Content uploaded by Donna Koller
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Donna Koller on Feb 08, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
Defining Social Inclusion for Children with
Disabilities: A Critical Literature Review
Donna Koller* , Morgane Le Pouesard* and Joanna Anneke Rummens†
*Ryerson University, Toronto, ON, Canada
†The University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
Social inclusion is a complex and often misunderstood concept. For children with disabilities, research has
documented the degree of loneliness, bullying and exclusion they often experience in their social lives. This
paper presents the findings of a critical literature review on the social inclusion of children with disabili-
ties. Study methods comprised rigorous criteria for study selection followed by established protocols for
evaluating studies. Reputable rating scales were used to examine peer-reviewed research published within
the last 10 years. Fifty-four studies were analyzed for essential themes. Findings reflect a broad range of
stakeholder perspectives and factors that promote or inhibit social inclusion, including child-specific
variables as well as environmental influences. Additional research should focus on the perspectives and
experiences of children in inclusive settings, particularly those with disabilities, as a means of safeguarding
their future social and emotional well-being. ©2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd and National Children’s
Bureau
Keywords: children, disabilities, peers, social inclusion, social relationships, stigma.
Background
Estimates of worldwide child disability rates are speculative and dated; however, UNICEF
estimates that approximately 93 million (1 in 20) of people aged 14 or younger live with a
moderate or severe disability (UNICEF, 2013). In the USA, 5.2 per cent (2.8 million) of the
53.9 million school-aged children (aged 5–17) were reported to have a disability in 2010
(Disability Characteristics, American Community Survey, 2010). For comparison, Human
Resources and Skills Development Canada (2011) indicates that 202 350 children (3.7%, aged
0–14 years) and 96 060 teens (4.6%, aged 15–19 years) in Canada have a disability. The
most commonly diagnosed disabilities among children include learning, communication and
developmental disabilities, while children are also commonly diagnosed with physical dis-
abilities (US Census Bureau, 2010).
‘Social inclusion’ is a multifaceted and largely subjective construct (Le Boutillier and
Croucher, 2010). It is often described in opposition to ‘social exclusion’, which refers to the
stigmatisation or marginalisation of certain groups based on particular characteristics, such
as socioeconomic status, race, gender or disability. For children with disabilities, social inclu-
sion requires overcoming significant social, economic and political barriers to achieve mean-
ingful involvement in society (Hill and others, 2004). This can involve the ability to make
friends, participate in community activities, engage in leisure and play, and have access to
quality inclusive practices in the classroom. Social inclusion, therefore, establishes a basis
for overall well-being and is a critical component of becoming a valued and contributing
member of the community (M^
asse and others, 2012; Murray and Greenberg, 2006).
Although children with disabilities value peer relationships and participation in commu-
nity activities, they continue to experience low levels of social integration (Frazee, 2003).
Extensive evidence indicates that children with disabilities are at increased risk of being iso-
lated or bullied compared with their typically developing peers (Cummins and Lau, 2003;
CHILDREN & SOCIETY VOLUME 32, (2018) pp. 1–13
DOI:10.1111/chso.12223
©2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd and National Children’s Bureau
Guralnick and others, 2007; Koster and others, 2010). While bullying and social exclusion
are separate constructs, both result in negative effects for the child experiencing them. North
American studies support these findings: children with disabilities experience more social
exclusion than their peers (Hanvey, 2001; Snowdon, 2012).
Because many variables are associated with the quality of social inclusion for children
with disabilities, an in-depth and critical analysis of the literature is needed to promote
greater understanding. In North America, various public resources and specialised services
are available for children with disabilities. A major concern within this sector is the persis-
tent disconnect between research and practice (Abdul-Adil and others, 2010; Cocker and
Scott, 2006; Guerra and others, 2011). In some cases, research findings are presented in ways
that are not accessible to service providers and/or not transferable to care settings (Axford
and others, 2013). In part, this disconnect may be the result of how social inclusion or exclu-
sion are defined, limited understanding of its implications and complexities, and/or a lack of
awareness about how it affects the daily lives of children with disabilities and their families.
Therefore, it is imperative to explore how social inclusion is perceived by key stakeholders
before changes can be made to policies and practices (Kufeldt and McKenzie, 2011).
Purpose
The purpose of this critical literature review was to synthesise previous research about the
various facets of social inclusion for children
1
with disabilities, from the perspectives of key
stakeholders. This included analysing how social inclusion is defined, operationalised, and
perceived by children, their families and professionals working with them. This review will
form the basis for a larger systematic review, which will identify interventions for improving
the social inclusion of children with disabilities.
Theoretical framework
We adopted the biopsychosocial model for this study (Le Boutillier and Croucher, 2010).
According to this model, researchers must focus on both objective and subjective indicators
of social inclusion. Measuring social inclusion involves not only assessing rates of participa-
tion and acceptance of a marginalised group within various social contexts but also explor-
ing how individuals control and experience their own involvement (Cummins and Lau, 2003;
Martin and Cobigo, 2011).
Rights-based and social-cultural models of disability link barriers to social inclusion with
disabling effects of the environment, as opposed to the body (Fulcher, 1989; Purdue, 2009).
