestenes & Carroll, 2000; Okagaki et al., 1998).
Given the importance of and efforts in research and prac-
tice to support the social acceptance of peers with disabili-
ties, researchers have used a variety of methods such as
scales, questionnaires, interviews, sociometric peer ratings,
and behavioral observations to assess young children’s atti-
tudes toward peers with disabilities. However, many of
these methods have been used with older children; there is
limited research on the measurement of young children’s
attitudes toward peers with disabilities (Favazza & Odom,
1996). This limitation is not a result of disinterest in young
children’s attitudes, but it stems from the methodological
challenges of assessing young children’s attitudes (Stoneman,
1993). For example, when studying the attitudes of adults or
older children, attitudes can be inferred from what people
say about a referent or from the feelings they describe.
However, it can be challenging to ask preschoolers to
express what they think or how they feel about individuals
with disabilities.
Research has consistently shown that young children can
identify physical and sensory disabilities (Conant & Budoff,
1983; Diamond, 1993; Diamond & Kensinger, 2002); how-
ever, findings surrounding children’s understanding of
intellectual disabilities are mixed. For example, Conant and
Budoff (1983) and Diamond and Hestenes (1996) reported
that young children do not notice intellectual disabilities.
To investigate young children’s understanding of disabili-
ties, these two research teams used photographs of unfamil-
iar children or asked broad questions (i.e., “Do you know
anyone who has a disability?”). In contrast, Diamond (1993)
demonstrated that when preschoolers were shown photo-
graphs of their classmates (familiar peers), the majority of
them were aware of their peers’ intellectual disabilities
(e.g., Down syndrome), although none of the children iden-
tified mild–moderate speech and language delays in their
peers. Thus, researchers have noted that it is difficult to
identify a developmentally appropriate and understandable
way to represent the range of disabilities to young children
(Diamond & Hong, 2010).
Another important issue is accessing detailed informa-
tion about the different aspects of the attitude construct. The
way that children come to understand and interact with one
another infers the formation of positive or negative atti-
tudes. A conceptual scheme for young children’s attitude
formation that was developed by Triandis (1971) includes
three components: cognitive, affective, and behavioral
aspects. The cognitive component includes knowledge
about disabilities and beliefs about the causes and conse-
quences of having a disability, whereas the affective com-
ponent refers to emotional reactions (i.e., fear, anxiety,
hope) that occur in response to peers with disabilities. The
behavioral component of young children’s attitude formation
refers to a predisposition to act in a certain manner. For
example, children may treat their peers with disabilities as
helpless. They may assume such roles as assisting and
directing peers with disabilities, or they may express grati-
tude and thankfulness at having the peer in his or her life.
However, with these three attitude components in mind,
there is limited information about what aspects of the atti-
tude construct have been assessed and what information has
been gained from these measures.
Given the need for more information about methodolog-
ical issues in assessing young children’s attitudes, the pur-
pose of this article is to provide a review of the research on
young children’s attitudes toward peers with disabilities
with an emphasis on measurement. Information that each
measure provides about dimensions of the attitude con-
struct, based on Triandis’s conceptual model (1971), is
highlighted. A critical review of the literature can increase
our understanding of appropriate ways to assess young chil-
dren’s attitudes toward peers with disabilities as we con-
tinue to focus on creating conditions to foster their sense of
belonging and membership in inclusive programs.
Literature Review Method
Articles related to young children’s attitudes toward peers
with disabilities were identified using the ERIC and
PsycINFO databases. Along with disability, acceptance,
and attitude, various combinations of keywords related to
young children (e.g., preschoolers, kindergarteners) and
peers (or classmates) were used. Additional articles were
identified from the reference lists of articles retrieved from
the databases and from review articles. The search was
limited to peer-reviewed journals; therefore, books, disser-
tations, and other publications that were not peer reviewed
are not included in this literature review. The criteria for
inclusion in the review were as follows: (a) The article
included at least one method to assess young children’s
attitudes toward peers with disabilities, (b) the participating
children were preschoolers or kindergarteners, and (c) the
article was published in a peer-reviewed journal in English
between 1990 and 2010.
Results
A total of 19 research articles were identified that met the
criteria established for this review. A summary of the
measures used in these 19 studies related to young chil-
dren’s attitudes toward peers with disabilities is provided
in Table 1. The attitude measures used in the studies were
reviewed in terms of how they addressed the three compo-
nents of Triandis’s conceptual model of attitude develop-
ment. A discussion of each component of Triandis’s model
and how the outcome measures fit under each component
follows.
at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST on April 12, 2016tec.sagepub.comDownloaded from
134 Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 32(3)
Table 1. Measures to Assess Young Children’s Attitudes Toward Peers With Disabilities.
