american journal on mental retardation, vol. 100, no. 4, 359-377 … · 2007. 5. 9. · american...

American Journal on Mental Retardation,

Vol. 100, No. 4, 359-377

Immediate Effects of MainstreamedSettings on the Social Interactionsand Social Integration of PreschoolChildrenMichael J. Guralnick, Robert T. Connor, Mary Hammond,John M. Gottman, and Kelly KinnishUniversity of Washington

The immediate effects of mainstreamed and specialized settings on the peerinteractions of preschool children with and without developmental delayswere examined . Mainstreamed and specialized playgroups were establishedinvolving unacquainted peers and using a methodology that ensuredappropriate matching of child and family characteristics . For each 2-weekplaygroup, the social and play interactions of each child were observedduring a designated free-play period . Peer sociometric ratings also wereobtained. Results indicated higher levels of peer interactions in mainstreamedsettings for both typically developing children and children with develop-mental delays . The immediate impact of mainstreamed settings appeared tobe attributed to the social demands and higher interaction levels of theformer group . Children with developmental delays were not fully acceptednor totally socially integrated based on sociometric measures and behavioralindices of peer preferences . Implications of these findings for developingintervention programs to maximize children's peer-related social compe-tence was discussed.

The impact of integrated and specializedsettings on the peer interactions of youngchildren with and without developmentaldelays is an important issue that has re-ceived considerable attention from inves-tigators (Beckman & Kohl, 1984, 1987;Field, Roseman, DeStefano, & Koewler,1981 ; Guralnick, 1981; Guralnick & Groom,1988; Jenkins, Odom, & Speltz, 1989 ; Jen-kins, Speltz, & Odom, 1985 ; Miller et al ., inpress) . Findings have consistently revealedrelatively modest benefits in peer interac-tions for children with developmental de-lays when participating with typically

developing children . Although investiga-tors have not always observed advantages,only minor instances of adverse effects forchildren with disabilities have been re-ported . Moreover, the social interactionpatterns of typically developing childrenappear to be unaffected by the presence ofchildren with disabilities (see Buysse &Bailey, 1993, for a review).

Please note that we reserve the terminclusion to represent the full integrationof individuals with disabilities in all aspectsof home, school, and community life . Theterm mainstreaming is intended to repre-

©American Association on Mental Retardation 359

sent full inclusion in school, includingpreschool programs, that is, when childrenwith disabilities are enrolled in programsprimarily containing typically developingchildren . Integration is a more genericterm applied to the school situation andmay include departures from mainstream-ing, such as when more limited contactduring part of the day between childrenwith and without disabilities is planned.

Although the outcomes of compari-sons between integrated and specializedsettings have been generally consistent,the actual mechanisms through which thepeer interactions of children with develop-mental delays are influenced in settingscontaining typically developing childrenare poorly understood . One possibility isthat because of the more advanced playlevels of typically developing children, theintegrated setting is more stimulating, re-sponsive, and socially demanding than isthe specialized setting . These effects shouldbe apparent almost immediately and maywell continue to influence the peer interac-tions of children with developmental de-lays over time. In addition, as children withand without developmental delays interactover time, benefits may also result due tolearning through observation, experienc-ing adaptive feedback from more advancedpeers, and building a shared set of under-standings so essential for social play withpeers. A third possibility is that the inte-grated program constitutes an ideal settingto carry out planned interventions de-signed to promote children's peer rela-tions, often involving more developmentallyadvanced children . Primarily indirect evi-dence is available to suggest that all threetypes of mechanisms may be operating(Guralnick, 1986, 1990b).

As noted, should positive effects ofintegration be apparent almost immedi-ately, strong support for the operation ofthe first mechanism related to the stimulat-ing, demanding, and responsive nature ofthe integrated setting for children withdevelopmental delays would be obtained.Direct evidence for this first alternativewould provide important information for

all persons involved in establishing orrefining integrated programs . In particular,this information would contribute to theknowledge base on the potential effec-tiveness of integration in connection withchildren's peer interactions and would beuseful to early education staff, who wouldbe encouraged to take advantage of thisstate-of-affairs to develop strategies thatmaintain or enhance this pattern.

A related issue is the extent to whichchildren with and without disabilities do infact become socially integrated with oraccepted by their typically developingpeers, especially in fully integrated (i .e .,mainstreamed settings) . This issue is im-portant for a variety of reasons . From anideological and philosophical perspective,social integration and acceptance by peersrepresent values central to inclusive pro-grams (Guralnick, 1990a) . From the per-spective of families of children withdisabilities enrolled in integrated programs,considerable concerns have been expressedwith respect to possible social isolationand peer rejection of their children(Guralnick, 1994 ; Guralnick, Connor, &Hammond, 1995) . From a developmentalperspective, significant social separationusually assessed through direct observa-tions or lack of acceptance usually as-sessed through peer sociometrics in relationto children with developmental disabilitiesduring the early phase of a mainstreamedprogram will likely minimize any benefitsthat could be derived subsequently fromobservational learning, adaptive feedback,and shared experiences with typically de-veloping children . Unquestionably, socialintegration and acceptance patterns can bealtered with experience, but reputationalfactors can he powerful influences (Hymel,Wagner, & Butler, 1990) . Moreover, thepotentially positive effects of planned in-terventions to promote peer interactionsare not likely to generalize beyond theseplanned and often structured situations ifsocial separation is extensive.

The limited information that is avail-able with respect to children with develop-mental delays suggests that social separation

360 AJMR, Volume 100, No . 4

does occur, and the degree of social sepa-ration varies directly with the severity ofthe child's delays (see Guralnick, 1986).Even during the first 2 weeks of amainstreamed program, a tendency to-ward social separation between childrenwith mild developmental delays and typi-cally developing children has been de-tected (Guralnick & Groom, 1987) . Ingeneral, findings suggest that typically de-veloping children prefer to interact withother typically developing children butthat children with developmental delaysshow no preferences or also prefer typi-cally developing children (Guralnick,1990b; Guralnick & Groom, 1987) . Inmany ways, some degree of social separa-tion is to be expected simply based on theunusual peer interaction difficulties thathave been well-documented for childrenwith developmental delays (Guralnick &Groom, 1985, 1987 ; Guralnick & Wein-house, 1984 ; Kopp, Baker, & Brown, 1992).In addition, children with mild develop-mental delays are less accepted overallbased on peer sociometric measures(Guralnick & Groom, 1987) . Nevertheless,due to the absence of systematic researchon this issue, the nature and extent of thesocial integration and social acceptance ofchildren with developmental delays inmainstreamed settings is not well under-stood .

Accordingly, our primary purpose inthis investigation was to examine the im-mediate effects of mainstreamed andspecialized settings on the peer interac-tions of preschool children with and with-out developmental delays . In a relatedissue, the extent of social integration andsocial acceptance occurring in the main-streamed setting was evaluated as childrenbecame acquainted with one another . Toaccomplish this, we established a series ofmainstreamed and specialized playgroups.Children participated for a 2-week periodin three types of playgroups consisting of(a) only children with mild developmentaldelays (specialized mildly delayed), (b)only typically developing children (spe-cialized typically developing), and (c) play-

groups including children from both groups(mainstreamed).

The playgroup methodology used inthis study is similar to that described byCoie and Kupersmidt (1983) and Dodge(1983) involving typically developingchildren varying in social status and to thework of Guralnick and Groom (1987) andGuralnick, Connor, Hammond, Gottman,and Kinnish (in press), who established aseries of mainstreamed playgroups involv-ing children with developmental delays orcommunication disorders . In all of thesestudies, expected developmental patternsemerged even in the context of short-termplaygroups. In addition, the playgroupmethodology has a number of featuresuniquely suited to the study of emergingsocial interaction patterns . First, childrenunacquainted with one another can bebrought together to form the playgroups,thereby allowing the study of peer-relatedsocial competence and social integrationto occur initially free of reputational fac-tors or previously established social statushierarchies (Hymel et al ., 1990) . Second,control over subject selection and the abil-ity to achieve appropriate matches of fam-ily and child characteristics in the formationof the playgroups minimize sampling biasinherent in the study of intact groups ofmainstreamed or specialized children . Fi-nally, the design of the laboratory housingthe playgroups allowed us to use sophis-ticated recording techniques and applymultiple coding systems.

MethodOverview

Previously unacquainted groups of chil-dren were brought together to form aseries of 12 separate playgroups (N = 6children per playgroup). The playgroupsdiffered in terms of two factors : (a) thedevelopmental characteristics of the chil-dren in the playgroups—referred to as thegroup variable (i .e ., children with develop-mental delays or typically developing chil-dren) ; and (b) the social environment

Mainstsreamed Settings

361

referred to as the setting variable (i .e .,playgroups consisting only of other chil-dren with similar developmental character-istics—all typically developing children orall children with developmental delays—or those in which children from bothgroups participated).

