Edited by: Mats Granlund, Jönköping University, Sweden
Reviewed by: Lilly Augustine, Jönköping University, Sweden; Kuen Fung Sin, The Education University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
This article was submitted to Special Educational Needs, a section of the journal Frontiers in Education
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
The social participation of students with disabilities in general education is lagging behind and negative peer attitudes are often mentioned as the main barrier. Contact Theory can serve as a rationale for interventions that aim to promote positive attitudes and thereby also the social participation of students with disabilities. This review aims to elucidate to what extent the intervention components contact and information are related to both the attitudes of typically developing peers and the social participation of students with disabilities. The results indicate that interventions combining contact and information are associated with more positive attitudes and one theme of social participation (i.e., interactions). It was, surprisingly, not possible to study the mediating role of peer attitudes as no studies addressed this. In sum, Contact Theory can be validated in primary inclusive education regarding typically developing students' attitudes, but only partially regarding the social participation of students with disabilities.
The inclusion of students with disabilities in regular schools is increasingly promoted worldwide in the last few decades. An important philosophy behind inclusive education is that the chances for an optimal social participation should be maximized in a regular-education setting (see article 24 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with a Disability, United Nations,
Even though the enrolment of students with disabilities in regular classrooms increases the opportunities for contact with typically developing peers, social participation does not always occur spontaneously for students with disabilities (Guralnick et al.,
The attitudes of typically developing peers toward children with disabilities are often mentioned as influencing the social participation of the latter group (World Health Organization,
Several factors play a role in attitude development. Already at an early age, students develop the awareness of social categories, which, when unchallenged, may lead to the emergence of explicit biases in favor of one's own category (Bigler and Liben,
Regarding the promotion of peers' attitudes, and thereby possibly also of the social participation of students with disabilities, both contact and information have been mentioned as important intervention components (Cambra and Silvestre,
Considering the negative consequences of the difficulties students with disabilities experience in their social participation, it is important to establish how this situation can be improved. Based on the aforementioned literature, the question arises whether the Contact Theory (1954) can be applied in inclusive education, and thus whether direct contact and information about disabilities can also promote the social participation in a direct way and/or in a mediated way via attitude. Following Allport's Contact Theory, contact and information might not only be beneficial in promoting attitudes but can also positively impact negative behavior such as rejection and avoidance (i.e., negative subthemes of social participation). However, to the best of our knowledge, no studies have applied the Contact Theory in the inclusive-education setting, both by investigating the impact of contact and information, and by relating to the social participation of students with disabilities as well as the attitudes of their typically developing peers. Until now, it seems that researchers have chosen only attitudes as their area of focus. Several reviews and meta-analyses confirm the importance of the contact component in promoting the attitudes toward students with disabilities (e.g., Lindsay and Edwards,
Accordingly, this study was set up to bridge these gaps in knowledge by applying the Contact Theory to the primary inclusive-education setting and to use it as a conceptual model for promoting the social participation of students with disabilities with direct contact and information (see
To what extent are contact with, and information about (students with) disabilities related to the attitudes of typically developing peers, and are these relationships different according to background variables?
To what extent are contact with, and information about (students with) disabilities related to the social participation of students with disabilities, and are these relationships different according to background variables?
To what extent are the attitudes of typically developing students toward peers with disabilities mediating between contact and information and the social participation of students with disabilities?
Conceptual model displaying the expected relationships between the intervention components (contact and information) and peers' attitudes and social participation.
This systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines (Moher et al.,
To be included in this review, a study had to investigate the association between an intervention utilizing contact with and/or information about (students with) disabilities (
PICOS model of eligibility criteria.
- Primary education students (3–12 years old) |
- Special education | ||
- Intervention program |
- Contact via enrollment only |
||
1) Peer attitudes toward |
|||
- Quantitative empirical data |
The search via the databases yielded 12,805 unique articles, after duplicates and non-English articles were removed. The selection procedure was carried out in two phases. First, the records were screened by reading titles and abstracts. A record was excluded in this phase when the title and/or abstract contradicted the inclusion criteria (e.g., investigation of adults' attitudes). When the title provided sufficient information for exclusion (e.g., the title mentioned the effect of medication on bowel problems), the abstract of that record was not read. After screening the titles and abstracts, 103 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. Second, the full-text articles were retrieved and reviewed for eligibility. A total of 55 articles was included in this review (see
Flowchart of the selection process.