Citations Participants Attitude measures Purpose of the measures
Attitude
components
Aguiar,
Moiteiro,
and Pimente
(2010)
1,121 preschoolers Sociometric peer ratings Social acceptance of classmates with
disabilities
Affective
Diamond
(1993)
28 preschoolers Child interviews Identification of classmates as having a
disability
Cognitive
Diamond
(1994)
20 preschoolers
(Study 1)
14 preschoolers
(Study 2)
Pictorial Scale of Perceived Competence
and Social Acceptance for Young Children
(adapted from Harter & Pike, 1984)
Understanding of peers with disabilities Cognitive
Diamond
(2001)
45 preschoolers Social Acceptance Scales
(adapted from Harter & Pike, 1984)
Child interviews
Observation of peer interactions
Acceptance ratings
Measure of emotional sensitivities in
certain situations
Play observation
Cognitive
Affective
Behavioral
Diamond and
Hestenes
(1994)
24 preschoolers Child interviews Understanding of hearing, hearing loss,
and sign language
Cognitive
Diamond and
Hestenes
(1996)
46 preschoolers Child interviews
Pictorial Scale of Perceived Competence and
Social Acceptance for Young Children
Understanding and acceptance of
hypothetical peers with disabilities
Cognitive
Diamond,
Hestenes,
Carpenter,
and Innes
(1997)
60 preschoolers Child interviews
Pictorial Scale of Perceived Competence and
Social Acceptance for Young Children
Understanding of immediate and long-
term consequences of physical and
sensory disabilities
Acceptance of hypothetical peers with
disabilities
Cognitive
Diamond,
Hong, and Tu
(2008)
Diamond and
Hong (2010)
46 preschoolers
72 preschoolers
Child interviews
Inclusion interview (using vignettes)
Understanding of disabilities and
willingness to play with hypothetical
peers with disabilities
Decision to include hypothetical peers
with disabilities in play
Cognitive
Affective
Affective
Diamond and
Kensinger
(2002)
41 preschoolers Child interviews (after watching a video
segment from Sesame Street)
Pictorial Scale of Perceived Competence and
Social Acceptance for Young Children
Children’s ideas about Down syndrome
and physical disabilities
Ratings of motor and language abilities
Cognitive
Diamond, Le
Furgy, and
Blass (1992)
25 preschoolers Sociometrics Playmate preference of classmates Affective
Dyson (2005) 77 kindergartners An open-ended survey, Primary Student
Survey of Handicapped Persons (revised
from Esposito & Peach, 1983)
Understanding and acceptance of
hypothetical peers with disabilities
Cognitive
Affective
Favazza and
Odom
(1996)
188 kindergartners Acceptance Scale for Kindergartners (ASK)
Child interviews (Group)
Acceptance of hypothetical peers with
disabilities
Understanding of individuals with
disabilities
Affective
Behavioral
Favazza and
Odom
(1997)
46 kindergartners Acceptance Scale for Kindergartners (ASK) Acceptance of hypothetical peers with
disabilities
Affective
Behavioral
Favazza,
Phillipsen,
and Kumar
(2000)
48 kindergartners
(Study 1)
64 kindergartners
(Study 2)
Acceptance Scale for Kindergartners–
Revised (ASK-R)
Acceptance of hypothetical peers with
disabilities
Affective
Behavioral
Hestenes
and Carroll
(2000)
29 preschoolers Pictorial Scale of Perceived Competence and
Social Acceptance for Young Children
Sociometrics
Direct observations
Understanding and acceptance of
hypothetical peers with disabilities
Playmate preference of classmates
Play observations
Cognitive
Affective
Behavioral
(continued)
at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST on April 12, 2016tec.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Yu et al. 135
Odom,
Zercher, Li,
Marquart,
Sandall,
and Brown
(2006)
Typically developing
peers of 80
preschoolers with
disabilities
Peer rating assessment Social acceptance of peers with
disabilities
Affective
Okagaki,
Diamond,
Kontos, and
Hestenes
(1998)
36 preschoolers
(Study 1)
38 preschoolers
(Study 2)
Pictorial Scale of Perceived Competence and
Social Acceptance for Young Children
Social Problem Solving Test (adapted from
Rubin, 1988)
Parent questionnaire
Direct observations
Understanding and acceptance of
hypothetical peers with disabilities
Willingness to play with a hypothetical
peer with a disability
Parents’ influence on children’s attitudes
or behaviors toward peers with
disabilities
Play observations
Cognitive
Affective
Behavioral
Piercy,
Wilton, and
Townsend
(2002)
51 kindergarteners
to second graders
Peer Acceptance Scale
(adapted from Moe, Nacoste, & Insko,
1981)
Social Distance Scale
(adapted from Fenrick & Peterson, 1984)
Acceptance of hypothetical peers with
disabilities
Affective
Behavioral
Citations Participants Attitude measures Purpose of the measures
Attitude
components
Measures Addressing
the Cognitive Aspects of Attitudes
Identification of disabilities. Researchers have assessed
cognitive aspects of young children’s attitudes toward peers
with disabilities by considering two variables: children’s
identification of disabilities and children’s understanding of
disabilities. These two cognitive aspects have been assessed
using interviews or scales. To assess children’s identifica-
tion of disabilities in their peers, researchers have typically
interviewed children. For example, Diamond (1993) inter-
viewed 28 typically developing preschoolers to investigate
how they viewed their peers with disabilities. She placed
photographs of all the children in the class on a table and
then asked the participating children to show her anyone
who (a) did not walk or run the way the other children did,
(b) did not talk as well as the other children, and (c) did not
behave the way the other children did. If a child identified a
classmate in any of the above questions, the researcher
asked for additional information (e.g., “Why do you think
he or she can’t talk so well?”). Results revealed that the
photographs of all children with physical disabilities (e.g.,
cerebral palsy) and children with intellectual disabilities
(e.g., Down syndrome) were selected in response to ques-
tions about classmates who did not walk, talk, or behave
like other children. However, none of the children with
mild–moderate speech and language delays were identified
as having a disability.
In another study, Diamond and Hestenes (1996) inter-
viewed 46 preschoolers using five photographs showing
preschool-age girls with one of the following disabilities:
physical disability, visual impairment, hearing impairment,
and Down syndrome. The fifth photograph showed a typi-
cally developing preschooler. The researchers presented the
children with one of the five photographs in random order
and asked two open-ended questions: (a) “Tell me about the
girl. Could you be friends with the girl in the photograph;
why or why not?” and (b) “Why can’t she walk, see, hear,
or do things as well as you? How did it happen?” Results
revealed that the majority of children (75%) commented on
the physical disabilities represented in the photographs. In
addition, 41% of the children commented on a child’s visual
impairment, whereas only 11% of the children mentioned
hearing impairment as they looked at the photographs.
None of the children commented on the physical character-
istics of a child with Down syndrome in the photographs.
In summary, Diamond and colleagues used child inter-
views to assess preschool children’s awareness of disabili-
ties. Both research studies revealed that young children are
more likely to identify physical and sensory disabilities
than intellectual disabilities or speech and language delays.