Of the 12 playgroups, 6 were special-ized, 3 consisted of only typically develop-ing children, and 3 were composed of onlychildren with developmental delays . Theremaining 6 playgroups were main-streamed; each consisted of 4 typicallydeveloping children and 2 children withdevelopmental delays . As described later,a matching procedure ensured that typi-cally developing children assigned tomainstreamed or specialized playgroups,as well as children with developmentaldelays assigned to mainstreamed or spe-cialized playgroups, were equivalent withineach of the two types of playgroups interms of child characteristic measures(chronological age [CA], cognitive ability,language, adaptive behavior, and behaviorproblems) . A similar matching process en-sured equivalence across all groups forfamily demographic measures family (so-cial status, marital status) . For each 2-weekplaygroup, the social and play interactionsof each child were recorded during adesignated free-play period. At the conclu-sion of each playgroup, peer sociometricratings were completed for each of the 6children.

Subjects

Typically developing children were re-cruited through direct contact with ad-ministrators and teachers in public andprivate nursery schools and daycare pro-grams . Children with developmental(cognitive) delays were recruited fromcommunity-based preschool programsand from rosters of children who re-ceived clinical evaluations from diag-nostic clinics . The CA range for allsubjects was established at 4 .25 to 5 .50years . Only boys were selected to par-ticipate in the playgroups because re-

sources were not available to includegender as an additional independentvariable, and more boys were availablein community preschools . Similarly, toavoid potential confounds due to race,only Caucasian children were selected.In addition, children were excluded fromparticipating for any of the followingreasons: (a) three siblings within 3 yearsof age of the child being considered, (b)teacher reports of major disruptive be-havior problems, (c) legal blindness ormajor uncorrected hearing loss, (d) sig-nificant motor problems, (e) acquain-tance with other children in theplaygroup, and (f) living with the pri-mary caregiver less than one year.

For selection and matching pur-poses, the revised version of the WechslerPreschool and Primary Scale of Intelli-gence—WPPSI-R (Wechsler, 1989) wasadministered individually to all prospec-tive children. Full Scale IQ (FSIQ) scoresas well as performance (PIQ) and verbal(VIQ) scores were obtained . Two lan-guage tests also were administered indi-vidually to each child . First, the revisedversion of the Test for Auditory Compre-hension of Language (Carrow-Woolfolk,1985) was administered. This test con-sists of scales for word classes andrelations, grammatical morphemes, andelaborated sentences . A total score stan-dard score is also obtained. Second, tosupplement the receptive language as-sessment of the Test for Auditory Com-prehension of Language-Revised, weadministered the expressive componentsof the Preschool Language Scale (Zim-merman, Steiner, & Pond, 1979) . Be-cause of the lack of standardization,only raw scores were used (range = 0 to48 for verbal ability and 0 to 23 forarticulation).

In addition to direct assessments ofchildren's cognitive and language devel-opment, mothers served as respondentsfor assessments of their child's adaptivebehavior and behavior problems . First,trained interviewers administered theVineland Adaptive Behavior Scales Sur-


vey Form (Sparrow, Balla, & Cicchetti,1984) to mothers . Standard scores wereobtained for each of the four domains(Communication, Daily Living Skills, So-cialization, and Motor Skills) as well asfor the total adaptive behavior score.Second, the mother's assessment of herchild's behavior problems was based onthe Child Behavior Checklist (Achenbach& Edelbrock, 1981) . Mothers rated thefrequency of different behavior prob-lems from a 118-item questionnaire us-ing a 3-point scale . Only the broad bandinternalizing and externalizing scales Tscores in conjunction with a total behav-ior problem score were used for subjectselection and matching purposes . Higherscores indicate greater perceived behav-ior problems. Finally, responses to aparent questionnaire provided basic de-mographic information . The Hollings-head Four Factor Index of Social Status(Hollingshead, 1975) was used to calcu-late a measure of family status (range =8 to 66).

Beyond the inclusionary and ex-clusionary criteria applied to all subjectsas previously noted, specific criteria alsowere established for each of the twogroups of children differing in develop-mental characteristics . Specifically, typi-cally developing children were includedif they achieved an FSIQ between 90 and130 . Children were excluded, however,for any of the following reasons : (a) VIQor PIQ lower than 90, (b) Test for Audi-tory Comprehension of Language-Revisedtotal score less than 90, (c) Child Behav-ior Checklist total problem score greaterthan the 90th percentile, (d) enrolled ina preschool program in which more than15% of the children had establisheddisabilities, or (e) had a sibling with anestablished disability . Similarly, childrenwith developmental delays were includedif they achieved an FSIQ between 52 and80 . Children in this group were excluded,however, for any of the following rea-sons: (a) PIQ greater than 90, (b) ChildBehavior Checklist total problem scoregreater than the 98th percentile or teacher

reports of continuous and substantial dis-ruption, and (c) a Test for Auditory Com-prehension of Language-Revised total scoreless than 55 or greater than 90.

Matching Procedures

Children with developmental delays werefirst identified for each playgroup, withtypically developing children participat-ing in both mainstreamed and special-ized groups subsequently recruited fromthe same neighborhoods to maximizesimilar demographic characteristics . Chil-dren were tested on a continuous basisacross a 4-year period, and playgroupswere formed when an appropriate num-ber of children meeting criteria wererecruited . Specialized and mainstreamedplaygroups were interspersed over the 4years . On occasion, a child meeting es-tablished criteria was not included if histest scores were inconsistent with match-ing projections for the demographic andchild characteristic measures.

As presented in Table 1, as a resultof this process, child characteristic mea-sures were equivalent for the typicallydeveloping children participating in themainstreamed and specialized play-groups, p> .05 . The only exception wasthat typically developing children par-ticipating in specialized playgroupshad a higher Vineland Daily Living Skillsscore than did typically developing chil-dren participating in the mainstreamedplaygroups, p < .05 . Equivalent scoresalso were obtained across all child char-acteristic measures for children withdevelopmental delays participating inspecialized and mainstreamed settings.

As expected, significant differenceswere obtained for most of the childcharacteristic measures (see Table 1 fordetails when comparing typically devel-oping children and children with devel-opmental delays) . The only exceptionswere child's CA, the PIQ–VIQ dis-crepancy, and the Child Behavior Check-list externalizing factor, p > .05 . Finally,for family demographics, 91 .7% of the


363

Table 1Child Characteristic Measures by Group and Setting

Typically developing Developmentally delayedSpecialized Mainstreamed Specialized Mainstreamed

(n = 18) (n = 24) (n 18) (n = 12)Child characteristic Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SDCA (months)WPPSI-R

56 .28 3 .51 57 .25 4 .00 58 .83 4 .90 57 .50 4 .78

Full Scale IQ' 110 .06 10 .88 111 .83 10 .74 66 .00 9 .95 67 .92 8.06Performance IQ' 110 .83 13 .01 109 .38 10 .59 68 .00 11 .38 70 .08 8 .12Verbal IQ' 107 .39 12 .19 110 .42 11 .08 70 .06 9 .69 71 .33 9 .28Performance-Verbal IQ 3 .44 16 .83 -1 .04 11 .51 -2 .06 10 .71 -1 .25 9 .79Full Scale MA' 61 .51 7 .18 63 .38 7 .89 38 .22 6 .93 38 .80 5 .91Performance MA' 61 .93 8 .19 62 .23 7 .50 39 .44 7 .75 40 .08 6 .43Verbal MA'

TACL-R60 .03 7 .84 62 .84 8 .05 40 .51 6 .70 40 .68 6 .08

Total Scale' 105 .06 7 .05 109 .21 9 .74 75 .33 9 .64 73 .00 11 .17Word Class & Relations' 106 .33 9 .25 110 .63 12 .05 76 .44 18 .74 80 .17 10 .52Grammatic Morphemes' 103 .06 9 .73 105 .29 10 .65 78 .22 9.06 71 .42 14 .42Elaborated Sentences'

PLS105 .06 13 .48 109 .83 10 .89 82 .89 8.07 80 .75 11 .31

Verbal ability' 35 .83 4 .97 37 .33 4 .17 19 .11 9.00 21 .83 7 .30Articulation'