This type of model stresses the rights of children (Bray and Gates, 2000) and was developed
in response to the medical model of disability, which places the burden of impairment solely
on the individual (Nind and others, 2010). Recent scholarship has integrated the two models
to yield the biopsychosocial (or interactional) model, according to which disability is as
much a social construction as a medical diagnosis, involving obstacles within and outside
the individual (Shakespeare, 2006; Thomas, 2004). The World Health Organization now
defines disability as ‘the outcome or result of a complex relationship between an individual’s
health condition and personal factors, and of the external factors that represent the circum-
stances in which the individual lives’ (Peterson, 2005). ‘Disability’ can therefore refer to
impairments (affecting a person’s body), activity limitations (affecting a person’s behaviour)
and participation restrictions (affecting a person’s experiences) (Peterson, 2005).
Methods
A librarian trained in literature searches assisted the research team in the articulation of
search parameters and procedures. The search was conducted on a biweekly basis from
2 Donna Koller et al.
©2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd and National Children’s Bureau CHILDREN & SOCIETY Vol. 32, 1–13 (2018)
December 2014 to March 2015, using six databases: Education Resource Information Center,
ProQuest, Academic One File, JSTOR, PsycINFO and Springer. Keywords included: defin*,
social inclusion, social integration, social acceptance, social participation, belonging, social
exclusion, friend*, child*, ado*, special needs and disab*.
Inclusion criteria were peer-reviewed original studies published between January 2004
and March 2015. The searches yielded a total of 1378 articles. Of these, 390 remained after
reviewing for duplicates and relevance. Another 29 studies were found by scanning through
the reference lists of articles, yielding a total of 419 studies. Studies were then checked for
original data, eliminating review articles, theoretical articles and opinion pieces. This resulted
in 115 studies eligible for rating, by using standardised tools to evaluate quality. After rat-
ing, 54 of the 115 studies were accepted for the synthesis.
Studies were evaluated using rating criteria designed by Gibbs (1989, 2003). For quantita-
tive studies, rating criteria include psychometric properties of measurements, sufficiency of
data for synthesis, use of a control group, etc. For qualitative studies, rating criteria include
sample description, author bias and trustworthiness/authenticity. Studies scoring 60 per cent
or above were included in the study, and studies scoring between 55 and 59 per cent were
re-rated by a second rater to confirm exclusion or inclusion in the study (Table 1).
The 54 accepted studies pertained to a range of stakeholders, including children aged
3–19 years old. The predominant number of studies originated from North America and the
United Kingdom, but some were also retrieved from other countries including Australia, Aus-
tria, Germany, Israel, Norway, South Africa, Switzerland and Zimbabwe. Please refer to
Table A1 (Appendix A) for a breakdown of studies by methods and participants.
Results
An analysis of research findings revealed two emerging themes: stakeholder perceptions and
experiences with social inclusion in the context of childhood disability; and contributory
factors that promote or inhibit social inclusion. Combining findings from these two areas
yields a nuanced and comprehensive understanding of current issues associated with social
inclusion for children with disabilities.
Stakeholder experiences with and perspectives on social inclusion
In this context, stakeholders include children with disabilities, their typically developing
peers, educators and parents/primary caregivers. This section examines the range of issues
associated with stakeholder perceptions and explores issues that pertain specifically to how
these stakeholders perceive and define social inclusion for children with disabilities.
Children with disabilities
Much of the literature identifies children with disabilities as being lonely, having fewer
friends than their peers and being more likely to be victims of bullying (Koster and others,
2010; Lindsay and McPherson, 2012). These negative social experiences can affect the self-
concept of children with disabilities, and their view of the world around them (Pijl and
Table 1: Elimination process for search results
Articles yielded through online search 1378
With additional studies found through scanning reference lists 1407
Post-duplicate/relevancy sorting and additional scanning of reference lists 419
Post-removing non-primary sources 115
Final inclusion 54
Social Inclusion for Children with Disabilities 3
©2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd and National Children’s Bureau CHILDREN & SOCIETY Vol. 32, 1–13 (2018)
Frostad, 2010). Despite these persistent concerns, limited research has focused on how these
children perceive social inclusion.
Research involving adults with disabilities has revealed that interactions between personal
and environmental factors shape how individuals define social inclusion (Martin and Cobigo,
2011). For example, Hammel and others (2008) found that adults with disabilities did not
appear to have a specific definition of social inclusion, but referred to the freedom to choose
and participate on their own terms rather than following societal norms. Therefore, ensuring
that individuals with disabilities have the opportunity to formulate definitions of social
inclusion is extremely relevant. Martin and Cobigo (2011) interviewed adults with disabilities
and found that common themes included: being accepted as an individual beyond the dis-
ability; having reciprocal relationships; being involved in activities; securing appropriate liv-
ing accommodations; being employed; and receiving formal and informal supports. To our
knowledge, no similar research has assessed how children with disabilities define social
inclusion. This prevents us from comparing children and adults with disabilities’ views.
For children with disabilities, social exclusion and bullying is a disturbing reality (Taylor
and Houghton, 2008). Lindsay and McPherson (2012) reported that children with cerebral palsy
experienced significant social exclusion in the form of bullying, and wanted greater awareness
about disability among their peers. Because children with disabilities can suffer from negative
self-concept as a result of bullying and teasing (Pijl and Frostad, 2010), Lindsay and McPherson
(2012) concluded that a peer support network could help build their self-confidence. Children
also believed that schools played an important role in their experience, including the attitudes
of teachers and the extent to which accommodations were implemented within school commu-
nities (Lindsay and McPherson, 2012). Overall, the social landscape for children with disabilities
is filled with barriers to meaningful inclusion such as lack of awareness, negative attitudes and
bullying, resulting in loneliness (Hamilton, 2005; Krull and others, 2014; Rotheram-Fuller and
others, 2010; Symes and Humphrey, 2010) and low self-esteem (Pijl and Frostad, 2010).