In Diamond’s study (1993), the interview questions focused
on children’s identification of their classmates with disabili-
ties as having difficulty walking, talking, or behaving well,
whereas Diamond and Hestenes (1996) aimed to assess
children’s recognition and understanding of disabilities in
hypothetical peers with disabilities represented in photo-
graphs. Given that only a few studies have assessed young
children’s identification of disabilities, there continues to
be limited information about the relationship between
Table 1. (continued)
at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST on April 12, 2016tec.sagepub.comDownloaded from
136 Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 32(3)
children’s identification of disabilities and their acceptance
of (or interactions with) peers with disabilities.
Understanding of disabilities. Although research related to
young children’s identification of disabilities in their peers
has been limited, more research has focused on young chil-
dren’s understanding about hypothetical peers or classmates
with disabilities (Diamond & Hestenes, 1994, 1996; Diamond,
Hestenes, Carpenter, & Innes, 1997; Favazza & Odom,
1996). Young children’s understanding of disabilities has
been assessed in two ways: (a) children’s thoughts or under-
standing about a specific disability or individuals with dis-
abilities and (b) children’s ratings of the competencies of
hypothetical peers with disabilities.
To assess preschoolers’ understanding about disabilities,
Diamond and Hestenes (1994) investigated children’s ideas
about their peers with hearing impairments. The researchers
interviewed 24 typically developing preschoolers at the
beginning of year, and again 3 months later, using eight
questions designed to assess children’s understanding of
hearing, hearing loss, and sign language (e.g., “What do we
use to hear with?” “Can you think of some times when you
can’t hear?” “How can you tell if someone can’t hear?”
“Have you ever heard of sign language?”). A total of
13 children were enrolled in a class that included a child
with a severe hearing impairment, and 11 children were
enrolled in a class that included 2 children who had disabili-
ties but not hearing impairments. At the beginning of the
year, the majority of children in both classes reported that
children could speak although they could not hear. Yet,
after 3 months, the children in the class that included a child
with a severe hearing impairment were significantly more
likely to report that having a hearing impairment affected a
child’s ability to speak than were children in the other class.
To explore kindergarteners’ understanding, perceptions,
or ideas about individuals with disabilities, Favazza and
Odom (1996) conducted group interviews with kindergarteners
who completed the Acceptance Scale for Kindergartners
(ASK). Children were asked what it meant to have a disabil-
ity. After a child responded, the interviewers encouraged
him or her to elaborate using questions such as, “What else
do you know about someone who has a disability?” Using
content analysis, the following six categories emerged from
children’s responses describing someone with a disability:
(a) physical attributes, prosthesis, or equipment (i.e., “They
use braces,” “They have one leg”), (b) ability or inability
(i.e., “They cannot catch a ball,” “They cannot do every-
thing”), (c) alternative terminology to describe a disability
(i.e., blind, deaf), (d) identification of a specific individual
(i.e., dad, grandmother, Mike), (e) class enrollment (i.e.,
“The kids are in Ms. Sara’s room”), and (f) a specific or
general description (i.e., “They are funny,” “They hurt”).
In another interview study to examine kindergarteners’
understanding of disabilities, Dyson (2005) interviewed
77 typically developing kindergarten children in Canada
using a revised version of the Primary Student Survey of
Handicapped Persons (Esposito & Peach, 1983). The par-
ticipating children were asked six questions related to peo-
ple with disabilities. In response to a question about
understanding disabilities (i.e., “Tell me everything you
know about a person who has a disability or special need”),
25% of the children mentioned physical disabilities and
16% described people with disabilities as ones who needed
assistance and equipment. When asked whether disabilities
are contagious, 78% of the children replied, “No.” Most
participants (88%) responded that they thought people with
disabilities were different from themselves, citing differ-
ences in appearance and abilities. In addition, 83% of the
children reported that they liked people with disabilities
because of their personality (e.g., “They are nice”) or skills
(e.g., “I can help them”). Most participants (91%) reported
that they were not afraid of people with disabilities, and half
of the children reported that they had a friend with a dis-
ability. This study showed that overall typically developing
kindergarteners had positive attitudes toward individuals
with disabilities.
Another way to assess preschoolers’ understanding of
disabilities is by asking them to rate the competencies of a
hypothetical peer with a disability. In fact, several studies
by Diamond and her colleagues (Diamond, 1994, 2001;
Diamond et al., 1997; Diamond & Hestenes, 1996; Hestenes
& Carroll, 2000; Okagaki et al., 1998) included an adapted
version of the Pictorial Scale of Perceived Competence and
Social Acceptance for Young Children (Harter & Pike,
1984) to investigate preschoolers’ attitudes toward peers
with disabilities. This scale is divided into two sections:
(a) competency ratings of hypothetical peers with disabili-
ties and (b) acceptance ratings of hypothetical peers with
disabilities. Some researchers used both sections (Diamond
& Hestenes, 1996; Diamond et al., 1997; Okagaki et al.,
1998), whereas other researchers had children rate only the
competence of hypothetical peers with disabilities (Hestenes
& Carroll, 2000) or acceptance (Diamond, 2001).