The first author (FR) carried out both phases of the selection procedure. To ascertain reliability, a second reviewer (EK) also reviewed a random sample of the records (10% in phase 1 and 20% in phase 2). Reviewers agreed on 99% of the records (κ = 0.73) in phase 1 and on 95% of the full-text articles (κ = 0.89) in phase 2. Any discrepancies that arose during the process were resolved through discussion among the authors.
The first author extracted all relevant data from the included full-text articles using a data extraction form. First, the descriptive characteristics of the study [e.g., authors, date, country, research design, and sample (both typically developing participants and participants with disabilities)] were extracted. When applicable, data on sub studies or on different interventions were extracted separately. If studies reported on different age groups separately, only data on relevant age groups were extracted.
Second, a description of the intervention components contact and information was extracted. Something was considered contact when typically developing students were in direct contact with a person with a disability as part of the intervention (either a classmate, or someone they did not know before, such as a co-presenter with a disability). Something was considered as information when students had been provided with information about disabilities as part of the curriculum or intervention, or when the topic was formally being discussed within the school context. Indirect or extended contact (e.g., the use of storybooks about a character with a disability) was also considered as information.
Third, data on the associations between the intervention components and the outcome variables were extracted. The outcome variables fell into two categories: attitudes and social participation. With regard to attitude, a measure was classified as
Data on the association between contact and/or information and the outcome measure(s) was extracted via both statistical evidence and effect size (see
Classification statistical evidence and effect sizes.
− | Significant negative results | A | Adverse effect | ≤−0.20 | |||
Ns | Non-significant results | N | No effect | −0.19 −0.19 | <0.01 | <0.50 | |
+ | Significant positive results | S | Small effect | 0.20 −0.49 | 0.01 −0.05 | 0.50 −0.65 | |
++ | Very significant positive results | M | Moderate effect | 0.50 −0.79 | 0.06 −0.13 | 0.66 −0.92 | |
L | Large effect | ≥0.80 | ≥0.14 | 0.93–1.0 |
Lastly, the level of evidence of each study was determined using the model of Dunst et al. (
Sample sizes differed between studies and ranged from 46 to 576 typically developing participants in studies focusing on attitudes and from 1 to 98 participants with a disability in studies focusing on social participation. The majority of studies focused on one type of disability only, whereas 12 studies focused on multiple types of disability. The most common disability types studied were autism spectrum disorder (24%), intellectual disability (18%), and physical disability (14%). In addition, some studies did not specify which disabilities had their focus, but used general wordings like disability/special needs (5%). Several studies focused on one particular age, whereas others included a broader range of ages. Overall, all ages in the target range (3–12 years) were represented proportionally. The level of evidence (i.e., causal inference) differed between studies; 40% had low causal inference, 22% low to moderate causal inference, and 38% moderate to high causal inference.
Overall, a differential relationship was found between the extent to which the variables contact with and information about (students with) disabilities are related to the attitudes of typically developing peers. This relationship differed according to the utilized intervention components. In total, 26 interventions—reported in 20 articles—were aimed at promoting the attitudes of typically developing peers by means of contact, information or both components. Five interventions had solely a contact component, sixteen had solely an information component and the remaining five utilized both contact and information. The outcomes concentrated on either general attitudes (
Summary of studies and interventions focusing on promoting the attitudes of typically developing peers.
