The sociometric status of students with disabilities in a full-inclusion school.

The sociometric status of students with disabilities in a full-inclusion school. Within the past decade and a half, considerable discussion hasoccurred regarding the most appropriate setting within which to provideeducation for students with disabilities. Most recently, two somewhatcongruent con��gru��ent?adj.1. Corresponding; congruous.2. Mathematicsa. Coinciding exactly when superimposed: congruent triangles.b. efforts have emerged: the regular education initiative (Will,1986) and the full-inclusion initiative (The Council for ExceptionalChildren, 1993). Although conceptual overlap exists between the twoinitiatives, the former has generally dealt with students with mild tomoderate disabilities, whereas the latter has generally focused onstudents with severe disabilities. Both have emerged from the so-calledmainstreaming movement that originated with the least restrictiveenvironment As part of the U.S. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the least restrictive environment is identified as one of the six principles that govern the education of students with disabilities. clause of the Education of All Handicapped Children Act of1975 and subsequent amendments to that Act (now known as the Individualswith Disabilities Education Act This article or section is currently being developed or reviewed.Some statements may be disputed, incorrect, , biased or otherwise objectionable. , IDEA). Both initiatives advocateeducation for children with disabilities in the general educationclassroom setting. Proponents of the initiatives argue that increasedlearning and social competence occur from placement in integratedsettings.For the purposes of this discussion, inclusion is used to representthe education of all students in general classrooms. Tenets of theinclusion concept, according to according toprep.1. As stated or indicated by; on the authority of: according to historians.2. In keeping with: according to instructions.3. Stainback, Stainback, and Jackson (1992)are as follows:* All children must be included in both the educational and sociallife of their schools and classrooms. * The basic goal is to not leaveanyone out of school and classroom communities from the very beginning(thus, integration can be abandoned since no one has to go back to themainstream). * The focus shall be on the support needs of all studentsand personnel.Several questions emerge when one considers the possible effects offull inclusion of students with disabilities in the general educationclassroom. An obvious question is how children with disabilities fare inthe general education classroom, both socially and academically. Otherquestions involve teacher acceptance of and interaction with thesechildren and how children without disabilities benefit from or areaffected by the inclusion of children with disabilities.Though the integration of children with disabilities into generaleducation classrooms has sparked a great deal of debate in the past fewdecades, the literature on mainstreaming, inclusion, and the regulareducation initiative provides only a few studies of achievement, socialinteraction, or social status factors that benefit or impede im��pede?tr.v. im��ped��ed, im��ped��ing, im��pedesTo retard or obstruct the progress of. See Synonyms at hinder1.[Latin imped theeducation of children with disabilities and their peers. Hallahan,Keller, McKinney, Lloyd, and Bryan (1988) examined two research-basedarguments used by regular education initiative proponents. The firstbody of literature they examined consisted of efficacy studies thatcompared students with disabilities in special education settings withthose in general education settings. Efficacy studies spanning more than60 years concluded that "special classes are less effective or showno advantage over regular classes" (Biklen & Zollers, 1986).Madden mad��den?v. mad��dened, mad��den��ing, mad��densv.tr.1. To make angry; irritate.2. To drive insane.v.intr.To become infuriated. and Slavin (1983) also concluded from efficacy studies thatstudents with mild disabilities would most benefit from placement ingeneral education classrooms.The second research base Hallahan et al. (1988) examined pertains tothe Adaptive Learning (algorithm) adaptive learning - (Or "Hebbian learning") Learning where a system programs itself by adjusting weights or strengths until it produces the desired output. Environments Model (ALEM) developed by Wang andher colleagues (Wang & Birch birch,common name for some members of the Betulaceae, a family of deciduous trees or shrubs bearing male and female flowers on separate plants, widely distributed in the Northern Hemisphere. , 1984a, b; Wang, Peverly, &Randolph, 1984; Wang & Walberg, 1986). The ALEM is used to show howchildren with disabilities can be served in general educationclassrooms. However, Hallahan et al. concluded that reports of thesuccess of the ALEM were problematic and thus "are only suggestive sug��ges��tive?adj.1. a. Tending to suggest; evocative: artifacts suggestive of an ancient society.b. at best" and that they did not successfully support a rationale forthe regular education initiative.A number of studies deal with the inclusion of children with severedisabilities in general education classrooms. A recent study of threepreschoolers with profound disabilities (Hanline, 1993) established thesocial and communication benefits of full inclusion for these children.The results of this study conflicted with previous studies of preschoolchildren with disabilities who seemed to be socially isolated in generalclassrooms (Faught, Balleweg, Crow, & van den Pol, 1983; Peterson,1982; Peterson & Haralick, 1977). Another study (Cole, 1991)examined social integration of children with severe disabilities in 43Minnesota classrooms. The 2-year study compared integrated andsegregated (special