Children without disabilities
Children perceive their peers with disabilities in various ways. One contributing factor is
developmental level, with older children being more likely to use moral reasoning to justify
the inclusion of children with disabilities in social settings (Gasser and others, 2014). Context
is another contributing factor: one study found that children were less likely to expect the
inclusion of peers with disabilities in academic and athletic contexts, compared to social
activities such as eating lunch (Gasser and others, 2014). This finding could be explained by
Diamond and Tu’s (2009) conclusion that children base their inclusion decisions on the
extent to which a child’s disability might interfere with a chosen activity. However, to date
no studies have explored how typically developing children specifically define and under-
stand social inclusion of children with disabilities.
Educators
As noted, children with disabilities perceive educators as playing a critical role in influencing
the quality of social inclusion in the classroom (Lindsay and McPherson, 2012). To date, no
research has specifically addressed how educators define social inclusion for children with dis-
abilities. Instead, most research has focused on the attitudes of educators about the general
principles of inclusive education. A study involving student teachers revealed that participa-
tion in an academic course about children with disabilities did not affect attitudes, but did
increase self-efficacy (Hutzler and others, 2005). Attitudes of educators about inclusion are pri-
marily shaped by their level of experience (Horrocks and others, 2008; Maunganidze and
others, 2007; Rheams and Bain, 2005; van der Veen and others, 2010), and experience can also
4 Donna Koller et al.
©2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd and National Children’s Bureau CHILDREN & SOCIETY Vol. 32, 1–13 (2018)
increase their sense of efficacy (Hutzler and others, 2005). Among school principals, attitudes
about including children with autism were positively correlated with the belief that these chil-
dren could successfully be included in a regular classroom (Horrocks and others, 2008).
Although theoretical and philosophical orientation may play a role in shaping educator
practices, Rheams and Bain (2005) found that teachers working in segregated and inclusive
classrooms did not differ significantly in their attitudes towards inclusion, and that logistic
and environmental barriers were more likely to affect teachers’ use of interventions in their
classrooms. The importance of environmental factors such as resources has been reaffirmed
by studies involving teachers in South Africa (Donohue and Bornman, 2015) and early child-
hood educators in Jordan and the United Arab Emirates (Hamaidi and others, 2012). This
implies that teachers from both segregated and inclusive contexts may tend to hold the belief
that all children should be included in the classroom, but that the amount and quality of
resources available can be more influential in shaping practice than attitudes.
Despite the above empirical evidence demonstrating the importance of teacher attitudes in
ensuring inclusive classrooms, few studies have specifically focused on teacher opinions about
how social inclusion can be fostered. Most studies have assessed teacher support for inclusive
education from a policy perspective; much less is known about how teachers delineate social
inclusion for children with disabilities. For example, more research is needed to clarify whether
teachers believe they have an integral role in building friendships across diverse children with
the overarching goal of creating social connections in their respective school communities.
Caregivers
Parents of children with disabilities tend to express concerns about their children’s beha-
vioural differences and how these might affect inclusion (Recchia and Lee, 2004). They also
report, however, that environmental barriers, such as difficulties accessing services and nega-
tive attitudes of others in the community, play a confounding role (Ault and others, 2013;
Leyser and Kirk, 2004; Schleien and others, 2014). Together, these findings suggest that par-
ent perceptions of social inclusion may be consistent with the biopsychosocial model,
according to which disability involves obstacles both within and outside the individual
(Shakespeare, 2006; Thomas, 2004).
Although parents believe that they can advocate for their children, they ultimately view
service providers as responsible for meeting inclusion needs (Schleien and others, 2014). In
other words, while parents can promote social inclusion, they acknowledge that additional
environmental factors can significantly affect the child’s ability to participate (Rosenberg
and others, 2012). To date, no studies have specifically focused on how parents understand
social inclusion for their children with disabilities, besides recognising the essential value of
peer relationships for their children’s development and well-being.
Variables influencing social inclusion
Researchers have identified several variables that can promote or inhibit social inclusion for
children with disabilities. These variables reflect a range of constructs associated with defin-
ing social inclusion, as well as components of the biopsychosocial model. This critical review
identified child-specific, family, school and cross-cultural variables.
Child-specific variables
Type of disability plays a role in how children experience the quality of their social inclusion
(Seni
car and Kobal Grum, 2012). Children with emotional/behavioural disabilities and with
multiple disabilities generally experience more hardship than those with specific physical,
visual, hearing, or speech difficulties (McCoy and Banks, 2012). For example, children with
Social Inclusion for Children with Disabilities 5
©2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd and National Children’s Bureau CHILDREN & SOCIETY Vol. 32, 1–13 (2018)
learning disabilities appear to keep fewer friends over time than typically developing peers
(Estell and others, 2009). The quality of inclusion, therefore, is associated with mental age,
with lower mental age resulting in lower levels of inclusion (Carvalho and others, 2014).
In addition to cognition, social inclusion is also influenced by the child’s prosocial beha-
viour, social competence (Jones and Frederickson, 2010; Schwab and others, 2013) and emo-
tional regulation (Bauminger and Kimhi-Kind, 2008; Odom and others, 2006). Teachers find
that social competence is a strong predictor of social inclusion for all children (Schwab and
others, 2013). Prosocial skills identified by teachers include classroom skills like turn-taking,
independence and self-help (Kemp and Carter, 2005). Conversely, social exclusion is pre-
dicted by aggression (Kemp and Carter, 2005; Odom and others, 2006), shyness (Jones and
Frederickson, 2010) and social withdrawal (Odom and others, 2006).