Adibsereshki et al. ( |
PD | Videos, stories, and group discussions about physical disabilities | ++ | NA | 1 | ||||||||
Cameron and Rutland ( |
LD | Storybook reading and group discussions with focus on individual characteristics | ns | NA | + | NA | 1 | ||||||
LD | Storybook reading and group discussions with focus on disability vs. typically developing characters | ++ | NA | ++ | NA | 1 | |||||||
LD | Storybook reading and group discussions | ns | NA | ns | NA | 1 | |||||||
Cameron et al. ( |
LD | Storybook reading and group discussions | ++ | L | ns | S | 1 | ||||||
Campbell et al. ( |
ASD | Video with extra information about autism | ++ | M | ++ | S | 1 | ||||||
Campbell et al. ( |
ASD | Video with extra information about autism | ns | NA | ns | NA | 1 | ||||||
De Boer et al. ( |
PD, ID, PIMD | Storybook reading, group discussions, and experiential activities | + | L | 2 | ||||||||
PD, ID, PIMD | Videos, real life stories, group discussions, and experiential activities | ns | A | 2 | |||||||||
Favazza and Odom ( |
NS | Structured play groups | Storybook reading and guided discussions | ++ | NA | 2 | |||||||
Favazza et al. ( |
NS | Structured play groups | Storybook reading and guided discussions at school and at home | NR | L | 2 | |||||||
Structured play groups | NR | S | 2 | ||||||||||
Storybook reading and guided discussions at school and at home | NR | L | 2 | ||||||||||
Gannon and McGilloway ( |
ID | Video about including children with Down Syndrome at school | ns | NA | ns | NA | 1 | ||||||
Hurst et al. ( |
PD, ID, HI, VI | Experiential activities to simulate physical, visual, auditory and learning disability | -/+ | A/S | 1 | ||||||||
Ison et al. ( |
NS | Presenter with cerebral palsy and Q&A session with person with a disability | Group discussion and experiential activities | ++ | NA | 1 | |||||||
Law et al. ( |
LD | Storybook reading about learning disability and group discussion via drama techniques | + | S | ns | N | 3 | ||||||
Laws and Kelly ( |
PD, ID, HI, VI, BD | Short written description of Down Syndrome or cerebral Palsy | ns | N | ns | NA | 1 | ||||||
Maras and Brown ( |
PD, ID | Collaborative work in integrated sessions | ns/ |
NA | ns | NA | 2 | ||||||
Maras and Brown ( |
HI | Group discussion and information on communication with a hearing impairment | ns/ |
+ | NA | ns | NA | 1 | |||||
Marom et al. ( |
PD, ID | Integrated activities (e.g., sports, music, social games) | Student-specific and general information on disabilities | ++ | M | 2 | |||||||
McKay et al. ( |
PD | Paralympians as co-presenters | Paralympic sports activities (experiential learning), reflection, and life story of two paralympians | +/++ | S/S | + | S | + | S | 3 | |||
Slininger et al. ( |
PIMD | Structured contact via peer aids in physical education class for full lesson | ns | S | ns | S | 2 | ||||||
Unstructured contact via peer aids during physical education class only first 5 min of lesson | ns | N | ns | M | 2 | ||||||||
Swaim and Morgan ( |
ASD | Video with extra information about autism | ns | A | ns | NA | 1 | ||||||
Xin ( |
LD | Computer-assisted cooperative learning with math assignments | ns | N/M | 2 |
A total of 67 associations
Associations by intervention component and by attitude component.
General | 4 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | ||||||
(80%) | (20%) | (40%) | (40%) | (20%) | |||||||
Cognitive | 9 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8 | ||||||
(90%) | (10%) | (10%) | (10%) | (80%) | |||||||
Affective | 1 | 1 | |||||||||
(100%) | (100%) | ||||||||||
Behavioral | 2 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||
(100%) | (50%) | (50%) | |||||||||
Total | 16 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 9 | ||||
(89%) | (6%) | (6%) | (17%) | (22%) | (11%) | (50%) | |||||
General | 1 | 5 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 4 | ||
(8%) | (42%) | (42%) | (8%) | (17%) | (17%) | (17%) | (17%) | (33%) | |||
Cognitive | 8 | 7 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 11 | ||||
(53%) | (47%) | (7%) | (7%) | (7%) | (7%) | (73%) | |||||
Affective | 2 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||
(100%) | (50%) | (50%) | |||||||||
Behavioral | 8 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 8 | ||||||
(73%) | (27%) | (9%) | (18%) | (73%) | |||||||
Total | 1 | 21 | 17 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 24 | |
(3%) | (53%) | (43%) | (3%) | (8%) | (10%) | (13%) | (3%) | (8%) | (60%) | ||
General | 6 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 | |||||
(86%) | (14%) | (29%) | (14%) | (14%) | (43%) | ||||||
Cognitive | 1 | 1 | |||||||||
(100%) | (100%) | ||||||||||
Affective | |||||||||||
Behavioral | 1 | 1 | |||||||||
(100%) | (100%) | ||||||||||
Total | 8 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 3 | |||||
(89%) | (11%) | (44%) | (11%) | (11%) | (33%) |
Interventions that included solely a contact component produced mainly non-significant results and no to medium effects. The associations involving solely an information component showed a mixed picture: 43% indicated positive results and 53% produced non-significant results. Effect sizes varied from small adverse to large positive effects. Interventions that utilized both contact and information produced merely positive results and small to large effects.