education only) sites and determined thatdevelopmental skill progress was similar in both types of schools, butthat children in integrated sites progressed in social skill developmentwhile the segregated children actually regressed.Teacher perceptions of full inclusion have been studied, with varyingresults. A survey of 381 special and general educators (Semmel,Abernathy, Butera, & Lesar, 1991) revealed that teachers believedthat "full time placement of students with mild disabilities willnot have positive social benefits for these students." Anotherstudy (Giangreco, Dennis, Cloninger, Edelman, & Schattman, 1993) of19 teachers who actually had students with severe disabilities in theirclassrooms concluded that 17 of the teachers underwent a transformationfrom initial negative reactions to the placement of these children intheir classrooms to a more positive viewpoint. Teacher interviewsincluded numerous reports of benefits to students with disabilities,their classmates Classmates can refer to either: Classmates.com, a social networking website. Classmates (film), a 2006 Malayalam blockbuster directed by Lal Jose, starring Prithviraj, Jayasurya, Indragith, Sunil, Jagathy, Kavya Madhavan, Balachandra Menon, ... , and the teachers themselves.Despite the disparity dis��par��i��ty?n. pl. dis��par��i��ties1. The condition or fact of being unequal, as in age, rank, or degree; difference: "narrow the economic disparities among regions and industries"among study results and the overwhelming numberof variables associated with establishing success with inclusion, thecall for full inclusion of all students into general education schoolsand for almost all students into general education classrooms continues(National Association of State Boards state boardsExaminations administered by a US state board of medical examiners to license a physician in a particular state; these examinations play an ever-decreasing role in state medical licensure, as these bodies now rely on standardized national examinations of Education, 1992). Many stateshave begun to move toward a commitment to full-inclusion schools. Asfull-inclusion programs and schools appear across the United States United States,officially United States of America, republic (2005 est. pop. 295,734,000), 3,539,227 sq mi (9,166,598 sq km), North America. The United States is the world's third largest country in population and the fourth largest country in area. , theaggregation of research data regarding the academic, social, andcommunity status of children with disabilities is critical.Studies of the sociometric status of children with disabilities(Asher & Hymel, 1981; Bruck, 1986; Bruck & Herbert, 1982; Bryan,1976; Dudley-Marling & Edmiaston, 1985; Landau lan��dau?n.1. A four-wheeled carriage with front and back passenger seats that face each other and a roof in two sections that can be lowered or detached.2. A style of automobile with a similar roof. , Milich, &McFarland, 1987; Perlmutter, Crocker, Cordray, & Garstecki, 1983;Sater & French, 1989; Scranton & Ryckman, 1979; Siperstein,Bopp, & Bak, 1978; Ysseldyke, Algozzine, Shinn, & McGue, 1982)have focused largely on students with moderate learning disabilities,and none of these studies was conducted in full-inclusion schools.Terry and Coie (1991) stated, "The primary impetus Impetus is a stimulus or impulse, a moving force that sparks momentum.Impetus may also refer to: Theory of impetus, an obsolete scientific theory on projectile motion, superseded by the modern theory of inertia for much ofthe current interest in children's peer relationships stems fromthe idea that childhood peer status is a significant predictor ofdisorder in adolescence adolescence,time of life from onset of puberty to full adulthood. The exact period of adolescence, which varies from person to person, falls approximately between the ages 12 and 20 and encompasses both physiological and psychological changes. and adulthood" (see Parker & Asher,1987, p. 868). This statement is further supported by evidence thatchildren with poor relationships are at risk for a variety of adjustmentproblems in later life (Cowen, Pederson, Babigan, Izzo, & Trost,1973; Robins, 1966; Roff, Sells, & Golden, 1972) and by indicationsthat children with learning disabilities have poor peer relations(Anderson & Messick, 1974; Bruininks, 1978; Bryan, 1974; Wiener,1987), although these studies do not discuss similar results forchildren with only physical or behavioral disabilities.A 3-year study of sociometric methods (Terry & Coie, 1991)analyzed an��a��lyze?tr.v. an��a��lyzed, an��a��lyz��ing, an��a��lyz��es1. To examine methodically by separating into parts and studying their interrelations.2. Chemistry To make a chemical analysis of.3. four methods for strengths and weaknesses and for psychometric psy��cho��met��rics?n. (used with a sing. verb)The branch of psychology that deals with the design, administration, and interpretation of quantitative tests for the measurement of psychological variables such as intelligence, aptitude, and properties such as temporal Having to do with time. Contrast with "spatial," which deals with space. stability and discriminant validity Discriminant validity describes the degree to which the operationalization is not similar to (diverges from) other operationalizations that it theoretically should not be similar to. . Terryand Cole concluded that the choice of a sociometric method should bedetermined by the goals of the inquiry for which it is being used. Forexample, investigators who object to the use of negative peernominations can use a method, described by Asher and Dodge (1986), thatcombines positive nominations with peer ratings and social statusgroups. However, Terry and Coie cited several studies (Bell-Dolan,Foster, & Sikora, 1989; Havvren & Hymel, 1984; Ratiner,Weissberg, & Caplan, 1986) that detected no empirical evidence thatnegative nominations adversely