Children's Attitudes Toward Peers With Severe Disabilities: Revisiting Contact Theory€¦ · · 2007-09-14With Severe Disabilities: Revisiting Contact Theory ... checklist and

ADAPTED PHYSICAL ACTIVITY QUARTERLY, 2000,17,176-196 O 2000 Human Kinetics Publishers, Inc.

Children's Attitudes Toward Peers With Severe Disabilities:

Revisiting Contact Theory

David Slininger Azle Independent School District, Texas

Claudine Shearill Texas Woman's University at Denton

Catherine M. Jankowski University of Colorado Health Sciences Center at Denver

The purpose was to compare the effects of three physical education settings (structured contact, nonstructured contact, and no contact) on attitudes of children toward peers with severe mental retardation who used wheelchairs. Contact theory (Allport, 1954) guided the study. Participants were 13 1 Grade 4 students (62 females, 69 males) in three intact classes that were randomly assigned to treatments. During the experimental period (4 weeks, 20 sessions, each 25 min), two children in wheelchairs were integrated into each contact class, and a special helper model was implemented. The experimental design was pretest- posttest randomized groups. Attitudes were assessed by an adjective checklist and an intention survey. A three-way ANOVA (Gender X Group X Time) revealed that females had significantly better attitudes than males. Subsequent analysis revealed that males in the structured contact group improved significantly on the adjective checklist, whereas males in the nonstructured contact group improved significantly on the intention survey.

Little research has been conducted on the attitudes of children toward peers with disabilities andlor inclusion in a physical education setting (Archie & Sherrill, 1989; Block & Malloy, 1998; Block & Zeman, 1996; Tripp, French, & Sherrill, 1995). Yet, attitudes of peers are considered one of the most important variables in

David Slininger is with the Azle Independent School District in Azle, Texas; Claudine Sherrill is with the Kinesiology Department at Texas Woman's University at Denton, TX 76204; Catherine M. Jankowski is with the Health Sciences Center at the University of Colorado at Denver.

Revisiting Contact Theory 177

successful integration of children with and without disabilities (Sherrill, Heikinaro- Johansson, & Slininger, 1994; S h e d , 1998; Tripp & Sherrill, 1991). Shed(1998, p. 225) states in this regard: "The key to changing behaviors toward people who are different is attitudes. This is the essence of adapted physical activity, integration, and inclusion."

Numerous definitions of attitude exist (Antonak & Livneh, 1988; Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Tripp & Sherrill, 1991). Some theorists restrict the term attitude to "a person's evaluation of any psychological object" (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980, p. 27) but posit attitude theories (e.g., reasoned action) that include separate components for beliefs, attitudes, intentions, and behaviors. Other theorists conceptual- ize attitude as multidimensional and emphasize the importance of measuring cognitive, affective, and behavioral components. Illustrative of this approach, Triandis (1971, p. 2) states: "An attitude is an idea (cognitive component) charged with emotion (affective component) which predisposes (cognitive component) a class of actions (behavioral component) to a particular class of social situations." Sherrill (1998, p. 7) simplified the concepts of Triandis (1971) in the following definition of attitude, which we accepted for use in the present study: "Attitude is an enduring set of beliefs charged with emotion that predisposes a person to certain kinds of behaviors."

Although definitions may vary, Antonak and Livneh (1988, pp. 9-10) note that there seems to be a consensus that attitude research should be based on the following concepts:

(a) attitudes are learned through experience and interaction with other people; (b) attitudes are complex, multicomponent structures; (c) attitudes are relatively stable (even rigid) as evidenced by their resistance to change; (d) attitudes have a specific social object as a referent (e.g., people, situations, events, ideas); (e) attitudes vary in their quantity and quality, possessing different degrees of motivating force (intensity, strength), and direction (toward, against, away from the attitude referent); and (f) attitudes are manifested behaviorally via predisposition to act in a certain way when the individual encounters the attitude referent.

These six concepts provided the structural framework for our study of attitudes of children in physical education toward "a specific social object as referent" (i-e., peers with severe mental retardation who used wheelchairs). Of the many theories of relevance to adapted physical educators (Tripp & Sherrill, 1991), we selected contact theory (Allport, 1954) to guide our research. This theory, although often misunderstood andlor misquoted, remains the gold standard in designing school and community practices that reduce prejudice and discrimination among people who perceive themselves and others as different (Brown, 1995; Fishbein, 1996; Kunda, 1999; Makas, 1993).

A basic assumption of our study, related to the selection of contact theory, was that children who are vastly different from the normative or majority group (e.g., those with severe multiple disabilities) experience prejudice and discrirnina- tion (Goffman, 1963; Sherrill, 1998; Wright, 1983). According to Allport (1954, p. 12), prejudice "is a pattern of hostility in interpersonal relations which is directed against an entire group, or against its individual members." This hostility is

1 78 Slininger, Sherrill, and Jankowski

expressed by various degrees of negative action: antilocution (talking about others, usually with like-minded friends), avoidance, discrimination (unequal treatment that is unfair or hurtful), physical attack, and extermination. To clarify the meaning of discrimination, Allport cites a 1949 United Nations document that states that "discrimination includes any conduct based on a distinction made on grounds of natural or social categories, which have no relation to either individual capacities or merits, or to the concrete behavior of the individual person." Segre- gation is specified as an "institutionalized form of discrimination, enforced legally or by common custom" (Allport, 1954, p. 15).

Contact Theory

Gordon W. Allport first posited contact theory in a comprehensive book entitled The Nature of Prejudice, which explored numerous kinds of prejudice and discrimination (religious, racial, ethnic, socioeconomic, and gender). The 31 chap- ters comprising this book are grouped under seven headings: (a) preferential thinking, (b) group differences, (c) perceiving and thinking about group differences, (d) sociocultural factors, (e) acquiring prejudice, ( f ) the dynamics of prejudice, (g) character structure, and (h) reducing group tensions. Throughout the book, Allport emphasizes that prejudice has multiple causation and that reduction of prejudice must therefore be multifaceted. Full understanding of contact theory re- quires critical thinking about many concepts.

Simplified, however, contact theory posits that prejudice and discrimination toward a minority group will be reduced when contact between individuals is designed and executed so that four conditions are met: (a) parties involved must share equal status; (b) the community must support and sanction the change; (c) individuals must be in pursuit of common objectives (i.e., be actively cooperating in meaningful activities); and (d) the association must be deep, genuine, and intimate (i-e., "of the sort that leads to the perception of common interests and common humanity between members of the two groups"; Allport, 1954, p. 281).