A total of six associations were derived from the studies examining the long-term effectiveness (
Summary of studies examining long-term effects on the attitudes of typically developing peers.
De Boer et al. ( |
12 months | X | ns | N | |||||||
X | ns | N | |||||||||
Favazza and Odom ( |
5 months | X | X | ns | NA | ||||||
Favazza et al. ( |
5 months | X | X | NR | M | ||||||
X | NR | A | |||||||||
X | NR | N |
Moreover, 11 studies investigated whether the impact of contact and information on attitude differed according to background variables. The results indicate that the effect of interventions could be different according to age (
Differential associations according to background variable.
Younger students profit | Swaim and Morgan, |
Girls profit | Adibsereshki et al., |
Boys profit | Slininger et al., |
No differential association | Favazza and Odom, |
Popular and rejected group profit | Campbell et al., |
Most positive results regarding hearing impairment | Hurst et al., |
No differential association | Laws and Kelly, |
No differential association | Laws and Kelly, |
Overall, a differential relationship was found between the extent to which the variables contact with and information about (students with) disabilities are related to the social participation of students with disabilities. This relationship differed according to the utilized intervention components. In total, 48 interventions—reported in 36 articles—were aimed at promoting the social participation of students with disabilities. Of the investigated interventions, 32 had solely a contact component, five had solely an information component and the remaining 11 utilized both contact and information. The outcomes concentrated on one or more of the four themes of social participations: acceptance by classmates (
Summary of studies and interventions focusing on promoting the social participation of students with a disability.
André et al. ( |
LD | Cooperative learning in physical education | ns/+ | S/L | 2 | ||||||||
Antia et al. ( |
HI | Cooperative tasks and games to learn social skills | ns | NA | 1 | ||||||||
HI | Integrated activities | ++ | NA | 1 | |||||||||
Frederickson and Turner ( |
EBD | Circle of Friends meetings | Class discussion about strengths and difficulties of focus student with disability | NR | L | NR | S | 1 | |||||
EBD | Circle of Friends meetings | Class discussion about strengths and difficulties of focus student with disability | + | L | ns | M | 1 | ||||||
EBD | Small group reading of story with friendship theme | ns | S | ns | A | 1 | |||||||
Frederickson et al. ( |
EBD, ASD, LD | Group discussions with links to behavior of focus student with disabilities | ++/ ++ | NA | 1 | ||||||||
Circle of Friends meetings | ns/ns | NA | 1 | ||||||||||
Guralnick et al. ( |
ID | Integrated play groups | ns | NA | NR | N | 1 | ||||||
Humpal ( |
ID | Integrated music sessions | Disability awareness session; experiential activities | + | L | 1 | |||||||
Jacques et al. ( |
ndis = 24 |
ID | Cooperative learning of social studies material | ++ | L | 2 | |||||||
Kalyva and Avramidis ( |
ASD | Circle of Friends meetings | ns/+ | S/L | 1 | ||||||||
Kamps et al. ( |
ASD | Teacher led peer mediation of social skills | ns/++ | NA | 2 | ||||||||
Keller and Honig ( |
DD | Video, books, group discussions and experiential activities about the concept of disability | ns/+ | M/L | 1 | ||||||||
Maras and Brown ( |
HI | Discussion of hearing impairment and information on communication | ns | NA | 1 | ||||||||
Meyer and Ostrosky ( |
NS | Play based cooperate learning groups | Storybook reading and guided discussions about disability at school and home | ns | NA | 1 | |||||||
Outcome oriented cooperative learning groups | + | NA | 1 | ||||||||||
Odom et al. ( |
ID, DD, BD, HI, SLD | Structured play groups | ++ | L | ns/+ | NA/L | 1 | ||||||
Structured play groups with teacher prompts | ns | A | ns/+ | NA/L | 1 | ||||||||