affect children's interactions.Newcomb and Bukowski (1983) used a nomination system in whichstudents identify a small number of peers whom they like most and asimilar number of peers whom they like least. The social status of astudent is determined directly from positive and negative nominationtotals. Coie, Dodge, and Coppotelli (1982) further suggested thecompilation Compiling a program. See compiler. of an index of social impact, which is calculated bycombining the total number of nominations received by each student,while an index of social preference is calculated by subtracting thetotal of least-liked nominations from the total of most-likednominations. The benefit of these methods is that they aretwo-dimensional, as opposed to peer-rating methods that areunidimensional.A further concern of sociometric-status dimensions is the stabilityof scores over time. Gresham and Stuart (1992), for example, found thatreclassification ReclassificationThe process of changing the class of mutual funds once certain requirements have been met. These requirements are generally placed on load mutual funds. Reclassification is not considered to be a taxable event. rates among children in Grades K-4 for sociometricstatus were unstable over a 1-year interval. However, their concern wasthe use of sociometric status for the identification of studentsrequiring an intervention for social skills training, whereas thepresent study seeks to establish whether children with disabilities, asa group, differ significantly from their peers in social impact andsocial preference. Although measures for individual students areunstable over time, particularly for nominations by primary school-agedstudents, the stability of the measures over time is acceptable whengroup results remain consistent.The present study investigates the sociometric status of childrenwith disabilities in a full-inclusion school by using the positive andnegative peer nomination techniques described previously.METHODSubjects and SettingThe subjects for the study were all students in a full-inclusionsuburban elementary school elementary school:see school. in the western United States Noun 1. western United States - the region of the United States lying to the west of the Mississippi RiverWestSanta Fe Trail - a trail that extends from Missouri to New Mexico; an important route for settlers moving west in the 19th century . The studentswere pre-dominantly Caucasian, not of Hispanic origin. Of the 28minority students, 17 were Hispanic. Eighty students participated infree- or reduced-lunch programs. The school had 24 classes, 22 generaleducation teachers, and 7 special education teachers. All instructionfor students with current or suspected disabilities occurred in generalclassrooms. Of the 588 students in the school, 524 were interviewed; and592 students were eligible for nomination by their peers (including the588 currently enrolled students plus 4 students who had recently moved).The school principal sent a note home informing parents of the study andrequesting that parents who did not want their children involved returna non-consent signature form. Only 5 students returned non-consentforms. Interviews took place over an 8-school-day period in March afterstudents had been in essentially intact classes for 6 months.For the purposes of the study, three sub-groups of students wereconstructed a priori a prioriIn epistemology, knowledge that is independent of all particular experiences, as opposed to a posteriori (or empirical) knowledge, which derives from experience. :* Currently eligible students were declared eligible for specialeducation services through the district eligibility process that was inplace before the building-level decision to not refer students foreligibility determination.* Likely eligible students were students who would have met thecriteria for eligibility had the eligibility process been initiated.These students were determined likely eligible by the clinical judgmentof at least six of the seven special education personnel who worked withand consulted with general education teachers in the building. Thebuilding personnel's choice to refrain from referring suspectedstudents for eligibility determination was supported by the StateDepartment of Education (i.e., formal eligibility determinations forstudents in this building ceased 2 years prior to the study). Likelyeligible students received services from special education without beingspecifically identified as eligible students.* Control group students did not meet the currently eligible orlikely eligible criteria, were randomly selected within each class, andwere matched by gender within each class. For example, if Class A hadthree males and one female who were either currently or likely eligible,three males and one female were chosen from Class A to be members of thecontrol group. Table 1 provides demographic information on the studentbody and each of the subgroups.[TABULAR DATA OMITTED]ProceduresThe peer-nomination technique used for the study was adapted fromCoie et al. (1982). Three graduate-level interviewers who were blindwith respect to subject grouping collected the data. Students in GradesK-3 were interviewed in the back of their classrooms. Other studentswere interviewed in the hall outside of the classroom. The interviewersused the script shown in Figure 1.Students who nominated nom��i��nate?tr.v. nom��i��nat��ed, nom��i��nat��ing, nom��i��nates1. To propose by name as a candidate, especially for election.2. To designate or appoint to an office, responsibility, or honor. peers in other classrooms were directed tonominate nom��i��nate?tr.v. nom��i��nat��ed, nom��i��nat��ing, nom��i��nates1. To propose by name as a candidate, especially for election.2. To designate or appoint to an office, responsibility, or honor. peers in their own classroom. Students who gave no responseafter one prompt were thanked for