Vineland19 .83 2 .29 21 .00 2 .60 12 .83 6.38 15 .60 5 .32

Total adaptive behavior' 97 .56 11 .12 92 .25 10 .11 67 .56 7 .90 70 .25 9 .27Communication' 96 .00 9 .76 96 .50 7 .99 77 .00 12 .50 76 .17 11 .56Daily Living Skills' 97 .61 11 .06 88 .38 10 .95 70 .11 6 .93 74 .00 12 .47Socialization' 99 .39 8 .53 98 .63 10 .40 78 .67 9 .13 81 .33 12 .69Motor Skills'

CBCL100 .83 9 .65 94 .83 14 .76 64 .67 14 .22 70 .83 13 .30

Total behavior problems' 46 .61 7 .82 47 .83 8 .00 55 .11 8 .79 52 .42 10 .08Externalizing 48 .61 8 .42 48 .13 9 .83 50 .44 10 .55 49 .58 12 .41Internalizing' 46 .00 9 .31 48 .21 7 .57 57 .94 10 .06 53 .50 6 .92

Note. WPPSI-R=Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence ; TACL-R=Test of Auditory Comprehension-Revised;PLS=Preschool Language Scale ; Vineland=Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales ; CBCL=Child Behavior Checklist.'Indicates a significant difference, p < .05, between typically developing children and children with developmental delays.

mothers were partnered, with an aver-age family social strata based on theHollingshead index of 2 .15 (medium busi-ness, minor professional) . The fourgroups did not differ on these two mea-sures, which were analyzed with the x 2

and Kruskall-Wallace one-way analysisof variance, respectively.

Playgroup Setting andProcedure

Each 6-child playgroup operated 2 .5 hoursper day, 5 days per week, for 2 weeks (10sessions) in either a morning or afternoontime period. Children arrived in separatevehicles via parents or drivers, and parentswere asked to avoid contact with the otherfamilies or children for the duration of theplaygroup. Parents were paid $100 plustransportation expenses .

Playgroups were supervised by ateacher and graduate assistant in a spe-cially designed laboratory playroom . Chil-dren participated in a series of group andindividual activities typical of preschoolprograms, including circle time, music, art,snack, and story . During two daily 30-minute free-play periods, children had ac-cess to the extensive array of toys andequipment found in the playroom . Sepa-rate areas provided opportunities for house-keeping, blocks, puzzles, games, andprecast and manipulative toy play activi-ties, as well as an option for individualreading . Although the teacher generallyencouraged social and play interactionsamong the children in other activities,during free-play periods the teacher lim-ited her interactions to providing assis-tance when necessary.

Children's social and play interac-tions were videorecorded using split-screen


technology : two remote controlled cam-eras mounted at either end of the playroomand a hand-operated camera in an adjacentobservation room . The child being re-corded at the time focal child wore aspecially designed lightweight vestequipped with a professional quality wire-less microphone and transmitter securedin a hidden pocket in the back of the vest.Other microphones were placed discreetlythroughout the room and a control panelof mixers balanced the auditory signals.

Each child was observed for a total of60 minutes during free play over the 2-week period. Recording commenced onthe second playgroup day and was dividedinto segments of 10 consecutive minutesfor each of 6 recording periods per child.The order of recording children was ran-domized within blocks of six 10-minutesegments, and no child was observed morethan once per day . In addition, recordingswere distributed such that each child wasvideotaped on three occasions within thefirst week (Time 1) and on three occasionsduring the second week (Time 2).

As described later, videotaped re-cordings were analyzed using two separatescales, one focusing on more global mea-sures of social participation and cognitiveplay and the other on individual socialbehaviors . A peer sociometric measurewas administered to each child at thecompletion of the study.

Observational Measures

Social Participation and Cognitive Play.Parten's (1932) index of social participa-tion formed the basis for characterizingglobal differences in children's peer rela-tionships . Despite legitimate concerns re-garding the sequential and hierarchicalnature of this measure of social participa-tion (Bakeman & Brownlee, 1980 ; Roper &Hinde, 1978; Rubin, Maioni, & Hornung,1976; Smith, 1978), variations and modifi-cations of the Parten scale, many includingmeasures of cognitive play based onSmilansky's (1968) categories (see Rubin,1985), appear to have considerable utility .

Various forms of the scale have been shownto be sensitive to (a) developmental changesover time (Barnes, 1971 ; Rubin & Krasnor,1980; Rubin, Watson, & Jambor, 1978 ; Smith,1978), (b) socioeconomic status (Rubin etal ., 1976), (c) environmental conditions(Vandenberg, 1981), (d) the familiarity ofpeers (Doyle, Connolly, & Rivest, 1980),and (e) differences between mixed-ageand same-age groupings (Goldman, 1981).Moreover, variations of the scale havebeen applied effectively to populations ofchildren with disabilities (Guralnick &Groom, 1985, 1987 ; Guralnick et al ., inpress; Higgenbotham & Baker, 1981) andmay well be of value in identifying childrenat risk for developmental problems (Rubin,1982 ; Rubin, LeMare, & Lollis, 1990).

A time code superimposed on eachvideotape in conjunction with a remotelycontrolled tape-stop device allowed ob-servers to view tapes at 10-second inter-vals . Coders recorded the categories ofsocial participation and level of cognitiveplay where required during each 10-sec-ond interval using a slightly modified ver-sion of the scale developed by Rubin(1985) . This scale consists of 10 mutuallyexclusive and exhaustive categories . Thefirst 3 were derived from Parten's (1932)social participation categories consistingof the following play classifications : (a)solitary (playing alone), (b)parallel (play-ing next to another child), and (c) group(playing with another child ; a combinationof Parten's associative and cooperativeplay categories) . Nested within these 3social participation categories are four mea-sures of cognitive play based on the workof Smilansky (1968) : (a)functional (simplerepetitive play), (b) constructive (learnsto use materials, creates something), (c)dramatic (role taking and pretend play),and (d) games with rules (child behavesin accordance with prearranged rules) . Ifany 10-second interval was coded as eithersolitary, parallel, or group play, then one ofthe four cognitive play categories was alsoscored.

The 7 remaining categories consistedof the following : (a) unoccupied behavior


365

(child not playing), (b) onlooker behavior(child watches other children but does notenter into play), (c) reading or listening(reading, leafing through a book, listeningto a tape), (d) exploration (examiningphysical properties of objects), (e) activeconversation (talking, questioning, andsuggesting to other children but not play-ing), (f) transition (moving from one ac-tivity to another), and (g) adult-directed(any activity with an adult).

In order to obtain information withregard to whom the focal child interactedwith, we noted the identity of the peer forthe group, parallel play, active conversa-tion, and onlooker categories wheneverthese categories were coded. When morethan one child was involved in the interac-tion, the one in closest proximity to thefocal child was coded . More specific defi-nitions for the social participation andcognitive play categories can be found inRubin's (1985) manual . (Coding rules andrelated modifications of this scale as well asthe coding manual for the Individual SocialBehavior Scale [see later discussion] maybe obtained by writing the first author).

Individual Social Behaviors . Eachvideotape was reviewed a second time inorder to examine specific peer-related so-cial behaviors . For this purpose, the Indi-vidual Social Behavior Scale was developedbased on the work of White and Watts(1973) and adapted in a manner similar tothe approach taken by Doyle et al . (1980)and by Guralnick and Groom (1985, 1987).The current adaptation was most recentlyapplied by Guralnick et al . (in press) tochildren with communication disorders.The cluster of individual social behaviorsoriginally described by White and Watts(1973), including the ability to gain theattention of peers, use peers as resources,express affection, and direct peers suc-cessfully during play, has been employedextensively. These component behaviorsincrease over the preschool years, corre-spond to other measures of social compe-tence with peers (such as teacher ratingsand peer sociometrics), vary with the fa-miliarity of interacting children, and corre-

late positively with social participation(Connolly & Doyle, 1981 ; Doyle et al .,1980 ; Wright, 1980).

Specifically, observers recorded con-tinuously the occurrence of individualsocial behaviors defined by 34 catego-ries . The following categories were de-signed to record social interactions ofthe focal child as directed to peers : (a)seeks attention of peer ; (b) uses peer asa resource; (c) leads in peer activities—direct, positive, or neutral ; (d) leads inpeer activities—indirect, positive, or neu-tral ; (e) leads in peer activities—direct,negative; (f) leads in peer activities—indirect, negative ; (g) imitates a peer;(h) engages in observation of peer ; (i)joins peers in specific activity ; (j) ver-bally supports peer's statement; (k) ver-bally competes with peer ; (1) shows pridein product to peer ; (m) competes withpeer for adult's attention ; (n) expressesaffection to peer ; (o) shows empathytoward peer; (p) expresses hostility to-ward peer ; (q) takes unoffered object;(r) defends property ; and (s) seeks agree-ment from peer.