In his chapter on the effect of contact, Allport (1954) summarized research on each of these conditions. He particularly emphasized findings that casual contacts (as opposed to intimate or true acquaintance) are more likely to increase prejudice than to dispel prejudice. For example, when one sees a visible outgroup member, Allport (1954, p. 265) says it is natural for "a recollection of rumor, hear- say, tradition, or stereotype" to come to mind. Thus, theoretically every superficial contact made with an outgroup member strengthens the adverse mental associa- tions held. Moreover, because people are "sensitized to perceive signs that will c o n f m our stereotypes," we selectively see what we want to see (i.e., what we have been taught to see).

To reduce stereotypes and, therefore, prejudice and discrimination, Allport recommended that contact and acquaintance programs should "lead to a sense of equality in social status, should occur in ordinary purposeful pursuits, avoid artifi- ciality, and if possible enjoy the sanction of the community in which they occur" (p. 489). To heighten the intimacy of contacts, Allport strongly recommended the use of intercultural education and cultural pluralism approaches. He believed that structured direct experience should be supplemented with information designed to

pm~01 uaqm3 palqespuoujo w d aq uo uogeuypslp pm! aqnfa.id uy sawa.i3ap wqi papnpuo3 ( ~ £ 2 -6 '9661) uyaqqs~d ' u o g e ~ d o o ~ ssazppe IOU p!p wyl safpms a q l 8 u ~ a m o 3 -p!p leyl sarpws 9 aql pw uope.iadoo3 ssaqpe IOU p!p ieqi saFpws I 1 ayl roj pazamp 13eiuo3 jo A3e3rjja aq8upm%a.i uo!snpuo:, s,upqqs!g

.uope.iadoo3 uo pasmoj leyl sarpws 9 pm uoyie.iadoo3 ssazppe iou plp lnq (uopeBalu! xoj ma1 s,upqqs!g) 8 u p e a ~ s u ~ m 01 paupmad ley1 sapoaqi asaql uo paseq sayprqs 11 paMa!na.i pm! uog3npa.i aqntard q ! ~ pawposse ualjo 1sou.1 am ( m ! y ~ ~ a q pue izieiuo3) sau - o w OM) w q paie8s (9661) pqqsyd 'sanbpq3al a%wq3 aprqwe 01 30 pasn L1apy~ ISOW ayl seM 13eiuo3 13a.m~ $eq lnq 'a%ueq3 apwgle 01 q3eo.idde qayl roj saseq p3yazoaq a q alels iou p ~ p s.iaq3Easa.i 1sou.1 wyl pawsrpur (9861) a u o J .sylqs apw!lle ahg~sod q l r ~ pale!3osse azaM 13ezuo3 pam13m1suou %psn sarpnls ayl jo p q auo inoqe L~uo 'isequo3 UI -a%wq3 apw~lle aa!l!sod p pa1Insa.i A1luals!suo3 sa3uauadxa t3eiuo3 pamm.~s ~eqi patrodax 'sarpws 13eluo3 %u!zApm! ul'(o861) uosppuoa .q~masar uope~npa ppads uy 13muo3 jo asn ayl $0 sasApue poo% Lp~p3g -md luasa.id a.inle.ialg jo sMa!aa.i a a q ' ~ 0 ~ 6 1 aqI Igun sagg!qesrp y l ! ~ uazplnl:, P ~ M O I sapwpe a3wq3 01 q3masa.i uy pasn iou azaM 1x1~03 uo seap! s,trodlw

- p o d ~ w jo ssaua) 3yseq ayl ssazppe 01 p a p j seq hroayl 13~1~03 uo q3~asa.1 q3nm 1eq map Al1wpunqe s! Inq 'hroayl13eiuo3 uo .io salqepn asayl uo uoyle.ioqela raquty i ~ a d you op suo!$qpg axdg

(£92-292 .dd) .(leuogea.i3a.i 'Ie!luapysa.i 'pnse3 '.%-a) 13ep103 jo sea= 0) pm! lpIaq aqnCa.id jo ad& pua 13eluo3 aql%p3uauadxa pnpra - g q aql jo hqvuoszad (a) f ( h u n l o a q .io L.wlun~oa f p p g p .io par "a'!) 13e1uo3 ayl %u~punoms axaqdsourle ppos (p) fa3euyproqns lo aieu!p.ioradns 'aaye.iadoo3 ro aarqiadu.103 "a'!) 13eluo3 jo s13adse a1o.i (3) I(.ioy.iad -ns 'pnba 'zopaju! "a'!) 13eiuo3 jo si~adse sweis (q) fdIap3~ 'panloauy suos -lad jo .iaqmnu 'uorie.inp 'A3uanbarj '-a-!) 13~1~03 jo spadse a~ye$!~wnb (e)

:sapawe uo 13eiuoa jo i3aga a g %upmuo:, q3masa.i 8uy8ls -ap uaqM pa.iap!suo3 A~lnjam:, aq salqepa jo sauo8ale3 xys ieyl papuamo3a.i vodw .suoge1ar dnoBaluy %u!aordmy 03 q3eo.idde peorq hran e se pazgewda3uo3 snqi seM Lxoatp 13eiuo3 .sa3.inos uoy~emojuy ajqwpax3 pm! axmuadxa pa* yloq uiog am03 lsnw ' m d ~ 01 8u1pr033e 'sdnoB & r o u ~ moqe a S p a l ~ o q

(692 -6) .luap!aa sy dysuoge1a.i aangysod amos sl axaq ~ey l In8 .a%pa~~ouq jo 3tqnf.m ayl sa~fhuy ssaugpuaq raqaqM lo 'ssaugpualg sasne:, a%pal~ouq a q .iaqaqM z a p 11 ST rou S3apad swam ou Aq s! dgsuoyqa.i a u .sapwgp A~puauj p m 3m.ia101 roj a v m sdnoB h u o u p jo sraqwaut ylpu a3minpnb -3e pm! moqz a 2 p a l ~ o q ~ e y l uoysnpuo3 a q s.io~ej a~uapraa jo puaq a u

180 Slininger, Sherrill, and Jankowski

disabled ones cannot be explained by contact theory. The rationale for this conclu- sion was that none of the studies reviewed met Allport's four conditions: "equal status, community sanction, cooperative contact, and intimate contact" (Fishbein's terms for Allport's conditions). By separating cooperative interaction research from other mainstreaming studies, Fishbein implied that cooperative interaction (when combined with community sanction and intimate contact) may be an independent theory that helps to explain behavior. In all six of the studies, the behavior of children toward their peers with disabilities changed as a result of cooperative interaction. The eaual status condition did not exist in the coomrative interaction studies because ''& the majority of these studies, nonhandicipped children felt that they helped their handicapped peers but did not feel that those peers helped them" (p. 243).