their participation and returned totheir seats. Any sign of distress by the student during the interviewwas to be a criterion for terminating the interview, though this did notoccur during any of the interviews.Interobserver reliability checks were performed on approximately 12%of the sample by having two observers record responses simultaneouslyduring the interviews. Agreement was calculated by computing computing - computer thepercentage agreement relative to the total number of responses coded.Response stability was determined by randomly selecting three childrenfrom each class and read-ministering the interviews 3 weeks after theinitial interview.Eight indexes of social status were constructed for each student,based on the nomination data. Figure 2 provides descriptions of thoseindexes.Three analysis of variance (ANOVA anovasee analysis of variance.ANOVAAnalysis of variance, see there ) procedures were performed toidentify differences on all measures but the Social Preference andSocial Impact Groupings. First, students in the currently eligible andlikely eligible groups were combined to reflect a student disabilitypopulation similar to that of schools who have chosen to continueeligibility determinations. Second, the currently eligible and likelyeligible groups were split to examine differences between groups.Finally, differences among disability groups were explored.Disability groups were as follows:* P/C (perceptual or communicative com��mu��ni��ca��tive?adj.1. Inclined to communicate readily; talkative.2. Of or relating to communication.com��mu disorder) represents students witha learning disability as indicated by a disorder in the psychologicalprocess that affects language and learning and a significantly impairedachievement in prereading/reading; reading comprehension comprehensionAct of or capacity for grasping with the intellect. The term is most often used in connection with tests of reading skills and language abilities, though other abilities (e.g., mathematical reasoning) may also be examined. ; writtenlanguage; or comprehension, application, and retention of math concepts.* SIED SIED Staff Inspection Evaluation Department (significantly identifiable emotional disability) representsstudents with emotional or behavioral problems who have emotional orsocial functioning social functioning,n the ability of the individual to interact in the normal or usual way in society; can be used as a measure of quality of care. that prevents the students from receiving reasonablebenefit from general education.* Physical represents students who have a chronic health problem orsignificant limitation in ambulation am��bu��late?intr.v. am��bu��lat��ed, am��bu��lat��ing, am��bu��latesTo walk from place to place; move about.[Latin ambul , attention, or self-help skillsthat requires special services and prevents the students from receivingreasonable educational benefit from general education.* Other students were those with mild to moderate vision or hearingproblems. Definitions of P/C, SIED, and Physical Disabilities were takenfrom the Colorado Department of Education Regulations. Social Preferenceand Social Impact groups were analyzed using contingency tables, andwhere appropriate, a Chi-square procedure.RESULTSTables 2-4 summarize sum��ma��rize?intr. & tr.v. sum��ma��rized, sum��ma��riz��ing, sum��ma��riz��esTo make a summary or make a summary of.sum the results of the analyses. Interobserveragreement for nomination responses was 0.98. Response stabilitycoefficients were calculated conservatively by aggregating the exactname matches on most-liked and least-liked nominations (in any order)and dividing the number of matches by the total number of nominations.The average response stability coefficient coefficient/co��ef��fi��cient/ (ko?ah-fish��int)1. an expression of the change or effect produced by variation in certain factors, or of the ratio between two different quantities.2. across grades was 0.59 (range.33 to .75). This coefficient is similar to that reported in otherstudies (Coie et al., 1982; Gresham & Stuart, 1992). However,students picked their peers in the same pattern (currently eligible,likely eligible, and general) on both the initial and stabilityreinterview sessions.[TABULAR DATA OMITTED]Eligibility Groups CombinedStudents who were currently eligible or considered likely eligiblecandidates for special education, when combined as a group, hadsignificantly lower social preference scores than their generaleducation peers, F (1, 156) = 15.84, p = .0001. The combined group ofeligible students were nominated as most liked significantly less, F (1,156) = 10.610, p = .0014, and least liked significantly more than theirpeers, F(1, 156) = 10.580, p = .0014. No significant difference wasfound in first nominations for most liked, F (1, 156) = 2.82, p = .0951;however, students in the combined eligible group were picked first inthe least-liked nomination process significantly more than their peers,F (1, 156) = 10.33, p = .0016. Social impact scores for the two groupswere not significantly different, F (1, 156) = 2.270, p = .1 339.Social-preference groups representing the most popular (> 1.0 zscore) and the most rejected (< -1.0 z score) groups of students wereconstructed post hoc post hoc?adv. & adj.In or of the form of an argument in which one event is asserted to be the cause of a later event simply by virtue of having happened earlier: . Social-impact groups of low impact, averageimpact, and high impact were also constructed using the [+ or -] 1.0 zscore. Again, currently and likely eligible students as a combined groupwere significantly less liked, [chi.sup.2] (2, N = 158) = 12.36, p =.0021, and had a significantly higher social impact than the controlgroup, [chi.sup.2] (2, N = 158) = 6.745, p = .0343.Split Eligibility GroupsAnalysis of currently eligible, likely eligible, and control groupsas separate groups revealed a significant