Comparing children's attitudes towards disability

Comparing children’s attitudes towards disabilityBernadette Cairns and Kirstie McClatchey

This study, carried out by Bernadette Cairns, princi-pal officer for Additional Support Needs and EarlyEducation in the Highland Council AdditionalSupport Needs Team, and Kirstie McClatchey,a research assistant in the Highland CouncilPsychological Service, explores children’s attitudestowards disability, making a comparison between aschool with a high number of pupils with additionalsupport and complex needs where the philosophywas one of inclusion, and a school with few childrenwith additional support needs. An opportunitysample of children (N = 82) in Scotland wasobtained, and interview data were collected frompupils regarding video clips they had viewed of chil-dren with varying disabilities. Results found thatchildren from the more inclusive school had agreater number of prior experiences of children withdisabilities, made different suggestions for helpingchildren with disabilities and had more positive atti-tudes towards having a pupil with disabilities intheir own class. To conclude, these findings suggestthat inclusion in schools may lead to a positiveeffect on children’s acceptance and understandingof disabilities.

Key words: attitudes, inclusion, additional supportneeds, primary education.

Inclusive education and the acceptance of difference is anissue not just within the UK but across the world, which iswhy research into inclusion in schools is extremely impor-tant. It is acknowledged that even with legislation and gov-ernment policy about inclusive practices, changing attitudesand practice is slow. One argument often given for limitedinclusion is that it will negatively affect the educationalexperiences of the majority of children. Research into theattitudes and experiences of children educated within aninclusive environment is therefore extremely important.

InclusionInclusion in education refers to educating students withvarying needs within the same context. In the inclusionmodel, students with additional support needs – forexample, learning difficulties or social, emotional or behav-ioural needs – spend most or all of their time with non-disabled students. It is different from integration, wherestudents with disabilities may be on the same campus asother students but are educated in a separate unit or class-room, only interacting with other students at social times.

Social effects of inclusionResearch indicates that inclusion in schools has a positiveimpact on the social aspects of children’s lives (Rafferty,Piscitelli & Boettcher, 2003). Research by Siperstein, Glickand Parker (2009) explored social acceptance of childrenwith and without intellectual disabilities in an inclusive,summer recreational programme. Results showed that chil-dren with and without intellectual disabilities were equallyaccepted by their peers. However, prior research has foundresults to the contrary with regard to social effects, withstudents with special educational needs being viewed aslower in social standing, having a less favourable position,and being less popular with fewer friends (Avramidis, 2012;Estell, Jones, Pearl, Van Acker, Farmer & Rodkin, 2008;Ruijs & Peetsma, 2009).

Academic effects of inclusionThere has been a wide range of research into inclusion andthe academic achievement of non-disabled students, whichgenerally indicates a neutral to positive effect of inclusion(Kalambouka, Farrell, Dyson & Kaplan, 2007; Ruijs &Peetsma, 2009). For example, research has found no differ-ences in academic achievement between students withoutspecial educational needs in inclusive and non-inclusiveclasses (Ruijs, Van der Veen & Peetsma, 2010). Ruijs andPeetsma (2009) also found the academic achievement ofstudents with and without special educational needs to becomparable to non-inclusive classes or even better in inclu-sive classes; however, they found that there may be somedifferential effects for high- and low-achieving studentswithout special educational needs.

With regard to differential effects for high- and low-achieving students, Huber, Rosenfeld and Fiorello (2001)found that low-achieving general education studentsappeared to benefit academically, while higher-achievingstudents lost ground. Litvack, Ritchie and Shore (2011) alsosupport this evidence and noted that high achievers reportedmore often that they learnt less. However, Dessemontet andBless (2013) found no significant difference in the progressof the low-, average-, or high-achieving pupils from class-rooms with or without inclusion, suggesting that inclusiondoes not have a negative impact on the progress of pupilswithout disability.

Research has also explored academic effects for studentswith additional support needs. Dessemontet, Bless andMorin (2012) found that included children made slightlymore progress in literacy skills than children attendingspecial schools. Therefore, it can be suggested that inclusive

bs_bs_banner

CHILDREN’S ATTITUDES TOWARDS DISABILITY

© 2013 NASENDOI: 10.1111/1467-8578.12033

education has a beneficial effect on the learning outcomes ofchildren with additional support needs.