With the exception of the involvedobservation and defends property catego-ries, each of the focal child individualsocial behaviors just listed was classified asto whether it was an initiation . A focalchild initiated event is one in which noprior verbal or nonverbal interaction oc-curred for at least 3 seconds.

Fourteen of the remaining categoriesfocused on the social behaviors of thefocal child in response to directed activi-ties of peers . Categories consisted of fol-lowing the lead of a peer (4 categories tiedto direct/indirect and positive, neutral/negative dimensions), failing to follow thelead of a peer (4 categories as above),responding and failing to respond to apeer's attempt to use the focal child as aresource (2 categories), responding andfailing to respond to a peer's attention-seeking behavior (2 categories), and re-sponding and failing to respond when apeer sought agreement from the focal child(2 categories) . The final category was one

366 AJMR, Volume 100 . No. 4

in which the focal child served as a modelfor a peer.

Ten of the categories designed torecord the social interactions of the focalchild as directed to peers a through f, m,p, q, and r also were judged as eithersuccessful or unsuccessful . Definitions forsuccessful or unsuccessful social interac-tions were specific to each social behaviorcategory . For example, the gains the atten-tion of peer category would be coded assuccessful if the peer attended within 5seconds, either visually or verbally, ormoved closer to or touched the focal child.The response of the peer must be appro-priate to the attention-getting effort of thefocal child . Finally, the identity of the peerinteracted with also was recorded follow-ing procedures outlined previously for thesocial participation scale.

Coders were free to review any seg-ment of the tape as often as needed . Thecoding protocol was divided into 30-sec-ond intervals following the time codessuperimposed on the tape . Although cod-ing was continuous, these divisions pro-vided a structure for the coding task andserved as a framework for establishingreliability (see later discussion within theevent-based system).

Peer Sociometric Ratings . Follow-ing Asher, Singleton, Tinsley, and Hymel(1979), at the end of the playgroup wepresented to each child color Polaroidphotographs of each playgroup partici-pant and asked him to place the photo-graphs into one of three boxes . One boxcontained a drawing of a happy face for"children you really like to play with alot," a second contained a neutral facefor "children you kinda like to playwith," and the third contained a sad facefor "children you don't like to play with ."Prior training with pictures of differentfoods established that each child under-stood the rating procedure . Ratings wereassigned a score of 3 for positive, 2 forneutral, and 1 for negative in order toobtain a composite score in the form ofan overall rating . In addition, separatescores were obtained for the number of

positive assignments and the number ofnegative assignments.

Reliability . Prior to coding, five raterswere trained for a period of 12 to 19 weekson the two observation scales . Videotapesof pilot playgroups were used for trainingand final prestudy reliability assessments.Following the training program, all ratersachieved the minimum average criterionnecessary for participation of 70% inter-observer agreement for each of the majorcategories for ten 10-minute segments froma reliability tape containing complex seg-ments for each of the two scales . Reliabilityalso was obtained for each rater during thecourse of the study for 25% of the playgrouptapes selected on a random basis butbalanced to ensure representation fromthe two types of social settings, groups,and time.

For the social participation and cog-nitive play scale . reliability was based onpercentage agreement obtained across eachof the 10-second observation intervals(number of agreements divided by thetotal number of observations and trans-formed to a percentage). Cohen's (1960)kappa also was calculated where appropri-ate . For prestudy reliability, raters agreedon a mean of 84% (range = 83% to 85%) ofthe intervals, x = .80, for the 10 categoriesof the social participation scale . Using onlythose instances in which observers agreedthat a cognitive play coding was required,we found that interobserver agreementaveraged 94% (range = 93% to 96%) forthe 4 cognitive play categories . Averageagreement with regard to the identity ofthe peer involved in the social interactionwas 85% (range = 80% to 93%) . During thecourse of the study, average interobserveragreement continued to be high in allinstances for each of the 12 groups : socialparticipation, 86% (range = 82% to 90%), x= .81 (range = .76 to .85) ; cognitive play,91% (range = 82% to 97%) ; and the identityof the peer, 90% (range = 84% to 96%).

For the individual social behaviorscale, raters were considered to be inagreement if codes matched within a speci-fied 10-second interval using the "best fit"


367

matching method (Hollenbeck, 1978) . Areliability manual describing this method isavailable from the first author . In additionto the 34 individual social behavior catego-ries, a "no-interaction" event was includedto complete the possible options withineach interval . Percentage agreement wasobtained for each 10-minute segment bytaking the total number of agreements,dividing by the total number of observedindividual social interactions, and trans-forming to a percentage . Calculated in thismanner, the average prestudy agreementfor this scale was 85% (range = 84% to87%), x = .75. Given agreement on theoccurrence of a particular social interac-tion, observers further agreed on an aver-age of 82% (range = 80% to 90%) of theoccasions as to whether the event couldbe classified as successful or unsuccess-ful, an average of 79% (range = 67% to88%) as to whether or not selected focalchild behaviors were initiations, and anaverage of 98% (range = 97% to 99%) as tothe identity of the peer involved in thesocial interaction . Mean reliabilities forobservations carried out during the courseof the study (25% of the total) were asfollows: individual social behaviors, 87%(range = 83% to 92%), x = .78 (range = .76to .83) ; successful/unsuccessful, 91%(range= 84% to 100%); initiations, 80% (range =67% to 96%); and identity of peer, 96%(range = 91% to 99%).

ResultsFor each measure or group of measuresderived from the two observationalscales, data were summed across the firstthree and the last three observation pe-riods, and a series of Group (develop-mentally delayed, typically developing)x Setting (mainstreamed, specialized) xTime (Time 1, Time 2) mixed-modelanalyses of variance was carried out.When peer group membership childrenwho were targets of the social interac-tions of the focal child was includedduring separate analyses of the main-

streamed settings, analyses consisted of2 (group) x 2 (time) x 2 (peer group:developmentally delayed), typically de-veloping analyses of variance, with Timeand Peer Group as within factors . Inthose instances in which multivariateanalyses of variance were applied, Wilks'criterion was used. Whenever frequencydata were transformed to proportions,the arcsine transformation was employed.However, to facilitate the interpretationof results, we presented untransformedscores in the tables.

Effects of Setting, Group, andTime

A multivariate analysis of variance carriedout on the 10 social participation catego-ries revealed significant multivariate ef-fects or strong trends only for the setting,F(10, 59) = 1 .96,p < .055, and group, F(10,59) = 3 .56, p < .001, factors . For setting,separate univariate effects were obtainedfor the parallel play,F(1, 68) = 8 .70,p< .01,and unoccupied, F(1, 68) = 5 .26, p < .05,categories . As can be seen in Table 2,parallel play occurred more frequently inthe mainstreamed setting, but children wereunoccupied approximately twice as oftenin the specialized setting . For the groupfactor, typically developing children en-gaged in more group and parallel play,Fs(l, 68) = 7 .04 and 9.13, respectively, ps< .01, as well as more active conversationwith peers, F(1, 68) = 13 .47, p < .001 . Incontrast, children with developmental de-lays engaged in more solitary play,F(1, 68)= 7 .86,p< .01, transitions,F(1, 68) = 15 .22,p < .001, and interactions involving adults,F(1, 68 = 6 .25,p < .05 . Separate analyses forthe cognitive play categories produced aninteresting pattern . Specifically, typicallydeveloping children engaged in more dra-matic, F(1, 68) = 7 .94, p < .01, but lessfunctional play, F(1, 68) = 8 .40, p < .005.The proportion of functional play, althoughquite low overall (mean = 5 .9%), did in-crease from Time 1 to Time 2, F(1, 68) =5 .78, p< .05 . Correspondingly, as indicated


Table 2Mean Frequencies for Social Participation and Cognitive Play Measures by Subject Group and Setting

Typically developing Developmentally delayed

Social participation

Specialized(n =18)

Mainstreamed(n = 24)

Specialized(n=18)

Mainstreamed(n=12)

and cognitive play Mean SD Mean SD Mean

SD Mean

SD

Social participationPlay

Group 48 .72 36 .24 38 .13 27 .82 25 .89 31 .35 22 .25 20 .17Parallel 74 .17 23 .99 109 .54 44 .37 48 .06 47 .76 73 .42 50 .74Solitary 134 .50 53 .91 109 .96 44 .89 163 .39 59 .27 160 .25 82 .08

NonplayReading 3 .28 5 .73 6 .33 12 .50 9 .00 18 .10 1 .33 4 .31Exploration .39 1 .04 .67 1 .01 2 .22 3 .59 .33 .49Active conversation 32 .56 17 .09 36 .92 23 .24 12 .06 11 .58 23 .92 19 .85Transition 10 .94 4 .92 11 .00 4 .64 18 .83 14 .79 19.92 8 .07Onlooker 29 .61 17 .39 25 .88 17 .59 35 .33 43 .32 30.75 27 .81Unoccupied 18 .44 20 .40 12 .67 6 .86 33 .89 34 .38 15 .92 15 .45

Adult-directed 4 .00 4 .93 5 .58 5 .58 8 .39 7 .54 9.50 9 .95Cognitive play

Dramatic 40 .42 18 .40 45 .35 16 .07 23 .66 17 .15 35 .42 23 .18Constructive 55 .00 17 .68 53 .56 16 .03 66 .50 14 .37 56 .99 24 .72Functional 4 .58 5 .47 3 .09 3 .39 9 .84 11 .50 7 .59 6 .78

Note . Data are summed across six observations ; data for cognitive play categories are in percentages.

by a significant Setting x Time inter-action, F(1, 68) = 6 .93, p < .05, andfollow-up tests, constructive play de-creased from Time 1 to Time 2, but onlyfor children participating in the special-ized setting.