difference in socialpreference scores, F (2, 155) = 10.20, p < .0001. The students whowere likely eligible had significantly lower social preference scoresthan the control group, p < .0001. Social preference scores for thelikely eligible students were not significantly different from those ofthe currently eligible students. Similarly, social preference scores forthe currently eligible group did not differ significantly from those ofthe control group.A significant difference was found between groups when liked-mostnomination totals were examined, F (2, 155) = 5.473, P = .0050. Likelyeligible students received the fewest most-liked nominations, followedby currently eligible students, and finally the control group. Thedifference between the likely eligible and control groups wasstatistically significant, p = .0110. When least-liked nomination totalswere examined, a similar and statistically significant pattern wasrevealed, F (2, 155) = 7.971, p = .0005. The likely eligible groupreceived more least-likedFIGURE 1Interview Script1. Begin with introduction from teacher. 2. Ask if anyone will not beparticipating. 3. If someone does not participate, write this down. Ifeveryone will participate, write this down. 4. Introduce yourself to theclass: "Hi. I'm_____. I'm working with the University ofColorado University of Colorado may refer to: University of Colorado at Boulder (flagship campus) University of Colorado at Colorado Springs University of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences Center University of Colorado system and your teachers, and I have some questions to ask you.I'll be calling you one by one to ask you these questions. Youranswers will be used to help build more friendships and won't bediscussed with your classmates. I can't answer any questions rightnow. Let's get started!" 5. Interview students according totheir class seating chart. 6. Place time and teacher's name on formbefore interviews. 7. Ask the student her or his name and age. 8. Begininterview with the students: "I'll ask you a few questions. Iwon't tell your classmates your answers. Your answers will help tobuild a better class community. It is important that you not discussyour answers with your classmates." 9. "Now, _____, tell mewho you like the most your class?" "And, who else do you likethe most?" "And, who else do you like the most?" 10."Now, _____, tell me who you like the least in your class?""And, who else do you like the least?" "And, who else doyou like the least?" 11. "When I asked you who liked the most,you picked _____. Why did you pick _____?" Write in narrativesection. "Thanks!" 12. "When I asked you who you likedthe least, you picked _____. Why did you pick _____?" Write innarrative section. "Thanks!" 13. Interview is finished:"Thanks! Remember to keep your answers to yourself. Please tell theperson behind you to come and see me." 14. Closing to the class."Thanks for talking with me. Remember, it's always good to befriends with everyone."FIGURE 2Indexes of Social StatusLiked-Most Score. This score is the sum of nominations where thestudent was named first, second, or third by a classmate when theclassmate was asked the liked-most stimulus question. Liked-Least Score.This score is the sum of nominations where the student was named first,second, or third by a classmate when the classmate was asked theliked-least stimulus question. Liked-Most First Score. This score is thesum of nominations where the student was named first by a classmate whenthe classmate was asked the liked-most stimulus question. Liked-LeastFirst Score. This score is the sum of nominations where the student wasnamed first by a classmate when the classmate was asked the liked-leaststimulus question. Social-Preference Score. This score is calculated byadding all of liked-most nominations for a student and subtracting allof the liked-least nominations. For example, student X was nominated asliked-most by 16 of his peers and liked-least by 3 of his peers. Hissocial-preference score is 13. Social-impact Score. This score iscalculated by adding all of the liked-most nominations together with allof the liked-least nominations for a student. In the example of studentX who received 16 liked-most and 3 liked-least nominations, thesocial-impact score is 19. Social-Preference Group. This score iscalculated by grouping students by their social-preference score.Approximately the bottom and top 18% of the students fall into therejected and popular group, respectively. All other students fall intothe average group. Social-Impact Group. This score is calculated bygrouping students by their social-impact score. Approximately the bottomand top 18% of the students fall into the low and high group,respectively. All other students fall into the average group.nominations, followed by the currently eligible, and then the controlgroup. Again, only the difference between the likely eligible group andthe control group was significant, p = .0005.No statistically significant differences were found between thegroups when first nominations for most-liked were examined, F (2, 155) =1.422, p = .2443. However, when first nominations for liked-least wereanalyzed, a significant difference was found, F (2, 155) = 7.009, p =.0012. As above, the likely eligible students received the most firstnominations for liked least, followed by the currently eligible groupand then the control group. Only the difference between the likelyeligible group and the control group was significant, p = .0012. Nosignificant difference in social impact scores was found, F(2, 155) =2.985, p = .0534.Differences were also observed in social preference and social impactgroup membership. Currently and likely eligible groups haddisproportionately dis��pro��por��tion��ate?adj.Out of proportion, as in size, shape, or amount.dispro��por high distributions in the rejected social-preferencegroup and disproportionately low