Prior research into children’s attitudes towards disabilityThus far, there has been a lack of empirical research directlyexploring children’s attitudes towards disability in schoolsin the UK. Previous research has found that pupils from aninclusive school made significantly more relevant claims ofhaving prior experience of people with special needs, incomparison to a less inclusive school, and children were alsomore able to apply their previous knowledge of childrenwith additional support needs to other children with varyingneeds (Pennicard, Cairns, Hamilton, Hyndman, Reid &Sawers, 1990). Research in Europe has found that studentsgenerally hold neutral attitudes towards peers with disabil-ities, and that familiarity with a disabled person has a sig-nificantly positive effect on attitudes towards disability (deBoer, Pijl & Minnaert, 2012; de Laat, Freriksen & Vervloed,2013).

Therefore, due to the lack of research directly addressingchildren’s attitudes towards disability, the aim of thisresearch is to compare attitudes towards disability expressedby children educated in an inclusive environment with theattitudes of those educated in a less inclusive environment.In concordance with prior research, it was anticipated thatchildren in the more inclusive environment would havea greater number of prior experiences of children withdisabilities, a more positive attitude towards inclusion, anda better understanding of the needs of an individual withdisabilities.

MethodParticipantsFor the purpose of the research two schools in the north-eastof Scotland were used. The schools (A and B) were chosenby opportunity sampling and for their close proximity(within half a mile). School A was an inclusive school thatenrolled students with a range of needs, including physicaland medical needs as well as severe and complex learningdisabilities. At the time of the research, there were approxi-mately 400 pupils, with 8% having significant additionalsupport needs. All pupils were enrolled in a class andattended lessons with their peers. There was, however, smallgroup and individual teaching for pupils who required this,including those with disabilities where appropriate. Pupilswere not taught in a segregated provision and all curricularand social experiences were made available to all students.The control school used in this research (school B) hadapproximately 225 pupils and had very few pupils on rollwith significant learning difficulties (less than 2%), and atthe time of this study had no pupils on roll with physicaldisabilities or severe learning difficulties.

A total of 82 children participated in the research; 49 chil-dren were from school A and 33 from school B. Of thechildren from school A, 31 were in Primary 4 (eight to nineyears old) and 18 were in Primary 6 (10 to 11 years old). Ofthe children from school B, 12 were in Primary 4 and 21were in Primary 6. All children were recruited through an

opportunity sample, and the children who participated did soonly with parental consent, with anonymity and confidenti-ality guaranteed.

DesignThe main method used in this research was a structuredinterview design.

MaterialsDuring the research a video presentation was used whichconsisted of six video clips of different children withvarying needs and a teacher. The clips consisted of thefollowing:

Ë Clip One, Jada who has cerebral palsy.Ë Clip Two, Paul who is deaf.Ë Clip Three, David who has Down’s syndrome.Ë Clip Four, Andy who uses a wheelchair and has

normal cognitive functioning.Ë Clip Five, Lewis who has autism and severe learning

difficulties.Ë Clip Six, a teacher who is deaf and using sign lan-

guage to teach a hearing class.

During the study a predetermined set of seven questionswere used based on prior research (Pennicard et al., 1990).The questions were as follows:

Ë What did you notice about the child?Ë What would it be like to have the child in your class?Ë Are there ways that you could help the child?Ë Did you notice anything about the teacher?Ë Would you like to have a teacher like that in your

school and why?Ë Do you know anyone like the children in the videos?Ë Which of the children from the videos would you like

in your class and why?

During the research a projector was used in order to showthe video presentation. To record children’s responses tothe questions a video camera was used.

Data collection and analysisThe research took place during school hours throughoutJune 2011. Children were sent in groups of between threeand six to a separate room for the research to take place.Once there, children were informed what the research wasgoing to entail; what to expect; and the instructions ofthe interview. Once the children had been informed, thevideo camera was switched on. A video clip was thenshown and the children were asked the questions in acircular fashion, relating to the video they had justviewed. After each video clip was shown, and each set ofquestions had been asked, children were thanked for theirco-operation and given a sticker for their contributiontowards the research.

Appropriate statistical tests were used depending on thetype of data available from the answers to the individualquestions; these included chi-square and Fisher exact tests.

© 2013 NASEN British Journal of Special Education · Volume 40 · Number 3 · 2013 125

The significance values chosen were values of better than5% (p < 0.05). Assumptions for the tests were assessed, andany violations are noted in the results.

