adult influence on the participation of peers without disabilities in peer support programs

Journal of Behavioral Education, Vol. 8, No. 4, 1998, pp. 397-413

Adult Influence on the Participation of PeersWithout Disabilities in Peer Support Programs

Smita Shukla, Ph.D.,1 Craig H. Kennedy, Ph.D.,2,4 andLisa Sharon Cushing, M.S.3

Three peers without disabilities who volunteered to serve as peer supports andwere identified by general education teachers as having academic difficultieswere studied across three conditions. In baseline, a peer without disabilitiesworked alone, while the student with severe disabilities was supervised by anadult. In the Peer Support condition, peers without disabilities worked withthe student with severe disabilities, and both individuals were supervised by anadult. In the Adult Involvement condition, peers without disabilities weresupervised by an adult as in the Peer Support condition, but peers workedseparately from the student with severe disabilities. Dependent measuresincluded the active engagement of peers without disabilities and students withsevere disabilities, and social interactions between students and peers. Our dataindicate that the Peer Support and Adult Involvement conditions resulted inhigher, but similar, levels of active engagement for two of three peers withoutdisabilities when compared to baseline. For the third peer, high levels of activeengagement occurred across all conditions. Active engagement varied acrossstudents with severe disabilities, but was typically highest in conditions wherepeers without disabilities were involved. For all students with severe disabilities,social interactions were more frequent and longer in the Peer Supportcondition.

KEY WORDS: peer support programs; peers without disabilities; students with severedisabilities; adult influence; social interaction.

1Assistant Professor, Department of Educational Psychology and Special Education, FloridaInternational University, Miami, Florida.2Associate Professor, Department of Special Education, Vanderbilt University, Nashville,Tennessee.

3Doctoral Student, Department of Special Education, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon.4Correspondence should be directed to Craig H. Kennedy, Department of Special Education,Box 328 Peabody College, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee 37203; e-mail:[email protected].

397

1053-0819/98/1200-0397$15.00/0 © 1998 Human Sciences Press, Inc.

Empirical evidence is accumulating regarding the benefits of generaleducation participation for students with severe disabilities (Dugan et al.,1995; Fryxell & Kennedy, 1995; Haring & Breen, 1992; Hunt & Goetz, inpress; Hunt, Staub, Alwell, & Goetz, 1994; Kennedy, Shukla, & Fryxell,1997a; Werts, Caldwell, & Wolery, 1996), as well as their peers withoutdisabilities who provide support (Cushing & Kennedy, 1997; Dugan et al.,1995; Evans, Salisbury, Palombaro, & Goldberg, 1994; Kishi & Meyer, 1994;Shukla, Kennedy, & Cushing, 1997). The benefits for students with severedisabilities include increased social participation with peers without disabili-ties (Dugan et al., 1995; Fryxell & Kennedy, 1995; Haring & Breen, 1992;Kennedy et al., 1997a) and greater involvement in general educationcoursework and curricula (Dugan et al., 1995; Hunt et al., 1994; Werts etal., 1996). The benefits for peers without disabilities include increased so-cialization related to people with disabilities (Dugan et al., 1995; Evans etal., 1994; Kishi & Meyer, 1994) and, in some cases, improved academicperformance (Cushing & Kennedy, 1997; Shukla et al., in press).

The academic effects for peers without disabilities associated with in-clusive education are unexpected. Many observers noted concerns aboutthe potentially detrimental effects of having students with severe disabilitiesparticipate full-time in general education classrooms. Concerns cited in-clude increases in class disruption and class size, decreases in teacher timeallocated to peers without disabilities, and "watering down" curriculum con-tent (Anderegg & Vergason, 1996; Idstein, 1993; Kauffman & Hallahan,1995; Leiberman, 1996). However, from the emerging data (Cushing &Kennedy, in press; Hunt et al., 1994; Shukla et al., in press), the patternof academic benefits from inclusive education for peers without disabilitiesappears associated with the baseline performances of those individuals. Forpeers who are achieving at moderate-to-high academic standards (i.e., "As"or "B's"), no perceptible change in academic participation is observed asa result of being actively involved in inclusive arrangements (Hunt et al.,1994; Shukla et al., in press). For peers who are achieving below desiredperformance standards (i.e., "C's" or below), active participation in inclu-sive arrangements is associated with improved academic behavior (Cushing& Kennedy, 1997; Shukla et al., in press).