distributions in the popular group,signifying Signifyin' (slang) is an African-American rhetorical device featuring indirect communication or persuasion and the creating of new meanings for old words and signs. Signifying, in this sense, includes repetition and difference, implication and association, combining words and a pattern similar to the other analyses. Interestingly,currently eligible students were disproportionately represented in thelow-impact group. Likely eligible students had a larger than expectedrepresentation in the high-impact group.Chi-square analyses were not conducted because the data distributionyielded several expected cell frequencies of less than five.Analysis by Disability GroupPeer nomination data were also analyzed by primary disabilitycategory. Results from this analysis must be interpreted cautiouslybecause (a) students identified as P/C represented almost three fourthsof the group, whereas students with physical disabilities representedonly 5% of the group; and (b) the reliability of primary disabilitygroup designation for students who are likely eligible is questionable.Given these limitations, a significant difference between groups onsocial preference scores was found, F (3, 75) = 12.305, p < .0001.Students identified as SIED had the lowest scores, followed by (inorder) students with other disabilities, the P/C group, and the groupwith physical disabilities. The SIED group was significantly lower whencompared to all other groups individually. Interestingly, the studentswith physical disabilities had a higher social preference z-score meanthan did the control group.A significant difference was found in disability groups whenmost-liked votes were examined separately, F (3, 75) = 5.100, p = .0029.Students identified as Other received the least most-liked votes,followed by (in ascending ascending/as��cend��ing/ (ah-send��ing) having an upward course. ascendingprogressing to higher levels, usually used in reference to the nervous system. order) the SIED, P/C, and Physical groups.Students with physical disabilities received significantly moreliked-most nominations than any other group when pairwise comparisonswere made. A significant difference existed for liked-least nominations,F (3, 75) = 15.277, p < .0001. Students identified as SIED receivedthe most least-liked nominations, followed (in descending descending/des��cend��ing/ (de-send��ing) extending inferiorly. order) by thePhysical, P/C, and Other groups. The SIED group was significantlydifferent from all other groups when pairwise comparisons were made.First nominations for most liked were not statistically significantbetween groups, F (3, 75) = 2.414, p = .0733. However, first nominationsfor least liked were significantly different between groups, F ( 3, 75)= 9.748, p < .0001. Students identified as SIED received more firstleast-liked votes than (in descending order) students in the Physical,P/C, and Other groups. Pairwise comparisons indicated significantdifferences between the SIED and P/C groups and the SIED and the Othergroup. Neither social-preference nor social-impact groupings could bereliably assessed because of extremely small expected cell sizes.Summary of ResultsWhen students who were declared currently eligible and students whowere considered candidates for special education were combined as agroup, they had significantly lower social-preference scores andsignificantly higher social-impact scores than did their generaleducation peers. When students who were currently eligible, students whowere likely eligible, and general education students were comparedpairwise, students who were likely eligible had significantly lowersocial-preference scores than did the general education students. Likelyeligible students received the fewest most-liked nominations,significantly lower than the other two groups.DISCUSSIONThe purpose of the study was to document the sociometric patterns ofstudents with current and suspected (mostly mild) disabilities in apredominately white, higher socioeconomic school practicing fullinclusion. Using a positive and negative peer nomination technique,students were asked whom they liked the most and whom they liked theleast. The data were analyzed using conservative techniques to ensurethat findings of differences would not be false. Clear and substantialdifferences were found between students with current or suspecteddisabilities and their peers without disabilities.These data echo other historical findings that students withdisabilities have a different pattern of acceptance when compared withtheir general education peers. The patterns of social preference aresimilar to those found in other studies where students were mainstreamedfrom a resource room. Putting students together for 100% of the day inthis school did not change how they are reported to be liked or disliked dis��like?tr.v. dis��liked, dis��lik��ing, dis��likesTo regard with distaste or aversion.n.An attitude or a feeling of distaste or aversion. by their same-aged peers. Replication In database management, the ability to keep distributed databases synchronized by routinely copying the entire database or subsets of the database to other servers in the network.There are various replication methods. of the study is warranted asinclusionary practices become more widespread in U.S. school districts.Of note is the finding that students in the likely eligible groupwere viewed the most negatively, and these students contributedsubstantially to the variance of scores on each of the indexes. Thisfinding seems to indicate that not identifying students does notpositively affect their sociometric status. The peers of students withdisabilities nominated unlabeled students more negatively than labeledstudents. This finding must be tempered by the reality that most of thestudents with emotional disturbance DISTURBANCE, torts. A wrong done to an incorporeal hereditament, by