ResultsQuestion 1: ‘What did you notice about the child?’The answers the children gave were categorised asfollows:

Ë Academic: this included statements such as ‘he/shecan’t count very well’.

Ë Communication: this included statements such as ‘he/she uses sign language’.

Ë Physical: this included statements such as ‘he/shecan’t hold things’.

Ë Special Aids: this included statements such as ‘he/sheis using a wheelchair’.

Results for the video of Paul found that children fromschool A and school B made significantly differentcomments (χ2 = 6.18, df = 2, p = 0.046). Childrenfrom school A noticed significantly more academiccharacteristics than children from school B, and schoolB noticed more communication characteristics thanexpected. Responses for the videos of Jada, David, Andyand Lewis could not be analysed as all had two cells(25%) with an expected count less than 5, and themaximum percentage of cells that can be below expectedcounts is 20%.

Question 2: ‘What would it be like to have the child inyour class?’The answers the children gave were categorised in the fol-lowing ways:

Ë Same: including comments such as ‘it wouldn’t beany different’.

Ë Positive: including comments such as ‘good, becauseI could help him’.

Ë Negative: including comments such as ‘the teacherwould have to spend more time with him/her.’

Results for this question found that children from schoolB made significantly fewer positive and more negativecomments than expected (χ2 = 6.82, df = 2, p = 0.033)about having Jada in their class. Results of commentsfor Lewis were significant at the 10% level (χ2 = 5.32,df = 2, p = 0.07), with school B giving more negativecomments than would be expected, and the numbersstating it would be the same having Lewis in their classless than expected. Results for Paul were also significantat the 10% level (χ2 = 5.91, df = 2, p = 0.05) withschool B commenting that having Paul in their classwould be the same much less than expected, andchildren from school B being more likely to make nega-tive comments about having Paul in their class. Theresults for Andy and David were not significantly differ-ent between schools (p > 0.10).

Question 3: ‘Are there ways that you could help thechild?’The answers were categorised as follows:

Ë Academic: for example, ‘I would help him/her withreading’.

Ë Social and Communication: for example, ‘I could behis/her friend’ or ‘I would talk to them’.

Ë General Help: for example, ‘I could pick things up forhim/her’.

Results were significantly different between schools forJada (χ2 = 7.436, df, 2, p = 0.024), with school A offeringless academic help than would be expected and moregeneral help than expected. School B offered less generalhelp than expected and more academic help than expected.Results for Paul were also significantly different (χ2 =12.64, df, 2, p = 0.002), with school A offering less aca-demic help than expected compared to school B and moresocial and communication help than expected. Results forDavid, Andy and Lewis all had two cells (33.3%) with anexpected count less than 5, and therefore could not beanalysed.

Questions 4 and 5: teacher questionsThe children from each school viewed a video clip of ateacher using sign language to teach a class. All childrenfrom both schools noticed that the teacher was deaf, withalmost all children indicating the teacher was using signlanguage. There was no statistical difference betweenschools on views of having a deaf teacher (p > 0.05).

Question 6: prior experienceThe children were then asked whether they knew anyone likethe children in the videos. If they specified someone who hasa disability this was counted as a relevant claim, with thefrequencies of claims being noted in Table 1. School Apupils made significantly more relevant claims in compari-son with school B pupils (two-tailed Fisher exact p = 0.008),with school B having a less than expected number of rel-evant claims.

Question 7: ‘Which of the children would you like in yourclass, and why?’The children were asked which child from the videos theywould rather have in their class. As the data violated assump-tions it could not be statistically analysed; however, therewere some large differences in the percentage of each childpicked. School A chose Andy 43.5% of the time; thisdropped to 24.2% in school B. Children in school A pickedany of the children 23.9% of the time; however, in school B

Table 1: Frequency of relevant and irrelevant claims

Relevant Irrelevant

School A 42 0School B 18 2

126 British Journal of Special Education · Volume 40 · Number 3 · 2013 © 2013 NASEN

this rose to 42.4%. There were no significant differencesbetween school A and B in why they chose a particularclassmate (p > 0.05).

DiscussionIn concordance with the prior research, it was anticipatedthat children in an inclusive school environment would havea higher number of prior experiences of children with dis-abilities, a more positive attitude towards inclusion, and alsoa better understanding of the needs of an individual withdisabilities. The research supports this, as children fromschool A had a higher number of prior experiences of chil-dren with disabilities and more positive attitudes towardschildren with disabilities, and gave what could be regardedas more appropriate suggestions for help for children withdisabilities.