A multivariate analysis of variancecarried out on the frequency of the 15 mostcommonly occurring individual social be-haviors revealed significant multivariateeffects for group,F(15, 54) = 3 .56,p< .001,and time, F(15, 54) = 2 .40, p < .01 . Table 3presents the data for all 34 individualsocial behaviors . As indicated in the table,typically developing children were far moreinteractive than were children with devel-opmental delays, with significant univariateeffects obtained for lead peer direct, posi-tive or neutral, F(1, 68) = 10.71, p < .01;lead peer indirect, positive or neutral, F(1,68) = 34.00,p < .001 ; use peer as resource,F(1, 68) = 17 .03, p < .001; follow peerdirect, positive or neutral, F(1, 68) = 12 .52,p < .001; and respond to peer seeking touse focal child as a resource, F(1, 68) =24.49, p < .001 . Univariate effects for timerevealed only that children failed to followthe directives, positive or neutral, of peersmore frequently during Time 2 than Time1 . The overall frequency of this measurewas quite low, however (see Table 3) .

In order to evaluate the affectivequality of the exchanges, we identifiedcategories reflecting negative social inter-actions from among the 34 individual so-cial behaviors . Those behaviors includedwere hostility, lead direct negative, leadindirect negative, follow lead direct nega-tive, follow lead indirect negative, fail tofollow lead direct negative, fail to followlead indirect negative, fail to follow leaddirect positive or neutral, fail to follow leadindirect positive or neutral, fail to respondto a peer's attempt to use focal child as aresource, take unoffered object, defendproperty, and fail to respond to a peer'sattempt to gain focal child's attention . Allother behaviors constituted a positive be-havior grouping . The frequency of nega-tive social behaviors was then transformedinto a proportion to total individual socialbehaviors and subjected to a 2 (group) x 2(setting) x 2 (time) analysis of variance.This analysis revealed that children withdevelopmental delays displayed a higherproportion of negative social behaviorsthan did typically developing children(means = .43 and .36, respectively,F(1, 68)= 8 .67, p < .01), and that a greater propor-tion of negative social behaviors occurredin the mainstreamed than in the special-ized setting (means = .40 and .37, respec-


369

Table 3Mean Frequencies for Individual Social Behaviors by Subject Group and Setting

Typically developing Developmentally delayed

Specialized(n = 18)


Specialized(n = 18)


Individual social behavior Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

Directed to peer (P)Observation 14 .89 13 .04 10 .17 9 .03 18 .61 32 .69 16 .83 17 .47Joins 5 .50 4 .15 7 .38 4 .11 3 .72 2 .65 6 .50 5 .35Verbal support 1 .89 1 .88 2 .63 3 .23 .33 .84 .92 1 .62Verbal competition .33 1 .19 .46 1 .02 .00 .00 .08 .29Pride in product .17 .51 .04 .20 .06 .24 .08 .29Compete with P for adult .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00Affection .17 .51 .17 .48 .44 .92 .17 .39Empathy .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00Hostility .83 1 .47 1 .79 2 .93 1 .56 1 .62 2 .25 3 .60Lead P direct positive, 18 .89 10 .99 19 .29 10 .76 7 .28 8 .15 13 .33 14 .93

neutralLead P indirect positive, 13 .61 8 .72 13 .75 7 .40 3 .50 4 .06 4 .58 5 .35

neutralLead P direct negative 11 .44 6 .61 13 .83 10 .01 8 .50 7 .37 13 .25 9 .01Lead P indirect negative 2 .94 2 .69 2 .33 3 .00 .78 1 .40 1 .50 1 .83Use P as resource 13 .50 8 .81 12 .79 9 .39 3 .44 5 .77 7 .00 5 .48Takes unoffered object 4 .78 4 .35 5 .46 4 .19 3 .89 4 .04 5 .92 5 .20Imitation 1 .67 2 .11 1 .38 1 .31 1 .33 1 .57 1 .67 1 .78Seek attention of P 9 .78 6 .33 10 .29 6 .13 8 .11 5 .07 11 .33 7 .97Seek agreement of P 2 .89 3 .25 4 .42 8 .38 .89 1 .71 1 .00 1 .60

Response to peerFollow P direct positive, 10 .94 7 .82 8 .88 5 .28 3 .89 4 .40 6 .00 4 .86

neutralFollow P indirect positive, 5 .83 3 .45 5 .04 3 .61 2 .61 4 .31 2 .25 1 .82

neutralFollow P direct negative 5 .83 5 .06 6 .58 4 .60 4 .00 3 .24 6 .50 4 .80Follow P indirect negative .94 .87 .75 .79 .28 .57 1 .08 1 .08Fail to follow P direct 7 .61 5 .16 7 .08 4 .67 4 .06 6 .49 7 .33 6 .05

positive, neutralFail to follow P indirect 5 .06 2 .69 4 .58 4 .24 2 .94 4 .11 3 .67 3 .87

positive, neutralFail to follow P direct 3 .44 2 .48 4 .13 5 .10 4 .00 4 .58 8 .42 9 .39

negativeFail to follow P indirect 1 .11 1 .68 .42 .78 .39 .85 1 .00 1 .41

negativeRespond to P as resource 8 .44 6 .61 8 .08 5 .67 1 .61 2 .40 2 .75 3 .82Fail to respond to P 5 .11 3 .38 4 .58 3 .39 2 .28 3 .01 2 .50 3 .99

as resourceDefends property 6 .22 4 .81 7 .88 3 .84 5 .50 4 .33 6 .75 4 .92Respond to P attention 5 .33 3 .80 7 .58 3 .73 5 .22 2 .82 5 .67 4 .10Fail to respond to P

attention 3 .56 2 .81 5 .08 3 .24 2 .83 1 .69 3 .67 2 .93Respond to P seek

agreement 1 .17 1 .62 3 .04 8 .77 .17 .38 .33 .49Fail to respond to P seek 1 .56 1 .50 2 .04 3 .72 .33 .69 .58 .79

agreementOther

Being a model 1 .39 1 .79 1 .00 1 .14 .67 1 .19 .83 1 .40

Note. Data are summed across six observations.

tively, F(1, 68) = 4 .55, p < .05).A separate analysis of variance car-

ried out on the percentage of successacross all social bids (both positive andnegative) did not yield any significant ef-fects . Both groups, irrespective of settingor time, were successful on approximatelyhalf the occasions . However, similar analy-

sis for the percentage of individual socialbehaviors that were initiated producedsignificant group,F(1, 68) = 15 .54,p < .001,and setting effects, F(1, 68) = 5 .48,p < .05.A greater percentage of initiations weremade by children with developmental de-lays than by typically developing children(means = 35 .81% and 19 .73%, respectively).


Moreover, a greater proportion of initia-tions occurred in the specialized than inthe mainstreamed setting (means = 31 .79%and 21 .07%, respectively).

The final set of measures for theGroup x Setting analyses (no time factor)was obtained from the peer sociometricratings . Three measures consisted of thenumber of positive ratings, the number ofnegative ratings, and an overall rating basedon the average of five ratings one fromeach of the other children in a playgroup.Significant multivariate analyses of vari-ance were obtained for group, F(3, 66) =3.30, p < .05, and the Group x Settinginteraction, F(3, 66) = 2 .71, p < .05 . Sepa-rate analyses of variance, however, pro-duced significant effects only for the Groupx Setting interaction for each of the threemeasures ; overall, F(1, 68) = 5 .71, p < .05,positive, F(1, 68) = 7.97, p < .01, andnegative ratings, F(1, 68) = 5 .71, p < .05.Follow-up analyses revealed that typicallydeveloping children received higher over-all and more positive ratings, but fewernegative ratings when participating in themainstreamed in comparison to the spe-cialized settings, but children with devel-opmental delays received similar ratings inboth settings.