hindering or disquieting the owner in the enjoyment of it. Finch. L. 187; 3 Bl. Com. 235; 1 Swift's Dig. 522; Com. Dig. Action upon the case for a disturbance, Pleader, 3 I 6; 1 Serg. & Rawle, 298. were likely eligible rather thancurrently eligible. Because inappropriate interpersonal in��ter��per��son��al?adj.1. Of or relating to the interactions between individuals: interpersonal skills.2. relationships isa criterion used to identify these students, that they accounted formany of the negative nominations is not surprising.The conservative nature of the tests for statistical significancenotwithstanding, even the currently eligible group was viewed lower thanthe control group. The data support a finding of educationallysignificant lower peer acceptance of the currently eligible studentsthan the control group. Had a .10 level of significance been used, assuggested by some (Ferguson, 1971) when using the Scheffe post hoctests, even more statistically significant differences between thecurrently eligible and the control groups would have been found.The efficacy of the full inclusion and general education initiativesmust be empirically documented in different types of schools and indifferent areas of the United States. Further, different aspects ofachievement and social interaction merit study. This study used a singlemethodology to evaluate only one aspect of social acceptance in onefull-inclusion school. An investigation of teacher/student andstudent/peer interaction data was not conducted in this study. Forexample, how do least-liked students interact with their peers? Areinteractions frequent and negative? What is the relationship of teacherattitudes to these interactions?Strong proponents of full inclusion use social acceptance as a basicreason for schools to use a full-inclusion model. We concur CONCUR - ["CONCUR, A Language for Continuous Concurrent Processes", R.M. Salter et al, Comp Langs 5(3):163-189 (1981)]. with thebasic tenets of full inclusion and acknowledge a plethora plethora/pleth��o��ra/ (pleth��ah-rah)1. an excess of blood.2. by extension, a red florid complexion.pletho��ricpleth��o��ran.1. of otherpotential benefits of full inclusion, but we must explore further thesocial benefits of full inclusion for students with disabilities.ABOUT THE AUTHORSPAUL SALE (CEC (Central Electronic Complex) The set of hardware that defines a mainframe, which includes the CPU(s), memory, channels, controllers and power supplies included in the box. Some CECs, such as IBM's Multiprise 2000 and 3000, include data storage devices as well. #403), Associate Professor and Chair, Department ofSpecial Education and DORIS M. CAREY (CEC CO Federation), AssociateProfessor and Chair, Educational Technology Department, University, ofColorado, Colorado Springs.REFERENCESAnderson, S., & Messick, S. (1974). Social competency in youngchildren. Developmental Psychology, 10, 282-293. Asher, S. R., &Dodge, K. A. (1986). Identifying children who are rejected by theirpeers. Developmental Psychology, 22, 444-449. Asher, S. R., & Hymel,S. (1981). Children's social competence in peer relations:Sociometric and behavioral assessments. In J. D. Wine & M. D. Smve(Eds.), Social competence (pp. 125-157). New York New York, state, United StatesNew York,Middle Atlantic state of the United States. It is bordered by Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and the Atlantic Ocean (E), New Jersey and Pennsylvania (S), Lakes Erie and Ontario and the Canadian province of : Guilford Press.Bell-Dolan, D. J., Foster, S. L., & Sikora, D. M. (1989). Effects ofsociometric testing on children's behavior and loneliness inschool. Developmental Psychology, 25, 306-311. Biklen, D., &Zollers, N. (1986). The focus of advocacy in the LD field. Journal ofLearning Disabilities, 19, 579-586. Bruck, M. (1986). Social andemotional adjustments of learning disabled children: A review of theissues. In S. Ceci (Ed.), Handbook of cognitive, social andneuropsychological neu��ro��psy��chol��o��gy?n.The branch of psychology that deals with the relationship between the nervous system, especially the brain, and cerebral or mental functions such as language, memory, and perception. aspects of learning disabilities (pp. 200-232).Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Bruck, M., & Herbert, M. (1982).Correlates of learning disabled students' peer-interactionpatterns. Learning Disability Quarterly, 5, 353-362. Bruininks, V. L.(1978). Actual and perceived peer status of learning disabled studentsin mainstream programs. The Journal of Special Education, 12, 51-58.Bryan, T. H. (1974). An observational study of classroom behaviors ofchildren with learning disabilities. Journal of learning Disabilities,7, 26-34. Bryan, T. H. (1976). Peer popularity of learning disabledchildren: A replication. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 9, 307-311.Coie, J. D., Dodge, K. A., & Coppotelli, H. (1982). Dimensions andtypes of status: A cross-age perspective. Developmental Psychology, 18,557-570. Cole, D. A. (1991). Social integration and severe disabilities:A longitudinal lon��gi��tu��di��naladj.Running in the direction of the long axis of the body or any of its parts. analysis of child outcomes. Journal of Special Education,25(3), 340-351. The Council for Exceptional Children. (1993). CECpolicy, on inclusive schools and community settings. TeachingExceptional Children, 25, supplement to issue Number 4. Cowen, E. L.,Pederson, A., Babigan, H., Izzo, L. D., & Trost, M. A. (1973).Long-term follow-up of early detected vulnerable children. Journal ofConsulting and Clinical Psychology The Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (JCCP) is a bimonthly psychology journal of the American Psychological Association. Its focus is on treatment and prevention in all areas of clinical and clinical-health psychology and especially on topics that appeal to a broad , 41, 438-446. Dudley-Marling, D. D.,& Edmiaston, R. (1985). Social status of learning disabled childrenand adolescents: A review. Learning Disabled Quarterly, 8, 189-204.Faught, K. K., Balleweg, B. J., Crow, R. E., & van den Pol, R. A.