Adapted Physical Education Research on Children's Attitudes

Tripp and Sherrill(1991) classify contact theory as a learninghehavior theory and provide a review of literature on studies that appear to examine elements of contact theory. This review now appears very superficial, and Sherrill (1998) cur- rently believes that contact theory should stand alone as an independent intervention category rather than be grouped into some presumably broader social psychology intervention category. This belief is supported by Fishbein (1996), who uses only two theories (contact and Lewinian) to review research relating to prejudice and discrimination.

Adapted physical education research pertaining to children's attitudes has tended to compare settings that are characterized by different degrees of contact rather than to address contact theory. Three published studies are particularly rel- evant. Archie and Sherrill(1989), who compared Grades 5 and 6 students attend- ing mainstreamed and nonmainstreamed schools, reported no si&icant differences on overall attitudes as measured by an adjective checklist (Rapier, Adelson, Carey, & Croke, 1972). However, an item-by-item analysis indicated that children from the mainstreamed school, whose physical education classes contained three or more children with disabilities, rated the hypothetical child with a disability on the checklist as significantly more fun and more interesting than did the children from the nonmainstreamed school. Failure to find more significant differences was attrib- uted to the atheoretical design of the research and the faulty assumption that inci- dental, spontaneous contact of students with and without disabilities in "fun activities" would promote positive attitudes.

Tripp, French, and Sherrill(1995) compared children, ages 9 to 12, attend- ing a mainstreamed (n = 226) and a nonmainstreamed (n = 229) school on the Peers Attitudes Toward the Handicapped Scale (PATHS; Bagley & Green, 198 1). In the mainstreamed school, each physical education class included 40 to 50 students without disabilities and 3 to 4 students with disabilities. Contact in the physical education classes was unstructured, meaning that no attention was paid to facili- tating contacts between children with and without disabilities. Although total attitude scores were not different between settings, girls had significantly more positive attitudes than boys did. Further analysis indicated that the type of disability affected findings in regard to both setting and gender. When attitudes toward the different disabilities were examined separately, children in the mainstreamed school


had significantly more positive attitudes toward behavioral disabilities than children in the nonmainstreamed school did; however, the opposite was true for physical disabilities. Girls were significantly more positive about peers with physical disabilities than boys were.

Block and Zeman (1996) compared sport-specific and general attitudes toward children with disabilities in two Grade 6 physical education classes in the same school. In one class, three children with severe disabilities were integrated, with excellent support services, into a 3.5-week unit on basketball skills; in the other class, no integration occurred. The treatment (e.g., integration) was not randomly assigned. Data were collected by the Children's Attitudes Toward Integrated Physical Education-Revised inventory (Block, 1995). Nonparametric statistics were used because the two classes were not statistically equated on pretest attitudes, possibly because the experimental group had been in contact with the children with disabilities for 3 months prior to the official beginning of the study. Results indicated "there were no differences in gain scores for either general or sport- specific attitude" (Block & Zeman, 1996, p. 38). Furthermore, inclusion did not negatively affect gains in basketball skills.

Research Pertaining to Gender and Attitudes

In a review of literature on children's attitudes toward peers with disability, Fishbein (1996) reports that girls typically were found to have either more positive attitudes or less negative attitudes than boys did. In this regard, Fishbein speculates that "girls are socialized to be more nurturant and responsible toward dependent individuals than are boys" (p. 198). Illustrative research on children that reports significant attitude difference between genders favoring females includes studies by Tripp et al. (1995), Hemphill and Siperstein (1990), Hazzard (1983), and Voeltz (1982). Gender differences favoring females is also reported in attitude research with adults (e.g., Folsom-Meek, Nearing, Groteluschen, & Krarnpf, 1999; Yuker, 1988).

Model to Guide Current Research

Despite the lack of support in the literature for contact theory as a guide to changing children's attitudes toward peers with disabilities, we continue to believe that contact theory is a viable approach. Parts of Sherrill's (1998, p. 226) model for attitude change, based on contact theory, guided our research. This model begins with the concept that considerable preparation is needed to implement a structured ,

contact class. The teacher must feel competent, and supports (i.e., community sanction) must be present. The model then states that structured contacts must be characterized by seven features: frequent, interactive, pleasant, focused on common goals (i.e., cooperative), meaningful, promoting respect, and long. The accompa- nying text suggests that partner activities should be tried first, followed by small- group cooperative games. To meet the equal status condition of Allport (1954), partners should be matched as much as possible on common interests and goals. Sherrill hypothesizes that following this model will lead to positive attitude and behavior changes. The purpose of our study was not to test this model. Rather we used this model to guide planning of the pedagogy for one of our experimental groups.

1 82 Sliningec Shenill, and Jankowski

Purpose of Study

The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of three physical education settings (structured contact, nonstructured contact, and control) on attitudes of Grade 4 students toward peers with severe mental retardation who used wheelchairs. The experimental design was pretest-posttest randomized groups. Four hypotheses were posited: (a) there is no significant difference between genders; (b) there is no significant difference between groups (structured, nonstructured, control); (c) there is no significant difference between times; and (d) there is no significant interaction of gender, group, and time.

Method

Participants

Participants, ages 9 to 10, were 131 children (69 males, 62 females) enrolled in three Grade 4 classes in an upper elementary school that comprised only Grades 4 to 6. This school was believed representative of other schools in smaIl towns (popu- lation of about 9,000), which were beginning integration of children with severe disabilities. Three years before the beginning of this study, the school had opened a special education unit for children previously served in a separate school. No attempt had yet been made to integrate children in physical education.

The sampling design was intact groups. All Grade 4 classes (n = 3) taught by the primary investigator (a regular educator who had completed a three-credit gradu- ate level adapted physical education course) were selected for study, because students in these classes were new to the school and had had no previous experience with peers with severe disabilities in a school environment. Experimenter bias was controlled by randomly assigning the experimental conditions.

Instruments

Both quantitative and qualitative data collection protocols were used. The multidimensional components of attitude (cognitive, affective, behavioral) were assessed by an adjective checklist and an intention scale developed by Siperstein (1980) specifically for children in Grades 4 to 6, reported as valid and reliable, and used as instruments in numerous published studies on children's attitudes (see list of published studies in Bak and Siperstein, 1987; Manetti, Schneider, and Siperstein, 1999). Siperstein based both instruments on extensive interviewing of children, which followed the theoretical model of Selman (1980). Weekly journal entries, which were collected only from the structured contact group, were used to determine children's perceptions of class climate. Pilot testing was conducted to ascer- tain that the instruments were appropriate for the participants in our study. Additionally, both public school teachers and university faculty reviewed the instruments and agreed that they were appropriate measures of attitudinal changes that might take place in physical education.