Family variables
Early experiences with caregivers are important predictors of later social inclusion (Bauminger
and Kimhi-Kind, 2008). One study reported that high maternal self-efficacy, or a mother’s sense
of being able to handle difficulties, was a strong predictor of increased participation for chil-
dren with mild motor disabilities (Soref and others, 2012). Guralnick and others (2008a) found
that early baby–mother communication predicted child behaviours in unfamiliar playgroups
two years later. Specifically, more infant attempts at influencing the mother’s behaviour was
linked with more peer involvement two years later, suggesting that strategies designed to
encourage children’s early participation in routines may facilitate future social inclusion.
Beyond early experiences, levels of family stress over time appear to be negatively associ-
ated with children with developmental challenges and the quality of social interactions (Gural-
nick and others, 2006). Socioeconomic status is positively correlated with child participation
(Soref and others, 2012). Poverty increases the stigma and negative effects of disability through
a variety of pathways such as limiting access to services and programmes, education and social
influence (McCoy and Banks, 2012; Trani and others, 2013). In turn, higher levels of education
often support parents’ attempts to promote social acceptance of their children (Leyser and Kirk,
2004). Finally, parental anxiety is a possible barrier to inclusion, as it may interfere with the
level of collaboration with teaching staff and other service providers (Soref and others, 2012).
School variables
Early participation in inclusive school programmes is predictive of later continuity in inclu-
sive settings (Guralnick and others, 2008b). When moving a child from a segregated to an
inclusive setting, a skilled team of service providers can ensure ongoing support and atten-
tion to child-specific variables (Gibb and others, 2007). Children with disabilities rate the role
of teachers as very important, predominantly because teachers can permeate inclusive set-
tings with negative attitudes towards disabilities or a desire to overprotect the child (Rheams
and Bain, 2005). The actions of teachers can also affect peer inclusion decisions; for exam-
ple, a teacher’s decision to have a child with a disability to write a test in a separate room
might serve to emphasise the child’s differences to his or her peers (Lindsay and McPherson,
2012). Structured activities, such as inclusive games built into class time, predict higher
degrees of social inclusion (Carvalho and others, 2014), as does open communication
between service providers and families (Recchia and Lee, 2004).
Gibb and others (2007) identified concerns regarding effective inclusive teaching strate-
gies, such as a lack of focus on child-specific factors, an absence of cultural responsivity
and neglecting to foster co-operation between children with disabilities and their peers. One
study found that segregated settings provide significantly more adult–child interactions than
inclusive settings, but fewer peer–child interactions, highlighting the need for more balance
6 Donna Koller et al.
©2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd and National Children’s Bureau CHILDREN & SOCIETY Vol. 32, 1–13 (2018)
across settings (Kishida and Kemp, 2009). At the same time, participation in inclusive schools
may elicit stigma, in the form of name-calling and exclusion by non-disabled peers (Cooney
and others, 2006). Poor school policies, restrictive physical environments and lack of accom-
modations are also barriers to the social inclusion of children with disabilities (Alston and
Kilham, 2004; Lindsay and others, 2012; Seymour and others, 2009).
Cross-cultural variables
Few studies have focused on cross-cultural differences in describing social inclusion for chil-
dren with disabilities. One study explored the meaning of inclusion for children with cognitive
disabilities in Ladakh, India, stressing the need to conceptualise inclusion locally (Richard,
2014). For example, as most children with disabilities in Ladakh move back in with their fami-
lies after completing their education, families should receive as much attention as schools in
terms of seeking solutions to maximise social inclusion. This study, though a lone example of
applying a localised lens, highlights the value of considering cross-cultural variables.
Another study compared educational contexts with regard to inclusion in a sample of
early education settings in six European countries: England, Finland, Greece, Italy, Spain
and Sweden (Kutnick and others, 2007). England was at one end of the spectrum, with one
practitioner and one teaching assistant working with an average of 24 children, while Swe-
den employed multiple practitioners working with 10–15 children. Frequent concerns across
all countries included bullying and poor relationships between some children. The research-
ers found that only educators in Finland had received adequate in-service training about
social inclusion, where educators were encouraged to lead games to encourage social co-
operation in the classroom. Together, these findings illustrate the need for teacher education
that specifically addresses socially inclusive interventions in the classroom.
Conclusions
Although children with disabilities recognise the value of peer relationships and participation
in their communities, they continue to experience low levels of social integration (Frazee,
2003). Persistent social exclusion for these children is a complex phenomenon, and is often
the result of a confluence of variables that gain momentum when they converge over time.
The use of effective teaching strategies can ameliorate the effects of child-specific and family
variables that hinder a child’s ability to participate. For example, teaching strategies that
directly promote co-operation between students can enhance social experiences within the
classroom (Gibb and others, 2007). Teachers require adequate training that can promote posi-
tive attitudes (Rheams and Bain, 2005) and foster a sense of efficacy (Hutzler and others,
2005). Along with positive attitudes, supportive logistical and environmental resources, such
as physical design adaptations and pedagogical aids, are necessary to foster inclusive experi-
ences in the classroom (Rheams and Bain, 2005).