Diamond and her colleagues (1997) used the Perceived
Competence Rating Scale in conjunction with line drawings
in the scale and three dolls with different disabilities (physical
disability, hearing loss, visual impairment). A fourth doll
represented a child without a disability. This scale was
designed to assess how preschoolers perceived the dolls in
terms of competence in three areas: motor, language, and
peer relationships (e.g., “Do you think this girl would be
good at running or not so good at running?”). Results
showed that children rated the doll with a physical disability
as having lower motor skills than the dolls of typically
developing children or children with visual impairments, or
hearing impairments. The doll with a hearing loss received
lower competency ratings for language skills than did the
dolls representing other disabilities or a typically develop-
ing child.
at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST on April 12, 2016tec.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Yu et al. 137
For the Social Acceptance Scale for Young Children,
Diamond (2001) used a doll representing a child with a
physical disability and two drawings (i.e., a child engaged
in an activity with other children and a child who was apart
from the group). The researcher explained each of the draw-
ings and then asked children to point to the drawing that
best described the doll in a wheelchair (e.g., “If this doll
was a real girl, do you think she would have a lot of friends
to play with or not very many friends?”). After choosing a
drawing, children were asked whether the doll in a wheel-
chair was “a lot like” or “a little bit like” the child in the
drawing. The reliability of this scale, as assessed by test–
retest correlations, ranged from .78 to .94. Results show that
overall the preschool children’s acceptance of a hypotheti-
cal peer in a wheelchair was positive.
In summary, researchers have used dolls or pictures when
interviewing preschoolers to assess their perceptions and
understanding of peers with disabilities (Diamond, 1993;
Diamond et al., 1997; Diamond & Hestenes, 1996; Diamond,
Hong, & Tu, 2008). Interview questions have varied depend-
ing on the purpose of the research studies (i.e., understand-
ing of disabilities, or competency ratings of hypothetical
children with disabilities). For the most part, researchers
have used semistructured interviews although several
researchers have used a survey or a scale to assess children’s
understanding and perceived competence of hypothetical
peers with disabilities. Diamond and her colleagues con-
ducted many of these studies. In most of this research, typi-
cally developing children were asked to share their thoughts
about hypothetical peers, rather than discus their classmates
or real peers with disabilities.
Measures for Addressing
Affective Aspects of Attitudes
Related to the affective aspect of attitude formation
described by Triandis (1971), researchers have assessed
children’s stated preference and willingness to play with
peers with disabilities (i.e., “how they feel about playing
with their peers with disabilities”). To assess children’s
play partner preference, many researchers have used socio-
metric peer ratings (Aguiar, Moiteiro, & Pimentel, 2010;
Diamond, Le Furgy, & Blass, 1992; Hestenes & Carroll,
2000; Odom et al., 2006). Sociometric ratings also have
been used in many research studies to assess young chil-
dren’s peer relationships (e.g., Asher, Singleton, Tinsley, &
Hymel, 1979; Balda, Punia, & Punia, 2002) and have been
utilized as a tool to indicate the social status of children
with disabilities in inclusive programs (Sale & Carey,
1995). However, as part of this literature review, only
research studies that included sociometric peer ratings as a
method to assess acceptance of peers with disabilities were
reviewed.
For example, Odom and his colleagues (2006) used
sociometric peer ratings along with several other measures
(e.g., observations, interviews, teacher/parent question-
naire) to examine the acceptance/rejection of preschoolers
with disabilities by their typically developing peers. These
researchers first taught typically developing peers of 80
preschoolers with disabilities to sort pictures of foods and
then toys into one of three boxes along a 3-point continuum
of “like to eat [or play with] a lot, a little or not at all.” Each
box represented 1 of the 3 points on the continuum with a
happy face (like a lot), neutral face (like a little), or a sad
face (don’t like at all). After practicing this task with pic-
tures of food and toys, the children were asked to sort pic-
tures of their classmates, using the same three boxes. The
researchers classified children into “accepted” and “rejected”
groups based on data from several measures using mixed-
method analyses. Results revealed that approximately 28%
of the children with disabilities were “well accepted” by
peers. None of the children with autism-pervasive develop-
mental delays, social emotional, behavioral, or attention-
deficit disorders were in the “accepted” group, and relatively
few children with speech delays or orthopedic impairments
were in the “rejected” group.
Another way to measure the affective aspect of attitude
development is to ask children about their willingness to
play with hypothetical peers with disabilities. Okagaki and
her colleagues (1998) investigated preschool children’s
willingness to play with hypothetical peers with disabilities
using an adaptation of the Social Problem-Solving Test–
Revised by Rubin (1988). This scale was designed to assess
children’s willingness to have a hypothetical child as a play
partner in five situations: Two situations included a child
with a physical disability, two situations included a child
with a language disability, and one situation included a typ-
ically developing child. Dolls were used to represent the
hypothetical play partners. The interviewer first explained a
hypothetical situation with a doll (e.g., “David uses a wheel-
chair because his legs don’t work. He moves the wheels
forward and backward to get around the room. This is
David’s first day at school. He wants to be friends with the
other children. He wants to play with you”), and then asked
the child whether he or she would be friends with the doll.
Results revealed no differences in children’s willingness to
play with children with and without disabilities.
Diamond and her colleagues (2008) used six different
vignettes to assess children’s decisions to include hypothet-
ical peers with and without disabilities in an activity. They
used two dolls, one representing a child with a physical
disability and one representing a typically developing peer.
The six vignettes varied in terms of motor skill demands:
Two of the vignettes described activities that required sub-
stantial motor skills (e.g., kicking a ball, dancing), two
vignettes focused on more modest motor skill requirements
at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST on April 12, 2016tec.sagepub.comDownloaded from
138 Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 32(3)
(e.g., completing a puzzle on the floor, which required the
teacher’s assistance to move the peer with a physical dis-
ability from a wheelchair to the floor), and two vignettes
included activities that required minimal motor skills (e.g.,
playing with blocks at a table). The researchers began the
interviews by describing an activity and offering a sugges-
tion about how each child might participate. For example,
in a dancing activity, the doll in the wheelchair could dance
by moving his arms, whereas the doll that was standing
could dance with his arms and his legs. After choosing a
doll to play with, the child was asked to explain his or her
reasons for the selection (“Why did you choose this girl/
boy?”). Results revealed that children’s decisions to include
a child with a physical disability were related to the motor
skills that were required for the activity. For example, chil-
dren were more likely to play with a child with a physical
disability when the activity required minimal motor skills.