Of the studies noting positive increases, peer support strategies arethe primary means by which peers without disabilities provide assistanceto students with severe disabilities. Based on this observation, peer supportprograms may be the source of academic improvements for peers. Typically,peer support strategies use peers without disabilities who volunteer to assista student with severe disabilities in a general education class (Breen, 1992;Gaylord-Ross & Pitts-Conway, 1984; Kennedy, Cushing, & Itkonen, 1997b).The peer serves to adapt the class curriculum, provide systematic instruc-

398 Shukla, Kennedy, and Cushing

tion, and promote the social participation of the student with severe dis-abilities under supervision of a special educator. Although peer supportarrangements are associated with improved academic performance forsome peers without disabilities, the cause of that improvement is unclear.

Peer support arrangements were initially developed to facilitate thesocial integration and skill development of students with severe disabilities(Gaylord-Ross & Pitts-Conway, 1984). Because of this emphasis, little re-search attention focused on variables influencing the participation of peerswithout disabilities. A potential, but unstudied, influence on peers withoutdisabilities participating in these programs is the interaction with specialeducators. In discussing improved academic performances, Cushing andKennedy (1997) noted that assistance from special educators may have con-tributed to the observed outcomes.

To test this hypothesis, the current study was designed to explore thepotential influence of special educators on the academic performances ofpeers without disabilities. Specifically, we observed the active engagementof peers without disabilities who were performing below normative aca-demic levels as they participated in three experimental conditions. The firstcondition replicated standard general education classroom practices. Thatis, in baseline, peers without disabilities worked on their own without ad-ditional adult involvement. In the second condition, the peers participatedin a peer support program using conditions similar to Cushing and Kennedy(1997). The final condition provided the same level of adult involvementto peers as the peer support arrangement, but the peers worked alone.Our goal was to better understand the source of academic improvementsnoted in previous research by assessing the influence of adult attention onpeers without disabilities as they participate in peer support programs.

METHOD

Participants and Classrooms

Participants were drawn from a suburban intermediate school of 1,100students of diverse cultural, economic, and ethnic backgrounds. The set-tings were three general education classrooms (English, Math, and Piano)containing heterogeneous student populations (class size M = 33; range,31 to 35). Classrooms were selected because each (a) had one student withmoderate-to-severe disabilities who participated full-time in the class, (b)the general educator agreed to participate, and (c) one peer without dis-abilities—who was identified via class records as performing at, or below,a "C" grade-level—volunteered to serve as a peer support for the student

Peer Support Strategies 399

with severe disabilities (cf. Cushing & Kennedy, 1997; Kennedy et al,1997b). Each class was taught by a general education teacher with assis-tance from a special education teacher or instructional aide. In this article,"student" is used to refer to students with disabilities, and "peers" is usedto refer to students without disabilities.

In each class a dyad comprised of a peer without disabilities and stu-dent with moderate-to-severe disabilities was selected for study. Sam andKen participated in the Piano class. Sam was a 14-year-old, African Ameri-can male without disabilities. His teacher identified him as disruptive (e.g.,leaving his seat and talking with other peers) and unconcerned with classwork. Ken was a 12-year-old, Asian American male, with profound intel-lectual disabilities and cerebral palsy. He typically used a wheelchair, butcould walk unassisted for distances of < 3 m. Ken communicated using acombination of manual signs and picture prompts to communicate regard-ing personal needs, foods, and activities. Ken needed assistance with alldaily tasks.

Rick and Margrite participated in the Math class. Rick was a 15-year-old, Euro American male who was not identified as having a disability(however, following the study he was diagnosed as having 'ADHD"). Histeacher described Rick as disruptive (e.g., throwing books), inattentive dur-ing class, and rarely completing in-class or homework assignments. Margritewas a 15-year-old, Euro American female with profound intellectual dis-abilities and Rett syndrome, who required assistance with all daily tasks.She communicated using a combination of eye-gaze, visual tracking, anddisplays of positive or negative affect (e.g., laughing or crying, respectively).