The definition of social inclusion is problematic because it remains broad and elusive. To
our knowledge, no research has specifically examined how children with disabilities perceive
social inclusion, and few studies have focused on how typically developing children perceive
social inclusion and disability. Additionally, little research has explored how educators and
parents perceive specific issues related to social inclusion, or their respective roles in min-
imising the effects of a child’s disability on his or her social life. These gaps prevent the
development of evidence-informed practices for those working with children who have dis-
abilities and their families. For instance, inclusive educational practices have a range of
applications, but little information is available for specific contexts. Interventions may have
little to do with how children with disabilities actually experience the social world of the
Social Inclusion for Children with Disabilities 7
©2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd and National Children’s Bureau CHILDREN & SOCIETY Vol. 32, 1–13 (2018)
classroom —how welcome they feel in their school, how many friends they have or the
quality of their participation in decisions that affect their lives.
Because we know little of how children with disabilities perceive social inclusion in their
lives, we are compelled to extract elements from research involving adults. Adults with dis-
abilities tend to define social inclusion as active and meaningful engagement, choice and con-
trol, societal responsibilities and a social connection to the community (Hammel and others,
2008). Other aspects can include being accepted as an individual beyond the disability, having
reciprocal personal relationships, appropriate living accommodations and employment while
receiving formal and informal supports (Martin and Cobigo, 2011). Despite these commonali-
ties, adults with disabilities tend not to identify a single criterion for social inclusion. Instead,
they refer to a need for choice and control in deciding what is meaningful engagement within
their personal context (Hammel and others, 2008).
We might expect children’s views to resonate with adult concepts of social inclusion. We
can also infer that children’s definitions of social inclusion may include the absence of bully-
ing, making peers aware of their disability, and the compelling value of peer acceptance and
support (Lindsay and McPherson, 2012). Next steps must include opportunities for children
with disabilities to exercise agency in defining social inclusion from within their own lives.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the participation of several individuals and community
organisations including Nancy Hendy, Cathy Kerr, Susan Rowe and Margarita Isakov from
Community Living Toronto, Dr. Kevin Stoddart from The Redpath Centre, Carrie Youdell
from Ontario Early Years Centres and Frances Mendez-Barcelo from YWCA’s Beatrice House.
We also thank our co-investigators Dr. Jason Nolan and Dr. Sharon Hope Irwin for their sup-
port of the project, as well as the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC)
for their research grant. This research was funded by a grant from the Social Sciences and
Humanities Research Council (SSHRC), grant no. 890-2013-0118.
Note
1 For the purposes of best representing the literature reviewed in this paper, the term ‘children’
will be used to include young people between the ages of 3 and 19, unless otherwise stated.
References
Abdul-Adil J, Drozd O, Irie I, Riley R, Silas A, Farmer AD Jr, Tolan PH. 2010. University-community
mental health center collaboration: encouraging the dissemination of empirically-based treatment
and practice. Community Mental Health Journal 46: 417–422.
Alston J, Kilham C. 2004. Adaptive education for students with special needs in the inclusive class-
room. Australian Journal of Early Childhood 29: 24.
Ault MJ, Collins BC, Carter EW. 2013. Congregational participation and supports for children and adults
with disabilities: parent perceptions. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability 51:48–61.
doi:10.1352/1934-9556-51.01.048.
Axford N, Hobbs T, Jodrell D. 2013. Making child well-being data work hard: getting from data to pol-
icy and practice. Child Indicators Research 6: 161–177.
Bauminger N, Kimhi-Kind I. 2008. Social information processing, security of attachment, and emotion
regulation in children with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities 41: 315–332.
8 Donna Koller et al.
©2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd and National Children’s Bureau CHILDREN & SOCIETY Vol. 32, 1–13 (2018)
Bray A, Gates S. 2000. Children with disabilities: equal rights or different rights? In Advocating for
Children: International Perspectives on Children’s Rights. Smith A, Gollop M, Marshall K Nairn K
(eds.). University of Otago Press: Dunedin; 32–41.
Carvalho M, Perry A, Bebko J, Minnes P. 2014. BRIEF REPORT: social inclusion of Ontario children
with developmental disabilities in community settings. Journal on Developmental Disabilities 20: 37.
Cocker C, Scott S. 2006. Improving the mental and emotional well-being of looked after children: connect-
ing research, policy and practice. Journal of the Royal Society for the Promotion of Health 126:18–23.
Cooney G, Jahoda A, Gumley A, Knott F. 2006. Young people with intellectual disabilities attending
mainstream and segregated schooling: perceived stigma, social comparison and future aspirations.
Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 50(Pt 6): 432–444. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2788.2006.00789.x.
Cummins RA, Lau ALD. 2003. Community integration or community exposure? A review and discus-
sion in relation to people with an intellectual disability. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual
Disabilities 16: 145–157.
Diamond KE, Hong SY, Tu H. 2008. Context influences preschool children’s decisions to include a peer
with a physical disability in play. Exceptionality 16(3): 141–155.
Diamond K, Tu H. 2009. Relations between classroom context, physical disability and preschool chil-
dren’s inclusion decisions. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 30:75–81. doi:10.1016/j.ap
pdev.2008.10.008.
Donohue DK, Bornman J. 2015. South African teachers’ attitudes toward the inclusion of learners with
different abilities in mainstream classrooms. International Journal of Disability, Development and
Education 62:42–59. doi:10.1080/1034912x.2014.985638.
Dyson LL. 2005. Kindergarten children’s understanding of and attitudes toward people with disabilities.
Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 25(2): 95–105.
Estell DB, Jones MH, Pearl R, Van Acker R. 2009. Best friendships of students with and without learn-
ing disabilities across late elementary school. Exceptional Children 76: 110–124.