Factor Analysis andCorrelations WithDemographics and ChildCharacteristics

In order to identify important dimensionsof peer-related social interactions, we car-ried out a principal components factoranalysis using the varimax rotation . Basedon previous work (Guralnick & Groom,1990; Guralnick et al ., in press), the follow-ing nine measures were selected for analy-sis : (a) total positive social behaviors, (b)proportion of negative social behaviors,(c) group play, (d) parallel play, (e) solitaryplay composite solitary, read, explore, un-occupied, (f) active conversation, (g) on-looker, (h) transition, and (i) positive peersociometric ratings. This analysis yielded

Table 4Rotated Factor Matrix

Measure Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3

Group play .587 -.083 .243Positive peer

sociometric ratings .043 .080 .828Solitary play composite -.936 -.069 - .132Onlooker -.093 .858 - .015Proportion negative

social behaviors - .134 -.661 - .496Total positive social

behaviors .833 .410 .214Active conversation .708 .332 .013Transition .370 - .009 - .599Parallel play .654 - .467 .129

three factors, which accounted for 68 .1%of the variance see Table 4.

The first factor accounted for 39 .7%of the variance and appeared to representa level of social interaction dimension,with high positive loadings on total posi-tive social behavior, active conversation,parallel play, and group play, but a strongnegative loading on the solitary composite.A second factor accounted for 17 .4% of thevariance and appeared to represent a di-mension reflecting interest in peers, withhigh positive loadings on onlooker behav-ior and moderate positive loadings for totalpositive social behaviors and active con-versation. A high negative loading wasobtained for the proportion of negativesocial behaviors and a moderate negativeloading for parallel play. The third factoraccounted for only 11% of the variance andprimarily reflected the contribution of thepositive peer sociometric rating . As can beseen, the high positive rating is associatedwith the absence of children being intransition or engaging in a high proportionof negative behaviors.

Factor scores were then computedfor each child by multiplying the factorloadings for each of the nine measures andsumming . Three separate Group x Settinganalyses of variance were then carried outfor children's scores on each of the factors.For the level of social interaction factor, asexpected, significant effects were foundfor group, F(1, 68) = 21 .20, p < .001, astypically developing children achievedhigher factor scores than did children with


371

developmental delays . In addition, a sig-nificant setting effect was obtained, F(1,68) = 4 .32, p < .05 . In this case, children inthe mainstreamed setting obtained higherscores than did children in the specializedsetting. No other effects were significantfor this factor.

No significant effects were obtainedfor Factor 2 (interest in peers) . However,the analysis of variance for Factor 3 yieldeda significant group effect, F(1, 68) = 4 .75,p < .05, and a significant Group x Settinginteraction, F(1, 68) = 5 .50,p < .05 . Consis-tent with previous results for the peersociometric analyses, follow-up analysesindicated that typically developing chil-dren had higher scores in the mainstreamedthan in the specialized playgroups, whereaschildren with developmental delays ob-tained similar scores in both settings.

Finally, the family demographic andchild characteristic measures listed in Table1 were each correlated with the threefactor scores. This was carried out sepa-rately for the typically developing childrenand children with developmental delays.The level of significance was set at .01because of the large number of correla-tions . With this more stringent criterion,only a small number of significant correla-tions were obtained . For typically develop-ing children, correlations were obtainedbetween Factor 3 and WPPSI-R verbal MA,r = .46, and CA, r = .45 . For children withdevelopmental delays, Factor 1 correlatedwith total Vineland score , r= .42, and theVineland Daily Living Skills, r = .54 . Theonly other significant correlation was be-tween Factor 3 and Child Behavior Check-list Total Behavior Problems, r = - .43.

Acceptance and SocialIntegration in MainstreamedSettings

A separate series of analyses was carriedout in order to evaluate the extent to whichchildren with developmental delays wereaccepted and socially integrated within themainstreamed playgroups . First, children

with developmental delays and typicallydeveloping children were contrasted interms of the overall peer sociometric ratingto determine their level of social accep-tance in the mainstreamed setting . Also ofinterest was whether these ratings weresimilar when judged by children with andwithout developmental delays . Accordingly,a 2 (group) x 2 (peer group) analysis ofvariance was carried out, which producedonly a significant group effect, F(1, 34) =5.36, p < .05 . As found in the previousanalysis of sociometric ratings across set-tings, typically developing children receivedhigher overall ratings than did childrenwith developmental delays (means = 2 .63and 2 .23), respectively in the mainstreamedplaygroups. Moreover, children with andwithout disabilities rated both peer groupssimilarly.

Second, the degree to which childrenwere successful in gaining a response totheir social bids when the peer was a childwith developmental delays or a typicallydeveloping peer was examined in a 2(group) x 2 (peer group) x 2 (time) analy-sis of variance. A strong trend for theGroup x Peer Group interaction, F(1, 34)= 3 .87, p = .057 (follow-up tests producedsignificant effects, p < .05), suggests thatchildren with developmental delays maybe at a slight disadvantage when interact-ing with typically developing children(mean success = 43 .25% in comparison tointeractions involving only typically devel-oping children mean success = 53.28%).However, when social bids were directedto children with developmental delays,success was virtually identical for childrenfrom either group (overall mean = 48 .34).

Finally, to assess the extent to whichchildren with developmental delays weresocially integrated in the mainstreamedplaygroups, we applied a preference tech-nique developed by Guralnick and Groom(1987) . In this technique,preference scoresare derived for each of the two time peri-ods for each child within a group in rela-tion to children in each of the two peergroups available for social interaction. Toobtain different indices of social integra-


tion, we derived four such preferencescores. The first two measures were takenfrom the Social Participation and CognitivePlay Scale and consisted of an active inter-action composite group (play plus activeconversation categories) and a passive in-teraction composite (parallel play plusonlooker categories) . The second set ofindices was based on the Individual SocialBehavior Scale consisting of the compositecategories of total positive and total neg-ative social behaviors (frequencies) de-scribed earlier.

To obtain a preference score, we firstdetermined the proportion of interactionsexpected to occur to each of the two peergroups for each child within a playgroupfor each time period . This expected pro-portion was based on the number of chil-dren representing the two peer groupswho were available for interaction for eachof the six sessions . For example, if thepreference score was being determined fora typically developing child, and, assumingno absences, the expected proportionsassociated with each of the peer groupswould be .60 (3/5) to typically developingchildren and .40 (2/5) to children withdevelopmental delays. Taking absencesinto account, we averaged the first threeand second three playgroup sessions, whichyielded expected proportions for Time 1and Time 2 . Accordingly, these expectedvalues reflected the proportion of the fourindices (active and passive interactions,total positive and negative individualsocial behaviors) that should have beenassociated with each peer group strictly onthe basis of the number of children avail-able in each peer group.

The observed proportion of interac-tions was obtained for each focal child bytransforming the actual frequencies of oc-currence separately for each of the fourindices into a proportion of the total inter-actions occurring with children in each ofthe two peer groups . These were thenaveraged for each child over the first threeand last three sessions . A preference scorewas then derived consisting of the ob-served proportion of interactions minus

the expected proportion to each peer groupfor each of the two time periods . Positivescores reflect a preference for a peer group,whereas negative scores reflect lower thananticipated interactions with that peergroup.

A series of 2 (group) x 2 (peer group)x 2 (time) analyses of variance was carriedout separately for each of the four indicesof social integration . It is important to notethat due to the nature of the derived score,the sums of squares for the group, time,and Group x Time interaction will equalzero . For the active social play measure, asignificant Group x Peer Group interactionwas obtained, F(1, 34) = 13.61, p < .001.Follow-up analyses revealed that childrenin the typically developing group pre-ferred to interact with other typically de-veloping children, but no preference wasfound for children with developmentaldelays. The passive social play measureyielded slightly different findings . Specifi-cally, a main effect for peer group, F(1, 34)= 7.48, p < .01, indicated that, overall,children with developmental delays wereless preferred play partners than weretypically developing children . However, astrong trend for the Group x Peer Groupinteraction, F(1, 34) = 3.82, p < .059,confirmed by follow-up analyses, reflectedthe same pattern obtained for the activesocial play measure. For the two mea-sures based on the Individual SocialBehavior Scale, the positive compositeyielded a significant Group x Peer Groupinteraction, F(1, 34) = 10.52, p < .01,following the pattern described for theactive and passive social play measures.In contrast, the negative composite didnot produce any significant effects.