One additional method used to assess the affective aspect
of attitude development involves scales or questionnaires
designed to measure children’s acceptance of peers with
disabilities. Researchers have used the following scales to
assess how children feel about their peers with disabilities:
the Social Distance Scale (Hazard, 1983), the Chedoke-
McMaster Attitudes Toward Children With Handicaps
Scale (CATCH; Rosenbaum, Armstrong, & King, 1986),
and the Acceptance Scale (Voeltz, 1980). These three scales
were developed for use with older children so the content of
items, test-taking skills (i.e., reading, recording responses),
test format (i.e., forms used for recording responses), and
administration format (i.e., group size, instruction) are not
appropriate for younger children. Given the limitations of
existing scales, Favazza and Odom (1996) developed a
scale to use with young children by modifying Voeltz’s
Acceptance Scale to create the ASK.
The ASK includes 18 questions such as, “Would you like
to be a good friend with a kid with a disability?” and “Would
you like to spend your recess with a kid with a disability?”
The vocabulary and expressions in Voeltz’s scale were
revised to address kindergarten-age children’s comprehen-
sion. In addition, several changes were made to Voeltz’s
scale related to the presentation of items (i.e., using a ques-
tion format), group size for administration (i.e., 6–7 chil-
dren at one time), and the protocol for recording child
responses (i.e., color-coded answer sheets, visual represen-
tation of the words yes, no, and maybe). The reliability and
validity of the ASK was examined with 188 kindergarteners
(approximately 88% of the children were Caucasian).
Results showed a substantial correlation for 12 of the
18 items with the total ASK score. Reliability analysis of the
ASK revealed an overall Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of .79
and a Spearman–Brown split-half of .76 (Favazza &
Odom, 1996).
However, children had numerous problems during the
ASK testing: difficulty following directions, inattention, and
questions about the terminology (e.g., “handicap”; Favazza,
Phillipsen, & Kumar, 2000). The researchers revised the
original ASK and examined the reliability of the Acceptance
Scale for Kindergartners–Revised (ASK-R) with a more
diverse group of children, including a larger proportion of
African American children and children of low socioeco-
nomic status. Of 48 participating kindergartners, 25% were
Caucasian and 75% were African American. Reliability
analysis of the ASK-R revealed an overall Cronbach’s alpha
coefficient of .87 and a Spearman–Brown split-half of .91.
Favazza and colleagues field-tested revisions to the ASK-R
over a 3-year period.
While some attitude scales such as the ASK-R require
young children to listen to questions and respond on answer
sheets, other researchers have used photographs, pictures,
or dolls when administrating scales or questionnaires to
assess young children’s acceptance of peers with disabili-
ties. For example, Piercy et al. (2002) used two scales, the
Peer Acceptance Scale and the Social Distance Scale, to
examine the effectiveness of cooperative-learning activities
on 51 children’s attitudes toward peers with disabilities in
New Zealand. All participating children were enrolled in
kindergarten to Grade 2, and they were randomly assigned
to a cooperative-learning group or a social-contact group
that participated in activities that were similar to the coop-
erative-learning group but did not include cooperative-
learning strategies (e.g., working together, sharing things,
helping each other). The Peer Acceptance Scale was
adapted from Moe, Nacoste, and Insko (1981). This scale
includes five items: (a) “Would you feel like helping this
child if the child was hurt at school?” (b) “Would you feel
like sharing a secret with this child?” (c) “Would you feel
like playing with this child?” (d) “Would you say ‘hello’ to
this child?” and (e) “Would you want to work with this
child in class?” As each item was presented, children were
shown a photograph of one of their classmates with disabili-
ties. For each item, children indicate a yes (score = 2),
maybe (score = 1), or no (score = 0). This process continues
until each typically developing child completes the
entire scale with photographs of all their classmates with
disabilities.
Piercy and her colleagues (2002) also used the Social
Distance Scale adapted from Fenrick and Peterson (1984)
to assess children’s acceptance of peers with disabilities.
This scale provides an index of the extent to which children
without disabilities want to be “close to” their peers with
disabilities. It consists of six items (e.g., “I think that the
children in Miss Brown’s class [special education class]
should go to a different school than this one,” “It would be
alright with me if one of the children from Miss Brown’s
class worked in my room at school for half of the day”). For
each item, children respond by saying yes, maybe, or no.
Results revealed that typically developing children in
the cooperative-learning groups demonstrated significant
at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST on April 12, 2016tec.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Yu et al. 139
increases in their acceptance of children with disabilities
compared with children in the social-contact group.
In summary, researchers have used sociometrics, inter-
views (using with vignettes), and scales to assess the affec-
tive aspect of the attitude construct by considering children’s
preference and willingness to play with peers with disabili-
ties. Scales such as the ASK-R (Favazza & Odom, 1996,
1997) include affective (i.e., “Would you like to play with a
child with a disability?”) and behavioral (i.e., “Have you
helped someone who has a disability?”) aspects of attitudes.
In addition, many researchers have used pictures, photo-
graphs, or dolls in an effort to assess young children’s
acceptance of peers with disabilities. Although researchers
have used many scales and questionnaires, only a few stud-
ies include reliability data (e.g., ASK-R). Thus, future
research needs to examine the reliability and validity of the
scales used to assess acceptance.
Measures for Addressing
the Behavioral Aspects of Attitudes
Some researchers have assessed behavioral aspects of
young children’s attitudes toward peers with disabilities by
asking questions about their behaviors toward individuals
(or peers) with disabilities (i.e., “Do you play with kids
even if they look different?” “Have you ever talked to a kid
with a disability?”). However, information about behav-
ioral aspects of attitude development is limited when com-
pared with research findings about the measurement of
cognitive and affective aspects of attitude development.