Peer mediation of social skills | Social skills training to learn strategies to initiate social interaction with disabled peer | ns | S | ns/+ | NA/L | 1 | |||||||
Structured play groups with teacher prompts and peer mediation of social skills | Social skills training to learn strategies to initiate social interaction with disabled peer | - | A | ns/ns | NA/L | 1 | |||||||
Roeyers ( |
ASD | Integrative play sessions | Video and information about autism and role-play sessions | ns/ |
S/L (L) | 2 | |||||||
Wolfberg et al. ( |
ASD | Integrated play groups | ++/ |
M/L | 1 | ||||||||
Batchelor and Taylor ( |
DD | Social integration activities with Stay-Play-Talk procedures | Puppetry scenarios on augmentative communication used by student with disability | NR | M/L (M) | 1 | |||||||
Carter and Maxwell ( |
PD | Group instruction for peers on cerebral palsy and associated communication problems | NR | M/L (M) | 3 | ||||||||
Dugan et al. ( |
ASD | Cooperative learning groups / peer tutoring on social studies material | NR | L/L (L) | 3 | ||||||||
English et al. ( |
DD | Buddy days with Stay-Play-Talk procedures | Preparatory training on unconventional communicative behavior of children with a developmental disability | NR | L/L (L) | 3 | |||||||
Frea et al. ( |
DD | Social integration activities: structured play groups | NR | S/L (M) | 3 | ||||||||
Group friendship activities: traditional preschool activities with focus on social behaviors | NR | N/L (M) | 3 | ||||||||||
A combination of social integration activities and group friendship activities | NR | L/L (L) | 3 | ||||||||||
Goldstein and Cisar ( |
ASD | Sociodramatic script training in small integrated groups | NR | N/L (M) | 3 | ||||||||
Goldstein et al. ( |
ID, SLD | Buddy system Stay-Play-Talk procedures | NR | M/L (L) | 3 | ||||||||
ID, SLD | Sensitivity training to increase awareness of unconventional communicative behavior of children with a developmental disability | NR | N/M (S) | 3 | |||||||||
Hunt et al. ( |
PD, ID, VI, ASD | Buddy system | Class meetings; information on alternative communication via a “conversation book” | NR | M/L (L) | 3 | |||||||
Kamps et al. ( |
ASD | Class wide peer tutoring in reading education | NR | M/L (M) | 3 | ||||||||
Kamps et al. ( |
ASD | Cross-age peer tutoring activities (tutees were from grade 1) together with typically developing peers | NR | S/M (M) | 3 | ||||||||
ASD | Cross-age peer tutoring activities (tutees were from grade 1) together with typically developing peers | NR | S/M (M) | 3 | |||||||||
Katz and Girolametto ( |
ASD | Integrated play groups | NR | L/L (L) | 3 | ||||||||
Kennedy et al. ( |
PD, ID | Peer tutoring | Information on alternative communication | NR | M/L (L) | NR | N/L (M) | 3 | |||||
Klavina and Block ( |
PIMD | Peer tutoring in physical education | NR | M/L (L) | 3 | ||||||||
Koegel et al. ( |
ASD | Club activities during lunch breaks (e.g., games and crafts) | NR | L/L (L) | 3 | ||||||||
Kohler et al. ( |
ASD | Play groups with Stay-Play-Talk procedures | NR | L/L (L) | 3 | ||||||||
Lee and Lee ( |
ASD | Peer mediation of social skills during snack time | NR | L/L (L) | 3 | ||||||||
Miller et al. ( |
PD, DD, HI, EBD | Friendship circles with group discussions, games and cooperative activities | NR | N/L (M) | 3 | ||||||||
Nelson et al. ( |
ASD | Peer mediation of social skills | NR | M/M (M) | 3 | ||||||||
Pedersen-Bayus et al. ( |
PD, ID, SLD | Sociodramatic integrative activities with focus on teaching social skills | NR | N/M (M) | 3 | ||||||||
Storey et al. ( |
DD | Peer mediation of social skills | NR | N/L (M) | 3 | ||||||||
Tan and Cheung ( |
ADHD | Computer collaborative group work with adventure game | ns/ns (ns) | N/L (L) | 1 |
A total of 223 associations were derived from the studies examining the immediate effect of an intervention on one or more aspects of social participation studies (see
Number of associations by intervention component and by social participation theme from group design studies.