Adjective Checklist. The selection of an adjective checklist to measure the combined cognitive and affective dimensions of attitude was consistent with data collection practices that focus on the assessment of stereotypes as indicators and perpetuators of prejudice (Brown, 1995; Kunda, 1999). Allport (1954) wrote _ - _


extensively about stereotypes, defining them as exaggerated beliefs that we use to justify (rationalize) our conduct "'in relation to categorical acceptance or rejection of a group" (p. 192). Measures of stereotypes from the 1930s onward have gener- ally been lists of adjectives that enable individuals to share the "pictures in their mind" when they are asked to think about certain groups. Kunda (1999) devotes much of her new textbook on social cognition to stereotypes, reviewing research on the effects of negative stereotypes, and concludes:

Stereotypes can influence the way members of stigmatized groups are perceived, understood, and treated by others. Even people who have no prejudi- cial intent can inadvertently view stereotyped individuals through the lenses of negative stereotypes, without even realizing they are doing so. For their part, stereotyped individuals often assume that they are operating under a cloud of stereotype-based suspicion of inferiority, and this can cause them to experience enough anxiety to undermine their performance. (p. 381)

The use of an adjective checklist to identify stereotypes related to acceptance or rejection behaviors was consistent with the definition of attitude accepted for this study: "Attitude is an enduring set of beliefs charged with emotion that predisposes a person to certain types of behaviors" (Sherrill, 1998, p. 7). The phrase "beliefs charged with emotion" in this definition can be conceptualized as adjectives that indicate stereotypes.

The Adjective Checklist of Siperstein (1980) was validated specifically to assess children's judgments (stereotypes) of the attributes (both strengths and weak- nesses) of peers with disabilities. This instrument consists of 34 adjectives (16 positive and 18 negative). Children circle as many or as few adjectives as they wish to describe an actual or hypothetical peer presented by a label, photo, or videograph. The specific instructions used in this study were "If you wanted to describe a student from the severely disabled classroom to your classmates, what kinds of words would you use? Below is a list of words to help you. Circle as many or as few words as you want"

Content validity of the Adjective Checklist was based on hundreds of interviews with children to determine the words they most frequently used to describe peers (Siperstein, 1980). Construct validity of the Adjective Checklist was estab- lished by two factor analyses (Siperstein, 1980). The first was with 2,000 children, ages 8 to 14, who used the checklist four times to describe three children with disabilities (mental retardation, emotional disturbance, and orthopedic disabilities) and their best friend. The second was with 770 children who used the checklist one time to describe one randomly drawn target child with blindness, deafness, mental retardation, emotional disturbance, or orthopedic impairment. Alpha reliability coefficients for these two studies were .8 1 and .6 1, respectively.

To derive a score, the number of positive adjectives chosen is subtracted from the number of negative adjectives chosen, after which a constant of 20 is added. According to Siperstein (1980), a score below 20 represents a negative attitude, while a score above 20 represents a positive attitude. Acopy of Siperstein's Adjective Checklist appears in Sherrill(1998, p. 234).

Intention Scale. The Intention Scale was an adaptation of a 15-item instrument developed by Siperstein (1980) to measure behavioral intentions of school children and variously called the Activity Preference Scale and the Friendship


Activity Scale (Bak & Siperstein, 1987; Oraffi & Minnes, 1998; Siperstein, Leffert, & Wenz-Gross, 1997). The adaptation was minor, entailing the reduction of items from 15 to 10 and the changing of some items to activities that children in the selected school thought they might actually do with peers with severe mental retardation. Siperstein (1980) noted that such changes are necessary. We based item changes on interviews with children, and the revised Intention Scale was pilot tested before use in this study.

The specific instructions were "A student from the severely disabled classroom is coming into your classes. What types of activities would you like to do with him or her? Below is a list of activities to help you decide. For each activity circle one of the four choices that best describes how much you would like to do the activity with him or her." Illustrative items on the instrument were (a) I would go up to himlher and say hello; (b) I would eat lunch together in school; (c) I would play together during recess or free time; and (d) I would play catch with h i d e r during my PE class." The four responses were yes,probably yes,probably no, and no, scored as 4,3,2, 1, respectively. Siperstein's procedure used in developing and validating this instrument was similar to that followed with the Adjective Check- list; the alpha reliability coefficient was .90.

Journal Entries. Once-a-week journal entries (3 min each Friday) provided qualitative data from the children in the structured contact group. These data were analyzed to check if students perceived the class climate as pleasant, rewarding, and meaningful, the criteria that must be met in order for attitudes to change, according to contact theory (Allport, 1954; Arnir, 1969; Sherrill, 1998). Rather than asking children directly about their perceptions, we requested: "Please write to me what you liked or disliked about the class this week."

The theoretical basis for selecting this instruction was research indicating that having fun and improving skills are the main goals that children seek from physical education (Ennis, 1985). Since it is possible that children may perceive peers with disabilities and/or the adaptation of cumculum and activities as affect- ing fun and skill development, it seemed reasonable to focus the weekly journals on likes and dislikes. It was assumed that statements expressing lilung for activities could be interpreted to mean that the class was pleasant, rewarding, and meaningful.

Procedure

Following the model of Sherrill(1998), and consistent with Allport's condition of community sanction, an interdisciplinary team shared preliminary planning of the experiment, served as consultants in regard to appropriateness of instructions for children, and provided other services as the need arose. This team, which met regularly for several weeks before the experiment began as well as during the experiment, was comprised of the regular physical educator, special educators, a physical therapist, the school district adapted physical education consultant, and paraprofessionals. Work schedules of team members were adjusted by the princi- pal to create time for these meetings as part of the regular workday. Specifically, this team made decisions about who (the target children) to integrate into the physical education classes, whetherinstruments were appropriate, how to orient students to peers with severe disabilities, and how to adapt the curriculum.

The experimental period was 4 weeks long and consisted of daily 25-min physical education classes taught by the primary investigator and his aide. The


three Grade 4 classes were randomly assigned to an experimental condition: (a) structured contact, (b) nonstructured contact, and (c) control, no contact. In the structured contact class the instructor encouraged the children to interact as much as possible, throughout the entire class, with two target children with disabilities. In the nonstructured contact class, the two target children with disabilities were integrated into class activities only during the 5-min warm-up; thereafter they re- mained on the sidelines where they were taught by their individual paraprofessionals. In the control class, no target children with disabilities were brought to class.