Researchers have cautioned that methods such as scales,
sociometric peer ratings, and interviews rely on children’s
self-report (e.g., Diamond et al., 2008; Favazza & Odom,
1996), causing concern that children might provide
responses they believe would please an examiner or that are
socially appropriate. To address this issue, several research-
ers have conducted direct observations of peer interactions
to determine whether young children’s self-reports on such
measures are consistent with their actual behaviors toward
children with disabilities (Diamond, 2001; Hestenes &
Carroll, 2000; Okagaki et al., 1998). These research studies
have included an examination of the relationship between
young children’s stated acceptance of, and their actual
social interactions with, peers with disabilities
For example, Okagaki and her colleagues (1998) mea-
sured the social play of 36 preschoolers toward their class-
mates with and without disabilities using a 2-s look and
15-s record sweep method. A total of 50 observations were
conducted per child in three inclusive preschool classrooms
during free play periods. Data were gathered on whether
target children were engaged in play behaviors with peers
(including social play and parallel play) and whether target
children were playing with typically developing peers or
peers with disabilities. The researchers also interviewed
participating children to assess their social acceptance of
hypothetical children with and without disabilities using the
Pictorial Scale of Perceived Competence and Social
Acceptance for Young Children (Harter & Pike, 1984,
adapted by Diamond, 1994). The children’s willingness to
play with hypothetical children as play partners was
assessed using the Social Problem-Solving Test–Revised
(Rubin, 1988). A major finding in this study was that chil-
dren who were more willing to play with hypothetical chil-
dren with disabilities were more likely to interact with their
classmates with disabilities in free play situations.
Diamond (2001) also examined the relationships among
young children’s ideas, emotional understanding, and social
contact with classmates with disabilities. In this study, 45
typically developing preschoolers were observed during
free play activities over a 6-week period. An average of 49
10-min observations were conducted for each child. Social
contact was defined as a physical or verbal exchange or sus-
tained visual regard, which indicated that the participants
were aware of and responsive to each other. Children and
adults who were engaged in social contact at the time of the
observation were recorded on a class map. In addition to
class observations, children were assessed on the following
three measures: (a) social acceptance of hypothetical peers
with disabilities using the Social Acceptance Scale adapted
from Harter and Pike (1984), (b) using helping strategies in
certain classroom situations with six short vignettes and
questions adapted from Rubin’s Social Problem-Solving
Task–Revised (1988), and (c) emotional sensitivity to cer-
tain social situations using interview questions adapted
from the work of Hoffner and Badzinski (1989). Results
showed that half of the children engaged in social contact
with at least one classmate with a disability. In addition,
children who had social contact with classmates with dis-
abilities were more sensitive to cues associated with differ-
ent emotions and were more accepting of hypothetical peers
with disabilities than were children who were observed
interacting only with typically developing peers.
In the third study that focused on the relationship
between young children’s attitudes and behaviors toward
peers with disabilities, Hestenes and Carroll (2000)
observed 29 preschoolers using a scan sampling technique.
They first selected one area of the classroom or playground
to begin each scan and then proceeded in a clockwise direc-
tion until the map was complete. During free play periods,
observers watched each area containing one or more children
for 10 s and then recorded children present, each child’s
level of play (e.g., solitary, cooperative), and whether a
teacher was present. At least 43 observations were col-
lected for each child. The researchers also interviewed the
children to assess their overall understanding of hypotheti-
cal children with disabilities using the Competency Ratings
for Disabilities adapted from the Pictorial Scale of
Perceived Competence and Social Acceptance for Young
at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST on April 12, 2016tec.sagepub.comDownloaded from
140 Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 32(3)
Children (Harter & Pike, 1984). The children also rated
their preference for playing with each classmate using
sociometric ratings. One of the main findings was a positive
relationship between children’s reported preference to play
with classmates with disabilities and their overall score for
understanding disabilities. However, they also found that
actual social play with classmates with disabilities was not
related to children’s understanding of disabilities or reported
preference to play with classmates with disabilities. Possible
reasons for the inconsistent results compared with previous
studies (Diamond, 2001; Okagaki et al., 1998) included the
following: (a) Hestenes and Carroll did not include parallel
play as an observational category, whereas Okagaki and
colleagues merged parallel and social play, and (b) one of
the two classrooms observed by Hestenes and Carroll only
included children with disabilities during free play, whereas
Diamond (2001) and Okagaki et al. (1998) conducted their
studies in inclusive classrooms.
Although Hestenes and Carroll’s (2000) results were
inconsistent with the other two research studies (Diamond,
2001; Okagaki et al., 1998), the three studies together sug-
gest the possible presence of the following relationships:
(a) children’s reported willingness to play with hypothetical
children with disabilities may be related to their play inter-
actions with classmates with disabilities (Okagaki et al.,
1998), (b) children’s acceptance ratings of hypothetical
peers with disabilities may be related to their social interac-
tions with classmates with disabilities (Diamond, 2001),
and (c) children’s understanding of disabilities may be
related to their reported preference to play with classmates
with disabilities (Hestenes & Carroll, 2000). Two of the
three research studies (Diamond, 2001; Okagaki et al.,
1998) suggest that positive attitudes toward peers with dis-
abilities may influence children’s social interactions with
peers with disabilities, whereas Hestenes and Carroll (2000)
questioned the relationship between children’s attitudes and
their actual behaviors toward peers with disabilities.
Conclusions, Limitations,
and Implications
One purpose of this article was to highlight attitude measures
that are based on Triandis’s conceptual model (1971). Results
of the literature review reveal that cognitive aspects of atti-
tude development have been assessed by considering chil-
dren’s identification of disabilities and their understanding of
disabilities. For the affective aspect of attitude development,
researchers have assessed children’s stated preference (or
willingness) to play with peers with disabilities, using socio-
metric ratings, interviews, or scales. An acceptance scale, the
ASK-R (Favazza & Odom, 1996), included affective and
behavioral aspects and has been used by some researchers. A
limited number of researchers observed young children’s play
behaviors to examine the relationship between attitudes and
play interactions with peers with disabilities (Diamond, 2001;
Hestenes & Carroll, 2000; Okagaki et al., 1998).