Discussion

The results of this study revealed thatyoung children with and without develop-mental delays are more interactive withtheir peers in mainstreamed as opposed tospecialized settings . Of importance, virtu-ally all of these effects were apparent

Mainstsreamed Settings 373

within the first week of the playgroups.Specifically, children who participated inplaygroups with unacquainted peers wereunoccupied nearly twice as often (andengaged less frequently in parallel play)when these playgroups were specializedrather than mainstreamed. Moreover,constructive play decreased across the 2-week period of the playgroups, but onlywhen children participated in the spe-cialized settings . Complementing thesefindings for specific measures was theeffect of setting on children's levels ofsocial interaction factor scores, whichwere composed of measures that in-cluded group play, positive social be-haviors, active conversation, and parallelplay . Once again, children's levels ofsocial interaction were higher in themainstreamed in contrast to the special-ized setting.

Findings of this study confirm andextend previous research suggesting thatmainstreamed settings are more support-ive of the peer interactions of children withdevelopmental delays than are specializedsettings (e .g ., Guralnick & Groom, 1988).In fact, despite the absence of an overallGroup x Setting interaction, inspection ofTable 3, in particular, suggests a moreconsistent and substantial effect of settingfor children with developmental delaysthan for typically developing children . Inaddition, because benefits appear almostimmediately, they are likely to be related tothe social demands and interaction levelsassociated with the typically developingchildren in the setting . Indeed, as ex-pected, the interaction levels of typicallydeveloping children far exceeded those ofchildren with developmental delays . Thecomparatively high frequency (see Table3) with which typically developing chil-dren engaged in directive type behaviorsin particular (e .g ., lead direct and indirect)suggests that such children may be adopt-ing an organizing role during play that, atleast initially, includes children with andwithout developmental delays . Previousresearch has demonstrated that directive-type behaviors of children with develop-

mental delays are especially problematic(Guralnick & Groom, 1985, 1987) and may,therefore, create a unique set of difficultiesfor children with developmental delays inspecialized settings.

It is important to point out that thebenefits of mainstreamed settings found inthis study applied to typically developingchildren as well . The social demands andinteraction level explanations cannot, ofcourse, provide an understanding of theseresults . Perhaps the diversity of develop-mental characteristics found in main-streamed settings is a contributing factor,requiring typically developing children toexert more of a leadership role . However,research focusing on settings that includechildren at different CAs has found thatolder children's peer interactions do notbenefit from mixed-age environments (e .g .,Bailey, McWilliam, Ware, & Burchinal,1993), suggesting that other explanationsshould be considered . It is interesting thattypically developing children receivedhigher overall ratings as well as morepositive but fewer negative assignments inthe mainstreamed than in the specializedsettings, as judged by their peers in thesociometric task . These higher ratings werenot inflated by the children with develop-mental delays, as revealed by separateanalyses of the mainstreamed playgroups.Perhaps specific features of the main-streamed social environment are creating amore positive climate for children's peerrelations . Alternatively, contrasts betweenthe social skills of children with and with-out developmental delays may have beenresponsible for this difference on thesociometric ratings . In any event, it isdifficult to predict whether the observedbenefits associated with the mainstreamedsetting will be retained for typically devel-oping children over time or revert to themore typical finding of no advantages noradverse effects on children's peer interac-tions as a consequence of setting.

The fact that a greater proportion ofinitiations occurred in specialized than inmainstreamed settings suggests that socialexchanges in the specialized setting were


briefer and not as well-integrated . Thefinding that the proportion of social inter-actions that were initiations for childrenwith developmental delays was nearly twicethat of typically developing children sup-ports this explanation. However, the find-ing that both groups of children had ahigher proportion of negative social inter-actions in mainstreamed than in special-ized settings is of concern . Perhaps thehigher activity levels in the mainstreamedsetting created proportionally greater op-portunities for conflict to arise see "fail tofollow" categories in Table 3 . Nevertheless,despite this concern, the most consistentimmediate effects of mainstreamed in com-parison to specialized settings is one ofincreased peer-related social interactions.It is this initial positive interaction patternthat can be capitalized upon in main-streamed early education settings to de-velop systematic intervention programs forchildren with developmental delays soonafter the program begins.

The degree to which children withdevelopmental delays are accepted andsocially integrated in mainstreamed set-tings constitutes an important related is-sue. Consistent with previous researchbased on peer sociometric ratings (Gural-nick & Groom, 1987), overall, childrenwith developmental delays were less ac-cepted in the mainstreamed playgroups . Inaddition, ratings were found to be similarwhen made by children with or withoutdevelopmental delays . Although alterna-tive explanations are possible (see Gural-nick, 1990b ; Guralnick & Groom, 1987),the most plausible basis for this lower levelof acceptance is the relative lack of peer-related social competence exhibited bychildren with developmental delays, a pat-tern that is apparent almost immediately.

These peer sociometric ratings alsowere consistent with results based on aseries of behavioral indices of social inte-gration . For observational measures con-sisting of active and passive social playcomposites and a positive social interac-tion composite, it was evident that typicallydeveloping children preferred to interact

with other typically developing children,whereas no preference was obtained forchildren with developmental delays . How-ever, for the final index, the negative socialbehavior composite, no preferences byeither group to interact with children withor without disabilities were observed.

How the lower ratings of social ac-ceptance and the absence of completesocial integration for children with devel-opmental delays in mainstreamed settingsapparent during the first 2 weeks of theplaygroups will influence the subsequentdevelopment of their peer interactions isdifficult to determine . If exclusion fromsocial play becomes a prominent feature ofthe social interaction patterns found inmainstreamed settings, then opportunitiesto benefit from participation with typicallydeveloping children over time will cer-tainly be minimized . Nevertheless, despitethe differences in acceptance and socialintegration found in this study, closer in-spection of the data reveals that, evenduring the first 2 weeks, interactions be-tween children with and without develop-mental delays occurred with considerablefrequency . On an absolute basis, approxi-mately 75% of the overall social interac-tions of children with developmental delaysand nearly 78%, of group play involvedtypically developing children . Conse-quently, unless the initial levels of accep-tance and social integration for childrenwith developmental delays change sub-stantially, the presumed beneficial effectsassociated with and frequent exchangesoccurring among children differing in de-velopmental status in mainstreamed set-tings remain reasonable expectations.Should these findings be replicated withmore diverse subject samples (i .e ., chil-dren differing in terms of gender, ethnicity,or socioeconomic status) in a variety ofsettings, future work should be devoted todeveloping strategies that build upon thesenaturally occurring and rapidly emergingpositive interaction patterns in order tomaximize the peer-related social compe-tence of children with and without devel-opmental delays.


375

References

Achenbach, T. M., & Edelbrock, C . (1981).Manual for the Child Behavior Checklistand Revised Child Behavior Profile.Burlington: University of Vermont, Depart-ment of Psychiatry.

Asher, S . R., Singleton, L . C ., Tinsley, B . R.,& Hymel, S . (1979) . A reliable sociometricmeasure for preschool children . Develop-mental Psychology, 15, 443–444.

Bailey, D . B ., Jr., McWilliam, R. A ., Ware, W.B., & Burchinal, M . A . (1993) . Social inter-actions of toddlers and preschoolers in same-age and mixed-age play groups . Journal ofApplied Developmental Psychology, 14,261—276.

Bakeman, R ., & Brownlee, J . R. (1980) . Thestrategic use of parallel play : A sequentialanalysis . Child Development, 51, 873—878.

Barnes, K . E . (1971) . Preschool play norms : Areplication . Developmental Psychology, 5,99–103.

Beckman, P . J., & Kohl, F . L. (1984) . Theeffects of social and isolate toys on theinteractions and play of integrated and non-integrated groups of preschoolers . Educa-tion and Training of the Mentally Retarded,19, 169–174.

Beckman, P . J ., & Kohl, F . L . (1987) . Interac-tions of preschoolers with and without handi-caps in integrated and segregated settings : Alongitudinal study . Mental Retardation, 25,5—11.

Buysse, V., & Bailey, D . B ., Jr. (1993) . Behav-ioral and developmental outcomes in youngchildren with disabilities in integrated andsegregated settings : A review of comparativestudies . The Journal of Special Education,26, 434–461.

Carrow-Woolfolk, E. (1985) . Manual for theTest for Auditory Comprehension of Lan-guage-Revised . Allan, TX: DLM TeachingResources.

Cohen, J. (1960) . A coefficient of agreementfor nominal scales . Educational and Psycho-logical Measurement, 20, 37–46.