Class sizes ranged from 37 to 49. The structured contact group contained 27 males and 22 females; the nonstructured contact group contained 22 males and 23 females; the control group contained 20 males and 17 females. It was not possible to equate the three classes on class size or number of males and females in each class. This was accepted as a limitation of the study.

Experimenter bias was controlled by (a) random assignment of conditions; (b) use of the same instructor and aide to teach all three classes (a procedure recommended by Allport, 1954, p. 490); (c) use of the same activities and identical time allotments for activity in each class (see pedagogy section on p. 186 herein); (d) written lesson plans; and (e) careful adherence, by the instructor and aide, to a written list of behaviors deemed appropriate for each contact condition. Addition- ally, the use of team decisions rather than decisions made exclusively by the instructor was another means of controlling for experimental bias.

Target Children. A boy and girl, who were representative of children with severe disabilities, and their two paraprofessionals were randomly assigned to each experimental class. Criteria for selection of the target children (also called peers) to be integrated were (a) severe mental retardation with limited verbal communi- cation skills, (b) capablity of eye contact and expression of pleasure through body language, (c) concomrnitant physical disability that required mobility by wheelchair, (d) no behavioral or medical problems, (e) high level of alertness and re- sponsiveness, and (f) same age or slightly older than mean age of regular students. A subgroup of four members from the interdisciplinary team determined which children best met these criteria.

Ages of the boy and girl were 10 and 11 in the structured contact class and 10 and 9 in the nonstructured contact class. Substitute target children were also selected in case one of the original selectees was absent. The protocol used in selecting target children and planning orientation concerning these children followed recommendations of related literature (e.g., Johnson, Rynders, & Johnson, 1979; York, Vandercook, MacDonald, Heise-Neff, & Caughey, 1992).

Data Collection and Orientation. Pretest and posttest data were collected in regular education classrooms by trained special education paraprofessionals so that responses would not be associated with the physical education experiment. A student with severe disability (but not a target child) accompanied the paraprofessional during administration of the attitude instruments to ensure that children understood the lead sentence of each instrument, "A student from the classroom for children with severe disabilities is coming into your classes." This sentence was selected by the team advising the study, based on pilot study and collective best judgment.

Approximately 3 weeks after the semester began (after the completion of 14 class sessions on volleyball skills and lead-up activities), the teacher informed


students in the two contact classes that two peers with severe disabilities would be joining their class for a month. The teacher gave students the names of the new classmates and their paraprofessionals and provided information on how to interact with peers with severe disabilities and how to push wheelchairs.

Pedagogy. All variables were held as constant as possible except for quality and quantity of contact. All classes were held in the afternoon, in the same gymnasium, and were taught the same activities by the same teacher and aide. The major instructional goal for both children with and without disabilities was social competence, defined by Shenill (1998, p. 211) as "to learn social behaviors that promote inclusion." Although this goal encompasses many objectives, this study targeted attitudes underlying social behaviors. The month-long cuniculum fea- tured cooperative games and rhythms, many of which came from Orlick (1978). Lesson plans included 3 to 5 min of fitness development activities; 10 to 12 min of cooperative games and rhythms; and 2-3 min of cool-down. Activities were spe- cially selected, as recommended by Shenill(1998), so that they would meet Orlick's criteria for a cooperative game: (a) all players must help each other to achieve a common goal, (b) everyone's efforts must be accepted, (c) everyone must be involved all the time, and (d) everyone must have an equal opportunity to have fun. Class time thus was used in the same wav in all three-classes. exceut for the cool- down period each Friday, when childre; in the structured cbntacLclass wrote in their journals.

Frequency and Intimacy of Contact. The frequency and intimacy of contact variables were planned to create vast differences between the structured and nonstructured contact classes. Differences were implemented in the nature and duration of the special helper assignment, the number of children assigned to serve as special helpers, the number of minutes of actual contact, and the teacher instructions with regard to contact by class members on days that they were not serving as special helpers.

The special helper role was defined as personal responsibility during an assigned time for maintaining as much direct contact with the target children as possible. This involved wheeling children where they wanted to go, staying within an arm's length, and interacting in as many ways as possible. The special helper role was the same under both experimental conditions during the first 5 min of class and the 5 min immediately after class ended. These minutes were designated as transportation time, and the special helpers got to wheel the target children to and from their classrooms to the gymnasium. If the warm up activity (5 rnin of jogging to the beat of different daily music) was still underway when they arrived, the special helpers might wheel their children around the gymnasium until the warm-up ended. Thereafter, the amount of contact with the special helpers dif- fered in the two classes.

Special helpers in the structured contact class continued their role throughout the class period, whereas those in the nonstructured class said goodbye to the target children at the end of the warm-up and joined their regular education classmates. In the structured class, four special helpers were assigned each day to maximize the number of children who felt directly responsible for helping during the games. The assignment was for one day only, so all children could have a turn as special helper as soon as possible. When all students had had their turn, the rota- tion began again so that most students had a second opportunity to be a special


helper. In contrast, only two special helpers were assigned in the nonstructured class and the assignment lasted the entire week. Only 8 of the 37 students in the nonstructured class thus got to be special helpers.

Teacher instructions and feedback concerning nature and frequency of contact varied in the two experimental conditions. In the structured contact class, all students were encouraged to greet the target children during the first 5 min of class and to interact with them as much as possible in all activities. The teacher frequently gave verbal praise when students were observed interacting. In the nonstructured contact class, no instructions about contact were given, other than those related to special helper assignments. Likewise, no feedback was provided to the students who elected to interact with the target children.

Other factors that were different in the two classes were modeling by the regular educator and the role of the target children's paraprofessionals. In the structured contact class, the regular educator gave the target children a personal greeting when they first arrived and subsequently modeled frequent interactions throughout each class. In contrast, he interacted with the target children only once in the nonstructured class, giving them a personal greeting when they f ~ s t arrived. In the structured class, the paraprofessionals moved freely around the gymnasium, helping both children with and without disabilities. In the nonstructured class, the paraprofessionals stayed on the sidelines and interacted only with their assigned child.

Adaptation of Games and Rhythmic Activities. The rules of the activities played in all classes were the same (Orlick, 1978). However, games and rhythms in the structured contact class were adapted so that direct contact with the target children was maximized. Each activity was altered so that, for the game or rhythm goal to be achieved, direct contact between the children with and without disabilities had to occur. This direct contact was referred to as cooperation so that everyone could be involved and have fun. For example, in bridge tag, only a peer with severe disability could release students from their frozen position. To do this, the student with severe disability and her or his partner would have to move through two student bridges to make a release. It was believed that adherence to Orlick's four criteria for a cooperative game would maximize frequency and intimacy of contact.