Theories of attitude development suggest that cognitive,
affective, and behavioral characteristics interact in the
development of attitudes toward individuals with disabili-
ties (Stoneman, 1993; Triandis, 1971). However, Triandis
cautioned that there is not always a direct relationship
between attitudes and behavior; attitudes are related to
behaviors in complex ways. Interestingly, compared with
the research measuring cognitive and affective components
of attitude development, only a few studies have included
behavioral observation with a link to attitude development.
In addition, there is limited information on how these three
components are related to each other. Thus, future research
should examine how these components, alone or in combi-
nation, contribute to the development of positive attitudes
toward peers with disabilities and what measures can be
used to assess each of these components. Indeed, the
research reviewed suggests that young children’s recogni-
tion and understanding of peers with disabilities can be
influenced by their observations of, or interactions with,
their peers with disabilities in inclusive classrooms (e.g.,
Diamond & Hestenes, 1994). In addition, the ways in which
children think about peers with disabilities may influence
their willingness to play with peers with disabilities
(Diamond & Tu, 2009). Added to these findings is the fact
that young children may not recognize a peer’s disability
because during the early childhood years, children exhibit
such a range of skills (e.g., speech and language issues are
common and may not be noticeable as a disability as many
children may stutter, mispronounce words, express their
thoughts with limited vocabulary, etc.). Additional research
should examine the relationship between young children’s
attitudes and play behaviors toward peers with disabilities,
with the ultimate outcome being the development of inter-
ventions to promote positive peer relationships leading to
friendships between children with and without disabilities.
Another challenge in measuring attitude development is
that most measures require children to talk about their
thoughts, understanding, and acceptance of hypothetical
peers with disabilities using dolls or pictures. This is more
abstract than discussing their classmates, peers, or individu-
als who have disabilities. Thus, replicating the research
findings, with a focus on authentic relationships (i.e., peers
and classmates with disabilities), would add to the current
literature on young children’s attitudes toward peers with
disabilities. In addition, most researchers have used dolls to
represent a child in a wheelchair in an effort to help chil-
dren understand hypothetical peers with disabilities. These
measures have been limited to representing only children
with physical disabilities while ignoring intellectual or
socioemotional disabilities. Due to these methodological
challenges, much of the research in this area suggests a need
to develop more appropriate methods for eliciting young
at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST on April 12, 2016tec.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Yu et al. 141
children’s understanding of issues related to disability as an
important direction for future research.
As we reviewed articles published between 1990 and
2010 that measure young children’s attitudes toward peers
with disabilities, we focused on research aimed at measuring
typically developing children’s attitudes toward peers with
disabilities. Thus, our review contained very limited infor-
mation about what children with disabilities thought about,
or how they accepted, other children with disabilities. In the
field of special education, researchers and educators have
worked diligently to include children with disabilities in aca-
demic assessment procedures. However, these efforts have
mainly focused on monitoring progress in areas such as
math and reading with less attention paid to assessing social
aspects of development (e.g., peer relationships). Therefore,
researchers and educators need to consider what accommo-
dations and supports are necessary so that children with dis-
abilities can participate in attitude measures such as
interviews, scales, and sociometric peer ratings.
This article is one step toward gaining a better under-
standing of the research on measuring young children’s atti-
tudes toward peers with disabilities and suggestions for
future research on this important topic. Strategies that build
and support positive attitudes toward children with disabili-
ties hold promise as one way to effectively welcome and
create a sense of belonging for children with disabilities in
inclusive programs. If attitude development in turn influ-
ences positive peer relationships and the formation of
friendships, then the field will have another tool for helping
all children reach their full potential.
Authors’ Note
The contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not
represent the official views or policies of the funding agency, nor
does publication in any way constitute an endorsement by the
funding agency.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support
for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This
manuscript was made possible by Grant R324A080071 from the
Institute of Educational Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
References
Aguiar, C., Moiteiro, A. R., & Pimentel, J. S. (2010). Classroom
quality and social acceptance of preschoolers with disabilities.
Infants & Young Children, 23, 34–41.
Asher, S. R., Singleton, L. C., Tinsley, B. R., & Hymel, S. (1979).
A reliable sociometric measure for preschool children. Devel-
opmental Psychology, 15, 443–444.
Balda, S., Punia, S., & Punia, D. (2002). Peer Rating Scale: A
reliable sociometric measure for preschool children. Journal
of Psychometry, 15, 21–28.
Conant, S., & Budoff, M. (1983). Pattern of awareness in chil-
dren’s understanding of disabilities. Mental Retardation, 21,
119–125.
Cooper, D. G. (2003). Promoting disability awareness in pre-
school (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Purdue Univer-
sity, West Lafayette, IN.
DEC/NAEYC. (2009). Early childhood inclusion: A joint posi-
tion statement of the Division of Early Childhood (DEC) and
the National Association for the Education of Young Children
(NAEYC). Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina.
Diamond, K. E. (1993). Preschool children’s concepts of disability
in their peers. Early Education & Development, 4, 123–129.
Diamond, K. E. (1994). Evaluating preschool children’s sensitiv-
ity to developmental differences. Topics in Early Childhood
Special Education, 14, 49–63.
Diamond, K. E. (2001). Relationships among young children’s
ideas, emotional understanding, and social contact with class-
mates with disabilities. Topics in Early Childhood Special
Education, 21, 104–113.
Diamond, K. E., & Hestenes, L. L. (1994). Preschool children’s
understanding of disability: Experiences leading to the elab-
oration of the concept of hearing loss. Early Education &
Development, 5, 301–309.
Diamond, K. E., & Hestenes, L. L. (1996). Preschool children’s
conceptions of disabilities: The salience of disabilities in chil-
dren’s ideas about others. Topics in Early Childhood Special
Education, 16, 458–471.