Acceptance | 4 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | |||||
(57%) | (43%) | (14%) | (29%) | (43%) | (14%) | ||||||
Interactions | 8 | 8 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 10 | |||
(47%) | (47%) | (6%) | (6%) | (6%) | (6%) | (24%) | (59%) | ||||
Friendships | 1 | 1 | |||||||||
(100%) | (100%) | ||||||||||
Social self-perception | 1 | 1 | |||||||||
(100%) | (100%) | ||||||||||
Total | 13 | 12 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 7 | 12 | ||
(50%) | (46%) | (4%) | (8%) | (4%) | (12%) | (4%) | (27%) | (46%) | |||
Acceptance | 1 | 1 | 2 | ||||||||
(50%) | (50%) | (100%) | |||||||||
Interactions | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||
(50%) | (50%) | (50%) | (50%) | ||||||||
Friendships | |||||||||||
Social self-perception | |||||||||||
Total | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | ||||||
(50%) | (50%) | (25%) | (25%) | (50%) | |||||||
Acceptance | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | ||||
(25%) | (25%) | (25%) | (25%) | (25%) | (25%) | (50%) | |||||
Interactions | 4 | 9 | 1 | 10 | 2 | ||||||
(31%) | (69%) | (8%) | (77%) | (15%) | |||||||
Friendships | 1 | 1 | |||||||||
(100%) | (100%) | ||||||||||
Social self-perception | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||
(50%) | (50%) | (50%) | (50%) | ||||||||
Total | 1 | 7 | 10 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 12 | 3 | ||
(5%) | (35%) | (50%) | (10%) | (5%) | (15%) | (5%) | (60%) | (15%) |
Number of associations by intervention component and by social participation theme from single/multiple case design studies.
Acceptance | 4 | 1 | 3 | ||||||||
(100%) | (25%) | (75%) | |||||||||
Interactions | 123 | 12 | 9 | 32 | 70 | ||||||
(100%) | (10%) | (7%) | (26%) | (57%) | |||||||
Friendships | |||||||||||
Social self-perception | |||||||||||
Total | 4 | 123 | 13 | 9 | 32 | 73 | |||||
(3%) | (97%) | (10%) | (7%) | (25%) | (57%) | ||||||
Acceptance | |||||||||||
Interactions | 12 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 2 | ||||||
(100%) | (17%) | (33%) | (33%) | (17%) | |||||||
Friendships | |||||||||||
Social self-perception | |||||||||||
Total | 12 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 2 | ||||||
(100%) | (17%) | (33%) | (33%) | (17%) | |||||||
Acceptance | |||||||||||
Interactions | 30 | 8 | 22 | ||||||||
(100%) | (27%) | (73%) | |||||||||
Friendships | 4 | 1 | 2 | 1 | |||||||
(100%) | (25%) | (50%) | (25%) | ||||||||
Social self-perception | |||||||||||
Total | 34 | 1 | 10 | 23 | |||||||
(100%) | (3%) | (29%) | (68%) |
The statistical evidence derived from group design studies for interventions that included solely a contact component, solely an information component, or both components, showed a mixed picture: about half indicated positive results and the other half non-significant results. Looking at the effect sizes, however, differences were found. For interventions that used solely contact or both contact and information, the majority of associations had a large effect size, even though effects varied from small adverse to large effects. Effect sizes varied from medium to large effects for interventions with solely an information component. Nonetheless, effect sizes were not calculable in about half of the group design studies. The effect sizes that could be derived from single and multiple case studies indicated mainly large effects for interventions with a contact component (both exclusive as well as combined with information), but almost an even spread between no, small, medium and large effect for interventions with only an information component.
A total of 17 associations were derived from the studies examining the long-term effectiveness (
Summary of studies examining long-term effects on the social participation of students with disabilities.
Frederickson et al. ( |
4 months | X | ns/ ns | NA/NA | |||||||
Jacques et al. ( |
5 weeks | X | ++ | L | |||||||
Kalyva and Avramidis ( |
2 months | X | ns/+ | A/L | |||||||
Odom et al. ( |
Unknown-next schoolyear | X | ++ | L | ns/ns | NA/N | |||||
X | ns | A | ns/ns | NA/M | |||||||
X | X | ns | M | ns/ns | NA/L | ||||||
X | X | ns | N | ns/ns | NA/N |
No studies investigated whether the impact of contact and information on social participation differed according to background variables.
No studies were found that investigated the mediating role of peers' attitudes in the relationship between contact/information and the social participation of students with disabilities.