Data Analysis

Biomedical Computer Programs, P-series (BMDP; Dixon & Brown, 1981) was used in treatment of the data. Alpha was set at .01. Hypotheses were tested separately for the adjective checklist and the intention scale to keep findings as easy to understand as possible. Initially, a three-way analysis of variance (Gender X Group X Time), as well as effect sizes, were calculated for data from each instrument. Because gender differences were significant, subsequent analyses were two-way ANOVAs (Group X Time) calculated separately for males and females for each instrument. Omega square was used to calculate effect size.

Qualitative data (the brief entries in the children's journals) were analyzed following the procedures of Bogden and Biklen (1992). Illustrative quotations were reported from each week's entries to show children's thoughts and feelings about class activities, including the inclusion of peers with severe disability.


Quantitative Findings

Descriptive statistics for ages, the adjective checklist, and the intention scale are presented in Table 1. Findings are reported separately for males, females, and combined groups because the three-way analyses of variance revealed significant gender differences on both the adjective checklist, F(1,125) = 8.09, p = .01, and the intention scale, F(l, 125) = 27.92, p = .01. Means in Table 1 and data in Figures 1 and 2 reveal that females scored higher than males on both of these measures during both pretests and posttests. The omega square for the adjective checklist was .05, indicating a small difference between genders. The omega square for the intention scale was .16, indicating a large difference between genders (Cohen, 1977).

Both the three-way and the two-way ANOVAs revealed significant time differences for the adjective checklist, F(1,125) = 6.77, p = .01, and F(1,125) = 6.99, p = .01, respectively. Effect sizes for each of these differences were very small. Figure 1 reveals that, overall, the posttest scores (except for control group males) were greater than pretest scores. Subsequent analysis, however, revealed significant improvement in adjective scores for only one subgroup, the structured contact males (see Table 1).

Both the three-way and the two-way ANOVAs revealed a significant Time X Group interaction for the intention scale, F(2,125) = 6 . 0 4 , ~ = .01, and F(2,128) = 6.15, p = .01, respectively. This means that the attitudes of the three treatment groups changed differently from pretest to posttest. However, the effect sizes for

Table 1 Ages, Adjective Scores, and Intention Scores With Significant Differences Indicated by Superscripts

Adjective scores Intention scores

Group Age Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest n M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)

Structured Males Females Combined

Nonstructured Males Females Combined

Control Males Females Combined

Note. "Means marked with the same lettered superscripts are significantly different fromeach other,p = .01. The highest possible scores for the attitude checklist and the intention scales were 36 and 40, respectively.


Wle Students Female Students 28

Nonshnx

25 Control

20 - Pretest posnest

AdJectlve SCORS

Figure 1 - Prestest-posttest changes on the Adjective Checklist for male and female students.

Male Studenta Female Students

Figure 2 - Prestest-posttest changes on the Intention Scale for male and female students.

this difference were small. Figure 2 reveals that positive change was greater for nonstructured group males than for the other male groups. This change was significant (see Table 1).

Qualitative Findings

One purpose of having students in the structured contact class write weekly journals was to obtain feedback concerning what they liked and disliked. The rationale

190 Slininger, Shenil, and Jankowski

for this data collection was the physical educator's concern that Grade 4 children, accustomed to sport instruction and competitive lead-up games, might not like cooperative games and rhythms and this dislike might influence feelings about peers with disabilities. Although the physical educator did not tell students that the activities during the experimental period were designed specifically to pennit inclusion of the two target children, it was clear that these children could not have participated meaningfully in the usual activities taught in Grade 4 in this school.

The specific instructions given to students were "Please write to me what you liked or disliked about this week's instructions." Table 2 indicates that 85% or more of the students wrote about liking the activities each week. Additionally, between 25 and 34% of the students wrote positive statements about their peers with disabilities each week, even though instructions did not mention peers. Fol- lowing are illustrative statements about peers made each week. Each sentence represents the response of a different student.

Week 1. I like having S and A here. I liked the wheelchair people. I like our visitors. I am enjoying the severely disabled kids. I like S because he looks happy all the time.

Week 2. I had fun pushing A. I like playing with A and S. I like having A and S in our class even though I haven't got to push them yet. I like S and A; they are funny and fun to play with. This week was fun because Tim and I got to push S; thank you. S is a cute little boy, and A is a sweet girl; I really like them.

Week 3. I really enjoy pushing S; he is really fun and cool. Today I saw S in the hallway; I said "hi," I like to see S . . . he is fun. I never got to push A or S back to their room. I would love to take S back to his class. I like helping S and A.

Week 4. I really like S; he is nice to me; I do not know if he likes me . . . but I like him very much. It was fun when I won once and I ran into S's wheelchair. I like to play with S and play games with the parachutes. I enjoy playing with the severely disabled kids . . . I want to help push them. Today was really fun; I got to do the wheelchairs. I like to push S, but I already did and I want others to get to push S.

Table 2 Percentage of Students Who Mentioned Liking Activities and Peers With Severe Disabilities in Weekly Journals

Week % Activities % Peers


Discussion

The purpose was to compare the effects of three physical education settings on attitudes of Grade 4 children toward peers with severe mental retardation who used wheelchairs. The hypothesis of no significant difference between genders was rejected for both measures; females clearly had better attitudes regardless of instrument used. The other hypotheses were accepted with two exceptions: (a) the time variable for the Adjective Checklist and (b) the Group X Time interaction for the Intention Scale.

The finding that females had better attitudes than males supports a growing body of literature on gender differences in attitudes toward individuals with disabilities. Illustrative studies that report this difference for children include Voeltz (1982), Hazzard (1983), Hemphill and Siperstein (1990), and Tripp et al. (1995). Reviews of literature (e.g., Fishbein, 1996) also report this difference. Studies of children that do not report gender differencesae those that have not examined this variable (e.g., Archie & Shemll, 1989; Block & Zeman, 1996). Research is needed to determine why female children have better attitudes toward individuals with disabilities than male children do. Current hypotheses center around beliefs that girls are socialized to be more caring and nurturant than boys and thus are more likely to acquire "hands on" experience at early ages with individuals who need help (Jordan, Kaplan, Miller, Stiver, & Surrey, 1991; Osmond & Thorne, 1993). However, we can find no research that attempts to explain or predict gender difference in children with respect to attitudes toward peers with disabilities in a gymnasium setting.