Diamond, K. E., Hestenes, L. L., Carpenter, E. S., & Innes, F. K.
(1997). Relationships between enrollment in an inclusive class
and preschool children’s ideas about people with disabilities.
Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 17, 520–537.
Diamond, K. E., & Hong, S. (2010). Young children’s decision
to include peers with physical disabilities in play. Journal of
Early Intervention, 32, 163–177.
Diamond, K. E., Hong, S., & Tu, H. (2008). Context influences
preschool children’s decisions to include a peer with a physi-
cal disability in play. Exceptionality, 16, 141–155.
Diamond, K. E., & Huang, H. (2005). Preschoolers’ ideas about
disabilities. Infants & Young Children, 18, 37–46.
Diamond, K. E., & Kensinger, K. R. (2002). Vignettes from
Sesame Street: Preschoolers’ ideas about children with Down
syndrome and physical disability. Early Education & Devel-
opment, 13, 409–422.
Diamond, K. E., Le Furgy, W., & Blass, S. (1992). Attitudes of
preschool children toward their peers with disabilities: A year-
long intervention in integrated classrooms. The Journal of
Genetic Psychology, 152, 215–221.
Diamond, K. E., & Tu, H. (2009). Relations between classroom
context, physical disability and preschool children’s inclusion
decision. Journal of Applied Development Psychology, 30,
75–81.
at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST on April 12, 2016tec.sagepub.comDownloaded from
142 Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 32(3)
Dyson, L. L. (2005). Kindergarten children’s understanding of
and attitudes toward people with disabilities. Topics in Early
Childhood Special Education, 25, 95–105.
Esposito, B. G., & Peach, W. (1983). Changing attitudes of pre-
school children toward handicapped persons. Exceptional
Children, 46, 504–514.
Favazza, P. C., & Odom, S. L. (1996). Use of the acceptance scale
to measure attitudes of kindergarten-age children. Journal of
Early Intervention, 20, 232–249.
Favazza, P. C., & Odom, S. L. (1997). Promoting positive atti-
tudes of kindergarten-age children toward people with dis-
abilities. Exceptional Children, 63, 405–418.
Favazza, P. C., Phillipsen, L., & Kumar, P. (2000). Measuring
and promoting acceptance of young children with disabilities.
Exceptional Children, 66, 491–508.
Fenrick, N. J., & Peterson, T. K. (1984). Developing positive
changes in attitudes towards moderately/severely handicapped
students through a peer tutoring program. Education and
Training of the Mentally Retarded, 19, 83–90.
Harter, S., & Pike, R. (1984). The Pictorial Scale of Perceived
Competence and Social Acceptance for Young Children. Child
Development, 55, 1969–1982.
Hazard, A. (1983). Children’s experience with knowledge of, and
attitude toward disabled persons. Journal of Special Educa-
tion, 17, 131–139.
Hestenes, L. L., & Carroll, D. E. (2000). The play interactions of
young children with and without disabilities: Individual and
environmental influences. Early Childhood Research Quar-
terly, 15, 229–246.
Hoffner, C., & Badzinski, D. M. (1989). Children’s integration
of facial and situational cues to emotion. Child Development,
60, 411–422.
Moe, J. L., Nacoste, R. W., & Insko, C. A. (1981). Belief versus
race as determinants of discrimination: A study of southern
adolescents in 1966 and 1979. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 41, 1031–1050.
Odom, S. L. (2000). Preschool inclusion: What we know and
where we go from here. Topics in Early Childhood Special
Education, 20(1), 20–27.
Odom, S. L., Zercher, C., Li, S., Marquart, J. M., Sandall, S., &
Brown, W. H. (2006). Social acceptance and rejection of pre-
school children with disabilities: A mixed-method analysis.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 807–823.
Okagaki, L., Diamond, K. E., Kontos, S. J., & Hestenes, L. L.
(1998). Correlates of young children’s interactions with class-
mates with disabilities. Early Childhood Research Quarterly,
13, 67–86.
Peck, C. A., Carlson, P., & Helmstetter, E. (1992). Parent
and teacher perceptions of outcomes for typically devel-
oping children enrolled in integrated early childhood pro-
grams: A statewide survey. Journal of Early Intervention,
16, 53–63.
Piercy, M., Wilton, K., & Townsend, M. (2002). Promoting the
social acceptance of young children with moderate–severe
intellectual disabilities using cooperative-learning techniques.
American Journal on Mental Retardation, 107, 352–360.
Rosenbaum, P. L., Armstrong, R. W., & King, S. M. (1986). Chil-
dren’s attitudes toward disabled peers: A self-report measure.
Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 11, 517–530.
Rubin, K. H. (1988). The Social Problem-Solving Test–Revised.
Waterloo, Ontario, Canada: University of Waterloo.
Sale, P., & Carey, D. M. (1995). The sociometric status of stu-
dents with disabilities in a full-inclusion school. Exceptional
Children, 62, 6–19.
Sandall, S., Hemmeter, M. L., Smith, B. J., & McLean, M. E.
(2007). DEC recommended practices: A comprehensive guide
for practical application. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
Stoneman, Y. (1993). The effects of attitude on preschool inte-
gration. In C. A. Peck, S. L. Odom, & D. D. Bricker (Eds.),
Integrating young children with disabilities into community
programs (pp. 223–248). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Tamm, M., & Prellwitz, M. (2001). “If I had a friend in a wheel-
chair”: Children’s thoughts on disabilities. Child: Care,
Health and Development, 27, 223–240.
Triandis, H. (1971). Attitudes and attitude change. New York,
NY: Wiley.
Voeltz, L. M. (1980). Children’s attitudes toward handicapped
peers. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 84, 455–464.
at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST on April 12, 2016tec.sagepub.comDownloaded from