In support of the previous research (Pennicard et al., 1990),children from school A made significantly more relevantclaims of prior experience of those with disabilities incomparison with school B pupils. This shows that childrenin an inclusive environment are able to interact with chil-dren with disabilities, whereas children in a less inclusiveenvironment may never interact with children with varyingneeds throughout their school life. Some children fromschool B made comments such as, ‘I have never metanyone in a wheelchair before’. Given the close proximityof the schools, it would be expected that out of schoolboth sets of pupils would have similar experiences,including the opportunity to meet people with a range ofdisabilities.

Awareness of and interacting with others with disabilities isimportant for acceptance and positive attitudes towards dis-ability. For example, research has found that students whocomplete disability awareness programmes report morefavourable attitudes towards people with disabilities (Ison,McIntyre, Rothery, Smithers-Sheedy, Goldsmith, Parsonage& Foy, 2010; Moore & Nettelbeck, 2013; Rillotta &Nettelbeck, 2007). Raising awareness is important to createmore favourable attitudes towards disability, as researchshows that students with disabilities, both visible and non-visible, experienced bullying more than their general educa-tion peers (Carter & Spencer, 2006). Therefore, due toschool A having prior experience of other children withdisability it can be suggested that they may be more accept-ing of children with disabilities.

When children were asked to comment on what they noticedabout each child from the videos, children from school Anoticed significantly more academic characteristics for Paulthan children from school B, and school B noticed morecommunication characteristics than expected. Children inschool A may have noticed communication differences lessas they have prior experience and therefore did not interpretit to be anything out of the ordinary. As Paul was learning tocount on the video clip, this may be why they picked up onthe academic aspect instead of the communication difficul-ties he was having, due to his disability.

In this research, the children were asked ‘what would it belike to have the child in your class?’ referring to the childthey had just viewed on the video clip. Results found thatchildren from school B made significantly less positive andmore negative comments than expected about having Jada intheir class. This could be due to school B having a lack ofawareness of those with severe learning disabilities. Withregard to Paul, children from school B were more likely tomake negative comments about having Paul in their classsuch as ‘he is too loud’, or ‘he is too hyper’. This couldindicate that the pupils from school B were more focused onthe possible intrusive or distracting behaviours of such apupil, through their lack of experience.

Results for Lewis were also significantly different, withschool B giving more negative comments than would beexpected, and indicating it would be the same having Lewisin their class much less than would be expected. This showsthat perhaps children in the more inclusive environment aremore accepting of those with autism. Notably, at the time ofthis study there were a significant number of pupils withautism spectrum disorder enrolled in school A, which mayexplain the higher number of positive comments from chil-dren in school A, and children being more likely to say itwould be the same having Lewis in their class.

During the study, children from the schools offered signifi-cantly different suggestions for help. For example, school Aoffered Jada less academic help and more general help thanexpected in comparison to school B. This could perhaps bebecause school A has a better understanding of practicalneeds of someone like Jada, who has profound learningdisabilities and is a wheelchair user. Results for Paul foundthat school A also offered less academic help and moresocial and communication help than expected in comparisonto school B. This could be that children from school Bunderstand how to help others academically, and those fromschool A probably know how to interact and communicatebetter with someone like Paul. This shows that children frominclusive environments may be better equipped to providehelp or offer more suitable suggestions for help to those withdisabilities, due to their prior experience of disabilities. Thiscoincides with research that found siblings of children withlearning disabilities showed greater understanding of dis-abled children’s difficulties compared to their classmates(Hames, 2005).

During the research, children from both schools noticed thatthe teacher in the video clip was deaf, with almost all indi-cating the teacher was using sign language. This shows thateven children from a less inclusive environment have knowl-edge of sign language regardless of whether they had evermet a deaf person. When asked whether they would like adeaf teacher in their school, children from both schoolsmade a mixture of positive and negative comments. Nega-tive comments included ‘it would be hard because we wouldhave to learn sign language’. However, children from bothschools indicated that learning sign language would be auseful skill, and as the UK has an ageing population, teach-ing sign language in schools should be considered as there

© 2013 NASEN British Journal of Special Education · Volume 40 · Number 3 · 2013 127

will be an estimated 14.5 million people with hearing loss by2031 and predictions have also been made that by 2030 adultonset hearing loss will be in the top 10 disease burdens in theUK (Mathers & Loncar, 2005; Action on Hearing Loss,2012).