The finding of our three-way ANOVA of significant time differences for adjective checklist responses, but not intention responses, supports the separate- ness of attitudinal components posited by such theorists as Ajzen and Fishbein (1980) and Krech et al. (1969). The three-way ANOVA revealed that, overall, posttest scores on the adjective checklist were significantly better than pretest scores. Table 1 shows that these differences were very small and significant for only one group (males in the structured group). The significant but small change for all subgroups combined most likely reflects the overall thrust within the school to increase understanding and acceptance of children with severe disabilities rather than the experimental treatment. The pretest, which entailed a class visit by a special education paraprofessional and child from the severely disabled classroom, may have sensitized all three classes to more positive ways of thinking about and describing children with severe mental retardation in wheelchairs. Likewise, a decision by school administrators to present a 25-min orientation about severe disability including the opportunity to push a child in a wheelchair to all physical education classes confounded the experimental design, since ideally children in the control group would have had no exposure to severe disability after the pretest.

Of the eight threats to the internal validity of an experiment (Thomas & Nelson, 1996), history (events occumng during the experiment that are not part of the treatment) was the greatest challenge. Children had contact with peers with severe disabilities in the hallways and cafeteria and had opportunities to volunteer as special helpers in self-contained classrooms. Such contact could not be controlled. Thus many variables, inside the school and out, may have contributed to the significant posttest adjective scores. However, the effect size for the significant findings was extremely small. This supports the many theorists who emphasize


that attitude dimensions are relatively stable and extremely difficult to change (Antonak & Livneth, 1988).

The significant Time X Group interaction for intention scores, revealed by the three-way ANOVA, indicated that the three groups changed differently from pretest to posttest. The slopes for the control males and females were zero or slightly downward, a finding that was expected. The slopes for the structured and nonstructured groups were all slightly positive but reflected different degrees of change. Attitudes on the intention survey of the nonstructured group males and the structured group females appeared to improve the most. However, the effect size for this sigmficant interaction was very small, indicating that the change was miniscule. This again supports theorists who maintain that attitude is very difficult to change.

The two-way ANOVAs (Group X Time), done separately for each instrument for males and females, revealed no significant differences among posttest scores for females in the three groups. However, the nonstructured group males scored significantly higher than the control group males on the posttest intention scale. There was no significant difference on posttest intention scores between the structured and nonstructured group males.

In summary, the attitudes of females did not change significantly during the study, but attitudes of males did improve; this gender difference may be explained by the significantly lower pretest scores of the males and that it is easier to change low scores than high scores. Females held good attitudes at the beginning of the study. The implication is that males need a different and more intense program of contact than females do. Future research should address the differential effects of the two types of contact on males. In this study, males in the structured group improved significantly on adjective scores (the measure of combined cognitive and affective function), whereas males in the nonstructured group improved significantly on the intention scale (a measure of tendency toward action). Effect sizes indicated that the improvement, although significant, was too small to be of much meaningful consequence.

The expected strong support for the structured group setting did not occur in the statistical findings of this study. This surprised us because so much planning and effort were invested in the experimental design. In retrospect, however, our inability to control all of the factors operative in a real life setting helps to explain why we did not obtain significant differences between groups, times, and interactions. We continue to believe that contact theory is sound, but we note that many of our pedagogical decisions were empirical because research to guide our decisions were nonexistent. For example, we still wonder what would be the best way to assign and use special helpers. Had time been available to provide intensive train- ing to these helpers and to monitor the quality of their contact, we might have used a peer tutor rather than a special helper model. Would peer tutors lend more support to contact theory than special helpers? We wonder also if the different roles of the paraprofessionals in the two contact classes made a difference.

Likewise, had we had more resources, we would have videotaped and analyzed sessions. Future researchers should create operational definitions of the criteria we tried to meet in planning contacts: frequent, intimate, pleasant, rewarding, meaningful, cooperative, and long duration. Videotape analysis and other methods should be used to determine if these criteria are being met. Preliminary studies might be used to determine which of Orlick's games are most effective in promoting desired contacts. Are the specific elements in games that promote contact for females


the same that promote contact for males? Why? The list of related research that needs to be done in order to adequately test contact theory is endless.

We recommend strengthening the qualitative aspects of future research. Analysis of the statements made about children with disabilities over a four-week period revealed that many of the interactions in the structured contact class were pleasant, rewarding, or meaningful. During the second and subsequent weeks, children referred to their peers in wheelchairs by name. Clearly, these individuals were becoming specific personalities whom the students cared about. Adjectives used (e-g., happy, funny, cool, cute) revealed positive attitudes. Equally important, 85% of the students wrote about liking the cooperative games and rhythms. This pro- vides support for the fact that students did not react negatively to curricular adap- tations and game changes imposed so that children with disabilities could be fully included in class activities. We do not know, however, how the short duration of this study affected student's reactions in this regard.

The use of diaries and interviews with children in all three groups would have provided insights not available through quantitative instruments. Future research should address goals that may be accomplished with fourth graders through cooperative games and rhythms, other than or in addition to social competence. This study might be replicated, for instance, with the addition of tests to measure progress toward such goals as motor skills and fitness. This would tell us whether a four-week unit of cooperative games and rhythms improves motor skills and fitness. Block and Zeaman (1996) reported that inclusion does not negatively affect the learning of skills in basketball unit, but no evidence exists that inclusion promotes the achievement of traditional physical education goals.

Research should be directed also toward how much children with severe disabilities learn in inclusive classes (Sandler, 1999). A weakness of the present study was failure to collect data on the target children. Protocols should be created for measuring improvement in social competence (see Sherrill, 1998, pp. 220-222 for examples of specific measurable behaviors). Additionally, research on where and how children with severe disabilities in wheelchairs can best learn motor skills and develop fitness needs to be conducted. Sandler (1999, p. 148) posits that such children are being "short-changed in the name of socialization" in classroom settings. We do not know whether this criticism is generalizable to inclusive physical education. Future research should examine goal achievement of all children in a class, not just those privileged to be classified as nondisabled.

Based on the quantitative and qualitative findings of this study, it was con- cluded that females have significantly better attitudes toward peers with severe mental retardation in wheelchairs in a physical education setting than males. Four weeks of daily contact in cooperative games and rhythms significantly improves attitudes of males. Structured group contact improves scores on an adjective checklist, whereas nonstructured group contact improves scores on an intention survey. The findings of the present study do not support the contact theory of Allport (1954), who posited that contact would change attitudes in a positive direction only when the contacts were equal status, cooperative, intimate, and supported with community sanction. We did not try to create equal status relationships between children with and without severe disability; the need for special helpers negated the possibility of equal status. Nevertheless, attitudes of males did change in both contact conditions. Allport's theory perhaps needs rethinking when contact involves persons with severe disability.