Frazee C. 2003. Thumbs up! Inclusion, rights and equality as experienced by youth with disabilities.
Laidlaw Foundation Working Paper Series: Perspectives on Social Inclusion. Laidlaw Foundation:
Toronto, ON.
Frostad P, Pijl SJ. 2007. Does being friendly help in making friends? The relation between the social
position and social skills of pupils with special needs in mainstream education. European Journal of
Special Needs Education 22(1): 15–30.
Fulcher G. 1989. Disabling Policies? A Comparative Approach to Education Policy and Disability. Fal-
mer Press: London.
Gasser L, Malti T, Buholzer A. 2014. Swiss children’s moral and psychological judgments about inclusion
and exclusion of children with disabilities. Child Development 85: 532–548. doi:10.1111/cdev.12124.
Gibb K, Tunbridge D, Chua A, Frederickson N. 2007. Pathways to inclusion: moving from special school
to mainstream. Educational Psychology in Practice 23: 109–127. doi:10.1080/02667360701320770.
Gibbs LE. 1989. Quality of study rating form: an instrument for synthesizing evaluation studies. Journal
of Social Work Education. Available at http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10437797.1989.
10671270#.U2A-bK1dU00 [Accessed 1 June 2016].
Gibbs LE. 2003. Evidence-based Practice for the Helping Professions: A Practical Guide with Integrated
Media. Brooks Cole an Imprint of Wadsworth Publisher: Belmont, CA.
Guerra NG, Graham S, Tolan PH. 2011. Raising healthy children: translating child development research
into practice. Child Development 82:7–16.
Guralnick MJ, Hammond MA, Connor RT, Neville B. 2006. Stability, change, and correlates of the peer
relationships of young children with mild developmental delays. Child Development 77: 312–324.
Guralnick MJ, Neville B, Hammond MA, Connor RT. 2007. The friendships of young children with devel-
opmental delays: a longitudinal analysis. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 28:64–79.
Guralnick MJ, Connor RT, Neville B, Hammond MA. 2008a. Developmentally delayed children’s influ-
ence attempts with mothers predict interactions with peers over time. Journal of Applied Develop-
mental Psychology 29: 238–248. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2008.02.002.
Social Inclusion for Children with Disabilities 9
©2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd and National Children’s Bureau CHILDREN & SOCIETY Vol. 32, 1–13 (2018)
Guralnick MJ, Neville B, Hammond MA, Connor RT. 2008b. Continuity and change from full-inclusion
early childhood programs through the early elementary period. Journal of Early Intervention 30:
237–250.
Hamaidi D, Homidi M, Reyes LV. 2012. International views of inclusive education: a comparative study
of early childhood educator’s perceptions in Jordan, United Arab Emirates, and the United States of
America. International Journal of Special Education 27:94–101.
Hamilton D. 2005. An ecobehavioural analysis of interactive engagement of children with developmen-
tal disabilities with their peers in inclusive preschools. International Journal of Disability, Develop-
ment and Education 52: 121–137. doi:10.1080/10349120500086363.
Hammel J, Magasi S, Heinemann A, Whiteneck G, Bogner J, Rodriguez E. 2008. What does participa-
tion mean? An insider perspective from people with disabilities. Disability and Rehabilitation 30:
1445–1460. doi:10.1080/09638280701625534.
Hanvey L. 2001. Children and Youth with Special Needs: Summary Report of Findings. Canadian Coun-
cil on Social Development: Ottawa, ON.
Hill M, Davis J, Prout A, Tisdall K. 2004. Moving the participation agenda forward. Children & Society
18:77–96.
Horrocks JL, White G, Roberts L. 2008. Principals’ attitudes regarding inclusion of children with autism
in Pennsylvania public schools. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 38: 1462–1473.
doi:10.1007/s10803-007-0522-x.
Huckstadt LK, Shutts K. 2014. How young children evaluate people with and without disabilities. Jour-
nal of Social Issues 70(1): 99–114.
Human Resources and Skills Development Canada. 2011. Disability in Canada: A 2006 Profile. Human
Resources and Skills Development Canada: Ottawa, ON.
Hutzler Y, Zach S, Gafni O. 2005. Physical education students’ attitudes and self-efficacy towards the
participation of children with special needs in regular classes. European Journal of Special Needs
Education 20: 309–327. doi:10.1080/08856250500156038.
Jones AP, Frederickson N. 2010. Multi-informant predictors of social inclusion for students with autism
spectrum disorders attending mainstream school. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 40:
1094–1103. doi:10.1007/s10803-010-0957-3.
Kemp C, Carter M. 2005. Identifying skills for promoting successful inclusion in kindergarten. Journal
of Intellectual and Developmental Disability 30:31–44. doi:10.1080/13668250500033110.
Kishida Y, Kemp C. 2009. The engagement and interaction of children with autism spectrum disorder in
segregated and inclusive early childhood center-based settings. Topics in Early Childhood Special
Education 29: 105–118.
Koster M, Pijl SJ, Nakken H, Van Houten E. 2010. Social participation of students with special needs in
regular primary education in the Netherlands. International Journal of Disability, Development and
Education 57:59–75. doi:10.1080/10349120903537905.
Krull J, Wilbert J, Hennemann T. 2014. The social and emotional situation of first graders with class-
room behavior problems and classroom learning difficulties in inclusive classes. Learning Disabili-
ties–A Contemporary Journal 12: 161–190.
Kufeldt K, McKenzie B (eds.). 2011. Child Welfare: Connecting Research, Policy, and Practice, 2nd edn.