Finally, the children were asked which child from the videosthey would rather have in their class. There were some largedifferences in the percentage of each child picked, withschool A choosing Andy 45.5% of the time, compared to25% choosing Andy from school B. This could be thatchildren from school A were aware that Andy had no learn-ing disabilities and only physical disabilities. Children fromschool A made positive comments about having Andy as aclassmate such as ‘it would be fun because we could playand race with him’ and ‘it looks like fun spinning in hiswheelchair’. Perhaps children from school B had lessexperience of others in wheelchairs which could account forthe lower percentage choosing Andy.

Strengths and limitationsA major strength of the research was the ability to speak tochildren and gain their views about how they feel aboutinclusion and their understanding of disabilities. Therewere however, some methodological limitations of theresearch. For example, the structured interview formatmay have limited the responses that children gave for theresearch, as there is limited scope for the children toanswer in any depth. Also, a possible limitation of thestudy was that the children were aware that they werebeing videotaped and therefore may have been influenced

by the Hawthorne effect, especially within this research asattitudes towards disability are often emotive, and theremay have been some apprehension in answering and adesire to avoid offending others.

Further researchResearch has found that teachers indicate positive attitudestowards inclusion (Humphrey & Symes, 2013) and inclusionseems to have a positive effect on children’s lives (Raffertyet al., 2003). Therefore, a nationwide study into the attitudeschildren have towards inclusion would be helpful to supportany required changes in policy on inclusion, as research hasfound that the development of more inclusive schoolsremains one of the biggest challenges facing educationsystems throughout the world (Ainscow, Booth & Dyson,2006).

ConclusionsOverall, this research set out to explore children’s attitudestowards disability and it was found that children from aninclusive environment had more experience, more positiveattitudes towards disabilities and a better understanding ofthe needs of an individual with disabilities in comparison tochildren who are in a less inclusive environment. Thepresent study provides valuable insight into children’s atti-tudes towards disability and provides evidence of the posi-tive development in social learning and empathy for primaryschool-aged children who are educated alongside childrenwith disabilities. Therefore, in line with the results of thisresearch, it can be suggested that inclusion may have animpact on creating more positive attitudes towards disability.

ReferencesAction on Hearing Loss (2012) Facts and Figures on

Hearing Loss and Tinnitus [online at http://www.actiononhearingloss.org.uk/supporting-you/factsheets-and-leaflets/deaf-awareness.aspx].

Ainscow, M., Booth, T. & Dyson, A. (2006) ImprovingSchools, Developing Inclusion. New York: Routledge.

Avramidis, E. (2012) ‘Self-concept, social position andsocial participation of pupils with SEN in mainstreamprimary schools’, Research Papers in Education.Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/02671522.2012.673006

Carter, B. B. & Spencer, V. G. (2006) ‘The fear factor:bullying and students with disabilities’, InternationalJournal of Special Education, 21 (1), 11–13.

de Boer, A., Pijl, S. J. & Minnaert, A. (2012) ‘Students’attitudes towards peers with disabilities: a review of theliterature’, International Journal of Disability,Development and Education, 59 (4), 379–392.doi:10.1080/1034912X.2012.723944

de Laat, S., Freriksen, E. & Vervloed, M. P. J. (2013)‘Attitudes of children and adolescents toward personswho are deaf, blind, paralyzed or intellectuallydisabled’, Research in Developmental Disabilities, 34(2), 855–863. doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2012.11.004

Dessemontet, R. S. & Bless, G. (2013) ‘The impact ofincluding children with intellectual disability in generaleducation classrooms on the academic achievement oftheir low-, average-, and high-achieving peers’, Journalof Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 38 (1),23–30. doi:10.3109/13668250.2012.757589

Dessemontet, R. S., Bless, G. & Morin, D. (2012) ‘Effectsof inclusion on the academic achievement and adaptivebehaviour of children with intellectual disabilities’,Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 56 (6),579–587. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2788.2011.01497.x

Estell, D. B., Jones, M. H., Pearl, R., Van Acker, R.,Farmer, T. W. & Rodkin, P. C. (2008) ‘Peer groups,popularity, and social preference trajectories of socialfunctioning among students with and without learningdisabilities’, Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41(1),5–14. doi:10.1177/0022219407310993