(1983). An analysis of social behaviors among handicapped andnonhandicapped preschool children. Education and Training of theMentally Retarded Noun 1. mentally retarded - people collectively who are mentally retarded; "he started a school for the retarded"developmentally challenged, retarded , 18, 210-214. Ferguson, G. A. (1971). Statisticalanalysis in psychology and education. New York: McGraw Hill. Giangreco,M. F., Dennis, R., Cloninger, C., Edelman, S., & Schattman, R.(1993). `I've counted Jon': Transformational experiences ofteachers educating students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 59,359-372. Gresham, F. M., & Stuart, D. (1992). Stability ofsociometric assessment: Implications for uses as selection and outcomemeasures in social skills training. Journal of School Psychology, 30,223-231. Hallahan, D. P., Keller, C. E., McKinney, J. D., Lloyd, J. W,& Bryan, T. (1988). Examining the research base of the regulareducation initiative: Efficacy studies and the adaptive learningenvironments model. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21(1), 29-35, 55.Hanline, M. F. (1993). Inclusion of preschoolers with profounddisabilities: An analysis of children's interactions. Journal ofthe Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 18(1), 28-35.Hayvren, M., & Hymel, S. (1984). Ethical issues in sociometrictesting: Impact of sociometric measures on interactive behavior.Developmental Psychology, 20, 844-849. Landau, S., Milich, R., &McFarland, M. (1987). Social status differences among subgroups of LDboys. Learning Disability Quarterly, 10, 277-282. Madden, N. A., &Slavin, R. E. (1983). Mainstreaming students with mild handicaps:Academic and social outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 53,519-569. National Association of State Boards of Education. (1992).Winners all: A call for inclusive schools. Alexandria, VA: Author.Newcomb, A. E, & Bukowski, W M. (1983). Social impact and socialpreference as determinants of children's peer group status.Developmental Psychology, 19, 856-867. Parker, J. G., & Asher, S. R.(1987). Peer relations and later personal adjustment: Are low-acceptedchildren at risk? Psychological Bulletin, 102, 357-389. Perlmutter, B.F., Crocker, J., Cordray, D., & Garstecki, D. (1983). Sociometricstatus and related personality characteristics of mainstreamed andlearning disabled adolescents. Learning Disability Quarterly, 6, 20-30.Peterson, N. L. (1982). Social integration of handicapped andnonhandicapped preschoolers: A study of playmate preferences. Topics inEarly Childhood Special Education, 2(2), 56-59. Peterson, N. L., &Haralick, J. G. (1977). Integration of handicapped and nonhandicappedpreschoolers: An analysis of play behavior and social interaction.Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 12, 235-245. Ratiner,C., Weissberg, R., & Caplan, M. (1986, August). Ethicalconsiderations in sociometric testing: The reaction of preadolescentsubjects. Paper presented at the 94th annual meeting of the AmericanPsychological Association, Washington, DC. Robins, L. N. (1966). Deviantchildren grown up. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins. Roff, M., Sells,S. B., & Golden, M. M. (1972). Social adjustment and personalitydevelopment in children. Minneapolis, MN: University of MinneapolisPress. Sater, G. M., & French, D. C. (1989). A comparision of thesocial competencies of learning disabled and low achievingelementary-aged children. The Journal of Special Education, 23(1),29-42. Scranton, T., & Ryckmam, D. (1979). Sociometric status oflearning disabled children in an integrative program. Journal ofLearning Disabilities, 12, 402-407. Semmel, M. I., Abernathy, T. V.,Butera, G., & Lesar, S. (1991). Teacher perceptions of the regulareducation initiative. Exceptional Children, 58, 9-24. Siperstein, G. N.,Bopp, M. J., & Bak, J. J. (1978). Social status of learning disabledchildren. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 11, 98-102. Stainback, S.,Stainback, W., & Jackson, H. J. (1992). Toward inclusive classrooms.In S. Stainback & W. Stainback (Eds.), Curriculum consideration ininclusive classrooms: Facilitating learning for all students (pp. 3-17).Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. Terry, R., & Coie, J. D. (1991). Acomparison of methods for defining sociometric status among children.Developmental Psychology, 27, 867-880. Wang, M. C., & Birch, J. W.(1984a). Comparison of a full-time mainstreaming program and a resourceroom approach. Exceptional Children, 51, 33-40. Wang, M. C., &Birch, J. W., (1984b). Effective special education in regular classes.Exceptional Children, 50, 391-398. Wang, M. C., Peverly, S., &Randolph, R. (1984). An investigaton of the implemenation and effects ofa full-time mainstreaming program. Remedial REMEDIAL. That which affords a remedy; as, a remedial statute, or one which is made to supply some defects or abridge some superfluities of the common law. 1 131. Com. 86. The term remedial statute is also applied to those acts which give a new remedy. Esp. Pen. Act. 1. and Special Education, 5(6),21-32. Wang, M. C., & Walberg, H. J. (1986). Adaptive instructionand classroom time. American Educational Research Journal, 20, 601-626.Wiener, J. (1987). Peer status of learning disabled children andadolescents. A review of the literature. Learning Disabilities Research,2(2), 62-79. Will, M. (1986). Educating children with learning problems:A shared responsibility, Exceptional Children, 52-411-415. Ysseldyke, J.E., Algozzine, B., Shinn, M. R., & McGue, M. (1982). Similaritiesand differences between low achievers and students classified learningdisabled. The Journal of Special Education, 16, 73-85.