Wilfred Laurier UP: Waterloo, ON.
Kutnick P, Brighi A, Avgitidou S, Genta ML, H€
annik€
ainen M, Karlsson-Lohmander M, Kutnick P, Brighi
A, Avgitidou S, Genta ML, Hannikainen M, Karlsson-Lohmander M, Rautamies E, Colwell J, Tsala-
giorgou E, Mazzanti C, Nicoletti S, Sansavini A, Guarini A, Romera E, Monks C, Lofqvist M. 2007.
The role and practice of interpersonal relationships in European early education settings: sites for
enhancing social inclusion, personal growth and learning. European Early Childhood Education
Research Journal 15: 379–406. doi:10.1080/13502930701679429.
Lasgaard M, Nielsen A, Eriksen ME, Goossens L. 2010. Loneliness and social support in adolescent boys
with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of autism and developmental disorders 40(2): 218–226.
Le Boutillier C, Croucher A. 2010. Social inclusion and mental health. British Journal of Occupational
Therapy 73: 136–139.
10 Donna Koller et al.
©2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd and National Children’s Bureau CHILDREN & SOCIETY Vol. 32, 1–13 (2018)
Leyser Y, Kirk R. 2004. Evaluating inclusion: an examination of parent views and factors influencing
their perspectives. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education 51: 271–285.
Lindsay S, McPherson AC. 2012. Experiences of social exclusion and bullying at school among children
and youth with cerebral palsy. Disability and Rehabilitation 34: 101–109. doi:10.3109/09638288.
2011.587086.
Lindsay S, McPherson AC, Aslam H, McKeever P, Wright V. 2012. Exploring children’s perceptions of
two school-based social inclusion programs: a pilot study. Child & Youth Care Forum 42:1–18.
doi:10.1007/s10566-012-9183-9.
Martin L, Cobigo V. 2011. Definitions matter in understanding social inclusion. Journal of Policy and
Practice in Intellectual Disabilities 8: 276–282.
M^
asse LC, Miller AR, Shen J, Schiariti V, Roxborough L. 2012. Comparing participation in activities
among children with disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities 33: 2245–2254.
Maunganidze L, Kasayira JM, Ruhode N, Shonhiwa L, Sodi T. 2007. Teacher attitudes towards the inclu-
sion of children with mild hearing impairments into the regular school settings. Journal of Psychol-
ogy in Africa 17: 141–14481.
McCoy S, Banks J. 2012. Simply academic? Why children with special educational needs don’t like
school. European Journal of Special Needs Education 27:81–97. doi:10.1080/08856257.2011.640487.
McDougall J, King G, De Wit DJ, Miller LT, Hong S, Offord DR, Laporta J, Meyer K. 2004. Chronic
physical health conditions and disability among Canadian school-aged children: a national profile.
Disability and Rehabilitation 26(1): 35–45.
Murray C, Greenberg MT. 2006. Examining the importance of social relationships and social contexts in
the lives of children with high-incidence disabilities. The Journal of Special Education 39: 220–233.
Nind M, Flewitt R, Payler J. 2010. The social experience of early childhood for children with learning dis-
abilities: inclusion, competence and agency. British Journal of Sociology of Education 31: 653–670.
Odom SL, Zercher C, Li S, Marquart JM, Sandall S, Brown WH. 2006. Social acceptance and rejection
of preschool children with disabilities: a mixed-method analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology
98: 807–823. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.98.4.807.
Peterson DB. 2005. International classification of functioning, disability and health: an introduction for
rehabilitation psychologists. Rehabilitation Psychology 50: 105–112.
Pijl SJ, Frostad P, Flem A. 2008. The social position of pupils with special needs in regular schools.
Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 52(4): 387–405.
Pijl SJ, Frostad P. 2010. Peer acceptance and self-concept of students with disabilities in regular educa-
tion. European Journal of Special Needs Education 25:93–105. doi:10.1080/08856250903450947.
Purdue K. 2009. Barriers to and facilitators of inclusion for children with disabilities in early childhood
education. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood 10: 133–143.
Recchia SL, Lee YJ. 2004. At the crossroads: overcoming concerns to envision possibilities for toddlers
in inclusive child care. Journal of Research in Childhood Education 19: 175–188.
Rheams TA, Bain SK. 2005. Social interaction interventions in an inclusive era: attitudes of teachers in
early childhood self-contained and inclusive settings. Psychology in the Schools 42:53–63. doi:10.
1002/pits.20029.
Richard BO. 2014. Families, well-being, and inclusion: rethinking priorities for children with cognitive
disabilities in Ladakh, India. Childhood 21: 308–323. doi:10.1177/0907568214526264.
Rosenberg L, Ratzon NZ, Jarus T, Bart O. 2012. Perceived environmental restrictions for the participa-
tion of children with mild developmental disabilities. Child: Care, Health & Development 38: 836–
843. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2214.2011.01303.x.
Rotheram-Fuller E, Kasari C, Chamberlain B, Locke J. 2010. Social involvement of children with autism
spectrum disorders in elementary school classrooms. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 51:
1227–1234. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2010.02289.x.
Schleien SJ, Miller KD, Walton G, Pruett S. 2014. Parent perspectives of barriers to child participation
in recreational activities. Therapeutic Recreation Journal 48:61–73.
Schwab S, Gebhardt M, Gasteiger-Klicpera B. 2013. Predictors of social inclusion of students with and
without SEN in integrated settings. Hrvatska Revija za Rehabilitacijska Istra
zivanja 49(Supplement):
106–114.