1 94 Slininger, Shenill, and Jankowski

References

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Allport, G.W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley. Amir, Y. (1969). Contact hypothesis in ethnic relations. Psychological Bulletin, 71, 319-

342. Antonak, R.F., & Livneth, H. (1988). The measurement of attitudes toward people with

disabilities. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas. Archie, V.W., & Sherrill, C. (1989). Attitudes toward handicapped peers of mainstreamed

and nonmainstrearned children in physical education. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 69, 319-322.

Bagley, M., & Greene, J. (1981). Peer attitudes toward the handicapped scale, Austin, TX: Pro Ed.

Bak, J.J., & Siperstein, G.N. (1987). Similarity as a factor effecting change in children's attitudes toward mentally retarded peers. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 91, 524-53 1.

Block, M.E. (1995). Development and validation of the Children's Attitudes Toward Inte- grated Physical Education-Revised (CAPE-R) Inventory. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 12,60-77.

Block, M.E., & Malloy, M. (1998). Attitudes on inclusion of a player with disabilities in a regular softball league. Mental Retardation, 36, 137-144.

Block, M.E., & Zeman, R. (1996). Including students with disabilities in regular physical education: Effects on nondisabled children. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 13, 38-49.

Bogdan, R.C., & Biklen, S.K. (1992). Qualitative research for education (2"* ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Brown, R. (1995). Prejudice: Its social psychology. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (rev. ed.). New

York: Academic Press. Donaldson, J. (1980). Changing attitudes of handicapped persons: A review of research.

Exceptional Children, 46,504-514. Dixon, W.J., & Brown, M.B. (1981). BMDP statistical software manual. Berkeley, CA:

University of California Press. Ennis, C.D. (1985). Purpose concepts in an existing physical education curriculum. Re-

search Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 56,323-333. Fishbein, H.D. (1996). Peer prejudice and discrimination: Evolutionary, cultural, and de-

velopmental dynamics. Boulder, CO: Westview. Folsom-Meek, S., Nearing, R.J., Groteluschen, W., & Krampf, H. (1999). Effects of aca-

demic major, gender, and hands-on experience on attitudes of prese~ice profession- als. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 16,389-402.

Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Graffi, S., & Minnes, P.M. (1988). Attitudes of primary school children toward the physical appearance and labels associated with Down Syndrome. American Journal of Men- tal Retardation, 93,28-35.

Hazzard, A. (1983). Children's experience with knowledge of and attitude toward disabled persons. Journal of Special Education, 17, 131-139.


Hemphill, L., & Siperstein, G.N. (1990). Conversational competence and peer response to mildly retarded children. Journal of Educational Fsychology, 82,128-134.

Johnson, R., Rynders, J., & Johnson, D.W. (1979). Interaction between handicapped and nonhandicapped teenagers as a function of situational goal structuring: Implications for mainstreaming. American Educational Research J o u m l , 16,161-167.

Jordan, J.V., Kaplan, A.G., Miller, J.B., Stiver, I.P., & Surrey, J.L. (1991). Women's growth in connection. New York: Guilford Press.

Krech, D., Crutchfield, R.S., & Livson, N. (1969). Elements of psychology (2"" ed.). New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Kunda, Z. (1999). Social cognition: Making sense of people. Cambridge, MA: MIT press. Makas, E. (1993). Getting in touch: The relationship between contact with and attitudes

toward people with disabilities. In M. Nagler (Ed.), Perspectives on disability (pp. 121-136). Palo Alto, CA: Health Markets Research.

Manetti, M., Schneider, B.H., & Siperstein, G. (1999). Social acceptance of children with mental retardation: Testing the contact hypothesis with an Italian sample. Unpub- lished manuscript, University of Massachusetts, Boston.

Orlick, T. (1978). The cooperative sports and games books. New York: Pantheon. Osmond, M.W., & Thorne, B. (1993). Feminist theories: The social construction of gender

in families and society. In P.G. Boss, W.J. Doherty, R. LaRossa, W.R. Schumrn, & S.K. Steinmetz (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theories and methods (pp. 591-623). New York: Plenum.

Rapier, J., Adelson, R., Carey, R., & Croke, K. (1972). Changes in children's attitudes toward the physically handicapped. Exceptional Children, 39,219-223.

Sandler, A.G. (1999). Short-changed in the name of socialization? Acquisition of functional skills by students with severe disabilities. Mental Retardation, 37, 148-150.

Selrnan, R.L. (1980). The growth of interpersonal understanding: Developmentalandclinical analyses. New York: Academic Press.

Shemll, C. (1998). Adapted physical activity, recreation, and sport: Crossdisciplinary and lifepan (5" ed.). Dubuque, IA: WCBMcGraw-Hill.

Sherrill, C., Heikinaro-Johansson, P., & Slininger, D. (1994). Equal-status relationships in the gym. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 65(1), 27-31, 56.

Siperstein, G.N. (1980). Instruments for measuring children's attitudes toward the handicapped. Unpublished manuscript, University of Massachusetts, Boston.

Siperstein, G. N., Leffert, J. S., & Wenz-Gross, M. (1997). The quality of friendships of children with and without learning problems. American J o u m l of Mental Retarda- tion, 102, 11 1-125.

Thomas, J.R., & Nelson, J.K. (1996). Research methods in physical activity (Y ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Towner, A.G. (1984). Modifling attitudes toward the handicapped: A review of the literature. In R.L. Jones (Ed.), Attitudes andattitude change in special education: Theory andpractice (pp. 223-257). Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.

Triandis, H. (1971). Attitude and attitude change. New York: Wiley & Sons. Tripp, A., & Shenill, C. (1991). Attitude theories of relevance to adapted physical educa-

tion. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 8,12-27. Tripp, A., French, R., & Shemll, C. (1995). Contact theory and attitudes of children in

physical education programs toward peers with disabilities. Adapted Physical Activ- ity Quarterly, 12,323-332.


Voeltz, L.M. (1982). Effect of structured interactions with severely handicapped peers on children's attitudes. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 86,380-390.

Wright, B. (1983). Physical disability: A psychosocial approach (2""d.). Philadelphia: Harper & Row.

York, J., Vandercook, T., MacDonald, C., Heise-Neff, C., & Caughey, E. (1992). Feedback about integrating middle-school students with severe disabilities in general education classes. Exceptional Children, 58,244-259.

Yuker, H.E. (1988). The effects of contact on attitudes toward disabled persons: Some empirical generalizations. In H.E. Yuker (Ed.), Attitudes towardpersons with disabilities (pp. 262-274). New York: Springer.

Documents

Children's Attitudes Toward Peers With Severe Disabilities: Revisiting Contact Theory€¦ · · 2007-09-14With Severe Disabilities: Revisiting Contact Theory ... checklist and