Considering the global trend toward inclusive education, and that the social participation of students with disabilities is lagging behind, it is important to know how this can be improved. This study was set up to elucidate whether or not the Contact Theory can be applied in inclusive education by serving as a theoretical framework in promoting the social participation of students with disabilities. The proposed conceptual model was tested via a systematic review study to analyze if contact with and information about (people with) disabilities can promote the social participation of students with disabilities in regular education in a direct and/or mediated way via peers' attitudes. First, it can be concluded that that interventions utilizing solely contact generally do not promote peers' attitudes. Interventions utilizing solely information perform slightly better, but the best results are achieved when contact and information are combined. Second, it can be concluded that the outcomes of interventions utilizing solely contact or solely information on the social participation of students with disabilities are similar. Yet, the evidence base for the contact interventions is larger (i.e., more studies investigated this). Again, it can be concluded that interventions that combined contact and information achieved the best results. Third, we conclude that there are no studies examining the mediating effect of attitudes between contact and information and the social participation of students with disabilities. We therefore cannot answer the question whether this mediating effect holds or not.
Rather than being a quick fix, interventions ideally establish solid and long-term improvements. Nevertheless, the endurance of the intervention effects was not often investigated. This study showed that long-term effects were only investigated in about 20% of the interventions, and while the effects in some studies lasted up to 2 months (Jacques et al.,
Furthermore, it can be questioned to what extent the findings of this review can be generalized, since not all types of disabilities have been equally studied. In line with previous findings (e.g., Garrote et al.,
Different types of contact and information were utilized to promote peer attitudes, and it can be concluded that not all types were equally effective. Most positive associations between contact and attitudes were found in interventions using integrated activities and playgroups. Also introducing somebody with a disability as the co-presenter of the intervention was associated with small positive effects. Both cooperative learning/play groups and peer assistance were not associated with improved attitudes. Regarding the information component, the picture is somewhat mixed. The most important source of information appeared to be guided group discussions, as they were associated with more positive attitudes than interventions that did not include discussions. In addition, storybooks about disabilities and experiential learning (e.g., disability simulation) were positively associated with peer attitudes. For videos the results were mixed, probably due to differences in content (cf. De Boer et al.,
The findings of the current study do not align fully with the Contact Theory. Allport proposed conditions for optimal contact: equal status, common goals, intergroup cooperation, and support of authorities (Allport,
Furthermore, affective aspects have been mostly ignored in the included studies. This is remarkable since research has shown that affective processes are more predictive of actual intergroup behavior than are cognitive processes (for an overview see Brown and Hewstone,
Different types of contact were utilized to promote the social participation of students with disabilities, such as cooperative learning, peer support groups (e.g., friendship circles), integrated activities and peer mediation or peer tutoring, buddy systems. All contact types were equally able to promote social participation, with the exception of sociodramatic script training. However, while contact was positively associated with interactions, the associations with acceptance, friendship and social self-perception were miscellaneous and sometimes even negative. Similarly, the provided information, which mainly focused on alternative ways of communicating with a (specific) student with a disability, was also positively related to interactions but not with acceptance and self-perception.
Although interactions are one of the four themes in the definition of social participation as described by Koster et al. (
Whereas, social acceptance and friendship are voluntary in character and cannot be enforced (Howe and Leach,
Surprisingly, not any studies were found investigating the mediating role of peer attitudes. Many authors have suggested that negative peer attitudes are the main barrier for the social participation of students with disabilities, and, moreover, several empirical studies confirmed this relationship. Nevertheless, evidence for this mediating role of attitudes in interventions is lacking. Since attitudes and behavior are related to each other in a complex way (Ajzen and Fishbein,
Based on the Contact Theory, this review proposed a conceptual model (
This review focused solely on the relationship between contact and information on the one hand and attitudes and social participation on the other hand. As a consequence, only the content and format of the interventions was investigated, and other factors that might have impacted the results were left out of the investigation, such as program duration, frequency and intensity (Leigers and Myers,
Allport (
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author/s.
FR conducted the literature search, extracted the data, and developed the first draft of the manuscript. The selection procedure was led by FR. EK assisted this process by reviewing a random sample of the record to establish the interrater reliability and discrepancies were discussed with AdB and AM. AdB, EK, and AM provided critical feedback on the manuscript. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
*References marked with * indicate studies included in the systematic review.
1In several studies, more than one indicator was used to measure the outcome variable. Therefore, the total number of associations deviates from the number of investigated interventions and the aggregated numbers of investigated outcome variables.