Hames, A. (2005) ‘How younger siblings of children withlearning disabilities understand the cognitive and socialimplications of learning disabilities’, European Journalof Special Needs Education, 20 (1), 3–19. doi:10.1080/0885625042000319052

Huber, K. D., Rosenfeld, J. G. & Fiorello, A. (2001) ‘Thedifferential impact of inclusion and inclusive practiceson high, average and low achieving general education

128 British Journal of Special Education · Volume 40 · Number 3 · 2013 © 2013 NASEN

students’, Psychology in the Schools, 38 (6), 497–504.doi:10.1002/pits.1038

Humphrey, N. & Symes, W. (2013) ‘Inclusive educationfor pupils with autistic spectrum disorders in secondarymainstream schools: teacher attitudes, experience andknowledge’, International Journal of InclusiveEducation, 17 (1), 32–46. doi:10.1080/13603116.2011.580462

Ison, N., McIntyre, S., Rothery, S., Smithers-Sheedy, H.,Goldsmith, S., Parsonage, S. & Foy, S. (2010) ‘ “Justlike you”: a disability awareness programme forchildren that enhanced knowledge, attitudes andacceptance: pilot study findings’, DevelopmentalNeurorehabilitation, 13 (5), 360–368. doi:10.3109/17518423.2010.496764

Kalambouka, A., Farrell, P., Dyson, A. & Kaplan, I.(2007) ‘The impact of placing pupils with specialeducational needs in mainstream schools on theachievement of their peers’, Educational Research, 49(4), 365–382. doi:10.1080/00131880701717222

Litvack, M. S., Ritchie, K. C. & Shore, B. M. (2011)‘High and average-achieving students’ perceptions ofdisabilities and of students with disabilities in inclusiveclassrooms’, Exceptional Children, 77 (4), 474–487.

Mathers, C. D. & Loncar, D. (2005) Updated Projectionsof Global Mortality and Burden of Disease,2002–2030: data sources, methods and results [onlineat http://www.who.int/healthinfo/statistics/bodprojectionspaper.pdf].

Moore, D. & Nettelbeck, T. (2013) ‘Effects of short-termdisability awareness training on attitudes of adolescentschoolboys toward persons with a disability’, Journal ofIntellectual and Developmental Disability. Advanceonline publication. doi:10.3109/13668250.2013.790532

Pennicard, I., Cairns, B., Hamilton, E., Hyndman, K.,Reid, J. & Sawers, R. (1990) ‘A description andevaluation of integration at Greenburn and MaxwelltonSchools.’ Scottish Office Education Department/

Regional Psychological Services. Working withIndividuals and Groups. Professional DevelopmentInitiatives (1990–1991).

Rafferty, Y., Piscitelli, V. & Boettcher, C. (2003) ‘Theimpact of inclusion on language development andsocial competence among preschoolers withdisabilities’, Exceptional Children, 69 (4), 467–479.

Rillotta, F. & Nettelbeck, T. (2007) ‘Effects of anawareness program on attitudes of students without anintellectual disability towards persons with anintellectual disability’, Journal of Intellectual andDevelopmental Disability, 32 (1), 19–27.

Ruijs, N. M. & Peetsma, T. T. D. (2009) ‘Effects ofinclusion on students with and without specialeducational needs reviewed’, Educational ResearchReview, 4 (2), 67–79. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2009.02.002

Ruijs, N. M., Van der Veen, I. & Peetsma, T. T. D. (2010)‘Inclusive education and students without specialeducational needs’, Educational Research, 52 (4),351–390. doi:10.1080/00131881.2010.524749

Siperstein, G. N., Glick, G. C. & Parker, R. C. (2009)‘Social inclusion of children with intellectualdisabilities in a recreational setting’, Intellectual andDevelopmental Disabilities, 47 (2), 97–107.doi:10.1352/1934-9556-47.2.97

Address for correspondence:Kirstie McClatcheyHighland Council Psychological Service11–13 Culcabock AvenueInverness IV2 3RGUKEmail: kirstie.mcclatchey@highland.gov.uk

Article submitted: August 2012Accepted for publication: July 2013

© 2013 NASEN British Journal of Special Education · Volume 40 · Number 3 · 2013 129