Social Inclusion for Children with Disabilities 11
©2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd and National Children’s Bureau CHILDREN & SOCIETY Vol. 32, 1–13 (2018)
Seni
car M, Kobal Grum D. 2012. Self-concept and social support among adolescents with disabilities
attending special and mainstream schools. Hrvatska Revija za Rehabilitacijska Istra
zivanja 48:73–83.
Seymour H, Reid G, Bloom GA. 2009. Friendship in inclusive physical education. Adapted Physical
Activity Quarterly 26: 201–219.
Shakespeare T. 2006. Disability Rights and Wrongs. Routledge: London.
Siperstein GN, Parker RC, Bardon JN, Widaman KF. 2007. A national study of youth attitudes toward
the inclusion of students with intellectual disabilities. Exceptional Children 73(4): 435–455.
Snowdon A. 2012. Strengthening Communities for Canadian Children with Disabilities. The Sandbox
Project: Toronto, ON.
Soref B, Ratzon NZ, Rosenberg L, Leitner Y, Jarus T, Bart O. 2012. Personal and environmental path-
ways to participation in young children with and without mild motor disabilities. Child: Care, Health
& Development 38: 561–571. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2214.2011.01295.x.
Symes W, Humphrey N. 2010. Peer-group indicators of social inclusion among pupils with autistic
spectrum disorders (ASD) in mainstream secondary schools: a comparative study. School Psychology
International 31: 478–494. doi:10.1177/0143034310382496.
Taylor M, Houghton S. 2008. Difficulties in initiating and sustaining peer friendships: perspectives on
students diagnosed with AD/HD. British Journal of Special Education 35: 209–219.
Thomas C. 2004. Rescuing a social relational understanding of disability. Scandinavian Journal of Dis-
ability Research 6:22–36.
Trani J-F, Biggeri M, Mauro V. 2013. The multidimensionality of child poverty: evidence from Afghani-
stan. Social Indicators Research 112: 391–416. doi:10.1007/s11205-013-0253-7.
UNICEF. 2013. The State of the world’s children 2013. Available at http://www.unicef.org/sowc2013/f
iles/SWCR2013_ENG_Lo_res_24_Apr_2013.pdf [Accessed 1 April 2016].
U.S. Census Bureau (2010). American Community Survey: Disability Characteristics. Available from
www.census.gov.
van der Veen I, Smeets E, Derriks M. 2010. Children with special educational needs in the Netherlands:
number, characteristics and school career. Educational Research 52:15–43. doi:10.1080/
00131881003588147.
Appendix A
Table A1: Summary table of studies’ methods and participants
Participants
Methods
Qualitative (n=10) Quantitative (n=36) Mixed (n=8)
Children
(n=27)
Dyson (2005), Hammel
and others (2008),
Lindsay and
McPherson (2011),
Lindsay and
McPherson (2012) and
Seymour and others
(2009)
Cooney and others (2006), Estell
and others (2009), Frostad and
Pijl (2007), Gasser and others
(2014), Hamilton (2005),
Huckstadt and Shutts (2014),
Kishida and Kemp (2009), Koster
and others (2010), Krull and
others (2014), Lasgaard and
others (2010), McCoy and Banks
(2012), McDougall and others
(2004), Murray and Greenberg
(2006), Pijl and Frostad (2010),
Rotheram-Fuller and others
(2010), Seni
car and Kobal Grum
Bauminger and Kimhi-Kind
(2008), Diamond and Tu
(2008) and Odom and others
(2006)
(continued)
12 Donna Koller et al.
©2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd and National Children’s Bureau CHILDREN & SOCIETY Vol. 32, 1–13 (2018)
Correspondence to: Donna Koller, PhD, Ryerson University, 350 Victoria St. (KHS 363K), Toronto, Ontario, Canada
M5B 2K3, Tel.: (+1) 416 979-5000, ext. 2513; Fax: 416-979-5239. E-mail: dkoller@ryerson.ca
Accepted for publication 14 March 2017
Table A1 (continued)
Participants
Methods
Qualitative (n=10) Quantitative (n=36) Mixed (n=8)
(2012), Siperstein and others
(2007), Symes and Humphrey
(2010) and Trani and others
(2013)
Caregivers
(n=5)
Schleien and others
(2014)
Ault and others (2013), Martin and
Cobigo (2011) and Rosenberg and
others (2012)
Leyser and Kirk (2004)
Educators
(n=11)
Gibb and others (2007) Donohue and Bornman (2015),
Hamaidi and others (2012),
Horrocks and others (2008),
Hutzler and others (2005), Kemp
and Carter (2005), Maunganidze
and others (2007), Rheams and
Bain (2005) and van der Veen
and others (2010)
Alston and Kilham (2004) and
Kutnick and others (2007)
Children and
Caregivers
(n=5)
Richard (2014) Guralnick and others (2008a,b) and
Soref and others (2011)
Carvalho and others (2014) and
Guralnick and others (2006)
Children and
Educators
(n=2)
Pijl, Frostad and Flem (2008) and
Schwab and others (2013)
Children,
Caregivers
and
Educators
(n=4)
Recchia and Lee (2004)
and Taylor and
Houghton (2008)
Guralnick and others (2008a,b) and
Jones and Frederickson (2010)
Social Inclusion for Children with Disabilities 13
©2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd and National Children’s Bureau CHILDREN & SOCIETY Vol. 32, 1–13 (2018)