Tom and Susan participated in the English class. Tom was a 13-year-old, Hawaiian Asian American male without disabilities. Tom's teacher de-scribed his classroom behavior as disruptive (hypothesized to gain adultattention) and noting that he rarely completed in-class or homework as-signments. Susan was a 14-year-old, Pacific Island female with moderateintellectual disabilities. She used a moderate expressive vocabulary, withpoor articulation making her speech difficult to understand. Susan was so-cial, but was occasionally noncompliant (particularly during teacher-studentinteractions). Susan needed assistance with all curriculum-based activities.

Dependent Measures

The active engagement of peers and students participating in the dy-ads, and social interactions among them were measured throughout thestudy. Active engagement was defined as either a peer or student attendingto ongoing class activities or engaging in class-related assignments. Ob-


servers recorded active engagement using a paper-and-pencil, 1-min mo-mentary time-sampling procedure. Social interactions between students andpeers were recorded using the Social Interaction Checklist (a direct obser-vation, paper-and-pencil index)(Fryxell & Kennedy, 1995; Kennedy et al.,1997a). A social interaction was defined as a student and any peer acknow-ledging each other and, potentially, expanding on their initial exchange.For each social interaction, the duration of the interaction was recorded.Recording of social interaction duration used the ordinal categories: (a) 1s to 9 s, (b) 10 s to 59 s, (c) 60 s to 299 s, (d) 300 s to 899 s, and (e) >899 s. Time estimates were derived from classroom clocks or wristwatcb.es.Peers and students were observed throughout each 45 to 55-min class pe-riod across all measures.

Experimental Designs and Procedure

We used ABACABAC (Sam and Ken; Tom and Susan) and ACABA-CAB (Rick and Margrite) component withdrawal designs (Barlow &Hersen, 1984; Leitenberg, 1973; Wacker et al., 1990). Condition A was abaseline where the peer worked alone and the student was supported byan adult. Condition B was a peer support arrangement where the peer as-sisted the student, and both individuals were supervised by an adult. Con-dition C used a procedure in which the peer was provided adult supervisionat levels similar to Condition B, but the peer did not assist the student.Active engagement and social interaction data were collected three-to-fivedays per week for the duration of each analysis. Data collection began 4-to-6 weeks following the start of the class semester. Throughout the inves-tigation general education classes were taught using a standardlecture-based format by general educators.

Baseline. In baseline, Sam, Tom, and Rick (peers) worked alone, asdid the other peers in their classes. Sam, Tom, and Rick sat at least 3 maway from the special educator and student. If any peer requested assis-tance from the special educator, they were told to ask the general educator.When asked, the general educator delivered a 1-10 s explanation of a peer'squestion to the individual or whole class. Ken, Susan, and Margrite (stu-dents) were each supported by a special educator (teacher or instructionalaide). The special educator was responsible for adapting classroom assign-ments to encompass individualized educational plan (IEP) goals, providingsystematic instruction, facilitating socialization, and providing positive be-havior support for the student. Typically, the special educator sat next tothe student throughout the class. During baseline, no restrictions wereplaced on social interactions between peers and students.


Peer support. In the Peer Support condition, Sam, Tom, and Rick werepaired with Ken, Margrite, and Susan, respectively. The student was movedso that he or she sat next to the peer. The peer support program consistedof the peer assisting the student, with the special educator in the class train-ing and supervising the peer (Cushing & Kennedy, 1997; Kennedy et al.,1997b). For Sam and Tom, the special educator was an instructional aide;for Rick the supervisor was a credentialled special education teacher. Dur-ing this condition, the peer (a) adapted classroom assignments for the stu-dent, (b) provided systematic instruction relating to IEP goals, (c) providedany relevant behavior plan support, and (d) facilitated the student's socialparticipation with other peers.

Each peer received 1 to 3 class periods of training in how to serve asa peer support from the special educator (Kennedy et al., 1997b). Duringtraining, the special educator worked with the student-peer dyad for theentire class period. Once training was completed, periodic monitoring bythe special educator (i.e., every 10 min) was provided to the peer supportdyad. If a peer had any additional questions, the special educator providedassistance as soon as possible. In addition, to these interactions, the specialeducator provided daily feedback at the end of class to the peer regardinghis or her social and academic performance.