Cole, J. D., & Kupersmidt, J . B. (1983) . Abehavioral analysis of emerging social statusin boys' groups . Child Development, 54,1400—1416.

Connolly, J . A., & Doyle, A . (1981) . Assess-ment of social competence in preschoolers:Teachers versus peers . Developmental Psy-chology, 17, 454–462.

Dodge, K. A. (1983) . Behavioral antecedentsof peer social status . Child Development, 54,1386–1399.

Doyle, A ., Connolly, J ., & Rivest, L. (1980) .

The effect of playmate familiarity on thesocial interactions of young children . ChildDevelopment, 51, 217—223.

Field, T., Roseman, S ., DeStefano, L ., &Koewler, J. H., III . (1981) . Play behaviorsof handicapped preschool children in thepresence and absence of nonhandicappedpeers . Journal of Applied DevelopmentalPsychology, 2, 49—58.

Goldman, J . A. (1981) . Social participation ofpreschool children in same versus mixed agegroups . Child Development, 52, 644–650.

Guralnick, M .J . (1981) .The social behavior ofpreschool children at different developmen-tal levels : Effects of group composition .Jour-nal of Experimental Child Psychology, 31,115—130.

Guralnick, M . J. (1986). The application ofchild development principles and researchto preschool mainstreaming . In C . J . Meisel(Ed .),Mainstreaming handicapped children:Outcomes, controversies, and new directions(pp. 21-41) . Hillsdale, NJ : Erlbaum.

Guralnick, M . J. (1990a) . Major accomplish-ments and future directions in' early child-hood mainstreaming . Topics in EarlyChildhood Special Education, 102, 1—17.

Guralnick, M . J . (1990b) . Peer interactionsand the development of handicapped chil-dren's social and communicative compe-tence . In H. Foot, M . Morgan, & R. Shute(Eds .), Children helping children (pp . 275—305) . Sussex, England: Wiley.

Guralnick, M . J . (1994) . Mothers' perceptionsof the benefits and drawbacks of early child-hood mainstreaming . Journal of Early Inter-vention, 18, 168—183.

Guralnick, M . J ., Connor, R ., & Hammond,M. (1995). Parent perspectives of peer rela-tions and friendships in integrated and spe-cialized programs . American Journal onMental Retardation, 99, 457–476.

Guralnick, M. J ., Connor, R., Hammond, M .,Gottman, J ., & Kinnish, K. in press . Thepeer relations of preschool children with com-munication disorders . Child Development.

Guralnick, M. J ., & Groom, J . M. (1985).Correlates of peer-related social competenceof developmentally delayed preschool chil-dren . American Journal ofMental Deficiency,90, 140–150.

Guralnick, M . J ., & Groom, J . M. (1987) . Thepeer relations of mildly delayed and non-handicapped preschool children in main-streamed playgroups . Child Development,58,1556–1572.

Guralnick, M .J ., & Groom, J . M. (1988) . Peerinteractions in mainstreamed and special-ized classrooms: A comparative analysis.Exceptional Children, 54, 415—425.


Guralnick, M . J ., & Groom, J . M. (1990) . Therelationship between parent-rated behaviorproblems and peer relations in preschoolchildren . Early Education and Development,1, 266—278.

Guralnick, M .J ., & Weinhouse, E. M. (1984).Peer-related social interactions of develop-mentally delayed young children : Develop-ment and characteristics . DevelopmentalPsychology, 20, 815—827.

Higgenbotham, J., & Baker, B . M. (1981).Social participation and cognitive play differ-ences in hearing-impaired and normally hear-ing preschoolers . The Volta Review, 83,135—149.

Hollenbeck, A . R. (1978). Problems of reli-ability in observational research . In G. P.Sackett (Ed .), Observing behavior: Vol . 2.Data collection and analysis methods (pp.79—98) . Baltimore : University Park Press.

Hollingshead, A. B . (1975) . Four factor indexof social status . Unpublished manuscript.Yale University, Department of Sociology,New Haven.

Hymel, S., Wagner, E ., & Butler, L . J . (1990).Reputational bias : View from the peer group.In S . R . Asher & J . D . Coie Eds ., Peer rejectionin childhood (pp . 156—186) . Cambridge : Cam-bridge University Press.

Jenkins, J . R., Odom, S . L ., & Speltz, M. L.(1989) . Effects of social integration on pre-school children with handicaps . ExceptionalChildren, 55, 420—428.

Jenkins, J . R., Speltz, M . L ., & Odom, S . L.(1985) . Integrating normal and handicappedpreschoolers : Effects on child developmentand social interaction . Exceptional Children,52, 7—17.

Kopp, C . B., Baker, B . I ., & Brown, K. W.(1992) . Social skills and their correlates:Preschoolers with developmental delays.American journal on Mental Retardation,96, 357–366.

Miller, L. J ., Strain, P. S., Boyd, K.,McKinley, J ., Hunsicker, S ., & Wu, A . inpress . Preschool mainstreaming : Out-comes for children with disabilities andnormally developing children . Journal ofEarly Intervention.

Parten, M. B . (1932). Social participation amongpreschool children . Journal of AbnormalSocial Psychology, 27, 243—269.

Roper, R., & Hinde, R . A. (1978) . Social be-havior in a play group : Consistency andcomplexity . Child Development, 49,570—579.

Rubin, K. H. (1982) . Nonsocial play in pre-schoolers : Necessarily evil? Child Develop-ment, 53, 651–657.

Rubin, K . H. (1985) . The Play ObservationScale (POS) (Rev) . Waterloo, Ontario : Uni-versity of Waterloo .

Rubin, K. H ., & Krasnor, L. R. (1980) . Changesin the play behaviours of preschoolers : Ashort-term longitudinal investigation . Cana-dian Journal of Behavioural Science, 12,278—282.

Rubin, K . H., LeMare, L ., & Lollis, S . (1990).Social withdrawal in childhood : Develop-mental pathways to peer rejection . In S . R.Asher & J . D . Coie (Eds .), Children's status inthe peer group (pp . 217—249) . New York:Cambridge University Press.

Rubin, K. H., Maioni, T. L, & Hornung, M.(1976) . Free play behaviors in middle andlower class preschoolers : Parten and Piagetrevisited . Child Development, 47, 414—419.

Rubin, K. H., Watson, K . S ., & Jambor, T . W.(1978) . Free-play behaviors in preschooland kindergarten children . Child Develop-ment, 49 . 534—536.

Smilansky, S . (1968) . The effects of sociodra-matic play on disadvantaged preschool chil-dren . New York : Wiley.

Smith, P . K. (1978). A longitudinal study ofsocial participation in preschool children:Solitary and parallel play reexamined . Devel-opmental Psychology, 14, 517—523.

Sparrow, S . S ., Balla, D . A ., & Cicchetti, D . V.(1984) . Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales.Circle Pines, MN : American Guidance Ser-vice.

Vandenberg, B . (1981) . Environmental andcognitive factors in social play . Journal ofExperimental Child Psychology, 31,169–175.

Wechsler, D. (1989) . Wechsler Preschool andPrimary Scale of Intelligence-Revised . SanAntonio: Psychological Corp.

White, B. L ., & Watts, J . C . (1973). Experienceand environment (Vol . 1) . Englewood Cliffs,NJ : Prentice-Hall.

Wright, M. J . (1980) . Measuring the socialcompetence of preschool children . Cana-dian journal of Behavioural Science, 12,17—32.

Zimmerman, I. L ., Steiner, V. G., & Pond, R.E. (1979) . Preschool Language Scale (Rev.ed .) . Columbus, OH : Merrill.

Received 6/21/94, first decision 11/17/94, accepted12/19/94.

This research was supported by Grant No.H024K90002 from the Department of Education,Office of Special Education Programs . Apprecia-tion is expressed to B . Yamauchi, A. Burke, L.Finnsson, J . Greaby, P . Griffen, and J . Neilson forassistance with data coding and other aspects ofthis project. The fifth author is now affiliated withthe University of Utah . Requests for reprints shouldbe sent to Michael J . Guralnick, Center on HumanDevelopment and Disability, University of Wash-ington, Box 357920, Seattle, WA 98195-7920.


377

page 1page 2page 3page 4page 5page 6page 7page 8page 9page 10page 11page 12page 13page 14page 15page 16page 17page 18page 19IE268-377.pdfpage 1page 2page 3page 4page 5page 6page 7page 8page 9page 10page 11page 12page 13page 14page 15page 16page 17page 18page 19

american journal on mental retardation, vol. 100, no. 4, 359-377 … · 2007. 5. 9. · american...

Documents