Adult involvement. This condition was the same as the Peer Supportcondition in the following ways. First, the special educator provided thepeer with periodic monitoring (i.e., every 10 min). Second, if the peer hada question, the special educator provided assistance as soon as possible.Finally, the special educator provided the peer with daily feedback regard-ing his or her classroom academic and social performance. The Adult In-volvement condition differed from the Peer Support condition in that Sam,Rick, and Tom did not assist the student and were seated >3 m away atanother desk. Support for the student was the same as in baseline. ForKen and Margrite, assistance was provided by the special educator. ForSusan, additional peers were recruited to provide assistance.

Interobserver Agreement

Across 29% of sessions, interobserver agreement (IOA) data were col-lected by having a second graduate student independently observe and re-cord information. Occurrence data for active engagement and socialinteractions and nonoccurrence data for active engagement was calculatedusing the formula: Agreements divided by agreements plus disagreementsmultiplied by 100%. IOA occurrence outcomes resulted in a mean of 98%for active engagement (range, 75% to 100%), 94% for social interaction


duration (range, 50% to 100%), and a nonoccurrence mean of 90% foractive engagement (range, 0% to 100%). The zero percent IOA datum oc-curred for a single nonoccurrence within a session.

RESULTS

Data for each dyad are presented as: (a) the active engagement ofpeers, (b) the active engagement of students, and (c) social interaction fre-quency and duration between students and peers.

Sam and Ken

The information regarding the active engagement of Sam and Ken arepresented in Figure 1. As shown, Sam was more engaged in the Peer Support(M = 95%; range, 86% to 100%) and Adult Involvement conditions (M =90%; range, 78% to 97%) than in baseline (M = 71%; range, 15% to 97%).For Ken, Figure 1 shows that his active engagement was similar across thebaseline (M = 68%; range, 38% to 97%), Peer Support (M = 68%; range,55% to 86%), and Adult Involvement conditions (M = 71%; range, 35%to 91%). Scatter plot information regarding peers' social interactions withKen in Figure 2. As indicated in the figure, Ken's social interactions withSam (top panel) were more frequent and of longer duration in the PeerSupport condition, than in the Adult Involvement and baseline conditions.Ken's social interactions with other peers (bottom panel) were infrequent,but increased primarily in the Peer Support condition, indicating that Sam'speers sometimes joined the peer support group.

Rick and Margrite

The data arrayed in Figure 3 provide information regarding the activeengagement of Rick and Margrite. For Rick, the data show that he wasmore engaged in the Peer Support (M = 90%; range, 84% to 98%) andAdult Involvement conditions (M = 87%; range, 64% to 100%) than inbaseline (M = 55%; range, 37% to 67%). Margrite (Figure 3) was moreactively engaged in the Peer Support condition (M = 80%; range, 58% to100%), than in the Adult Involvement (M = 62%; range, 18% to 98%) orbaseline conditions (M = 67%; range, 11% to 100%). Scatter plot data inFigure 4 show Margrite's social interactions with peers. Margrite's socialinteractions with Rick (top panel) were more frequent and longer in thePeer Support condition, than in the Adult Involvement and baseline con-


404 Shukla, Kennedy, and Cashing


Fig. 2. Social interaction data for Ken. The data are arrayed as a scatter plot indicating theoccurrence and frequency of social interactions for the class period under study for Ken. Thetop panel shows social interactions between Ken and Sam (Ken's peer support). The bottompanel shows social interactions between Ken and other classroom peers. Closed squaresindicate no social interaction. Closed circles indicate one interaction per class period. OpenCircles indicate two, or more, interactions during the class period. For example, on Days 1and 3, Ken had no social interactions with peers. On Day 2, Ken had one social interactionwith Sam that lasted 10 s to 59 s. On Day 4, he had a social interaction with Ken that lastedlonger than 15 min and one social interaction with another peer that lasted 5 min to 15 min.

ditions. For other peers (bottom panel), Margrite's social interactions de-creased across the investigation, indicating she worked either with Rick(Peer Support condition) or a special educator (baseline and Adult Involve-ment conditions).


Fig. 4. Social interaction data for Margrite. The data are arrayed as a scatter plot indicatingthe occurrence and frequency of social interactions for the class period under study forMargrite. The top panel shows social interactions between Margrite and Rick (Margrite's peersupport). The bottom panel shows social interactions between Margrite and other classroompeers. Closed squares indicate no social interaction. Closed circles indicate one interactionper class period. Open Circles indicate two, or more, interactions during the class period.

Tom and Susan

Active engagement data for Tom and Susan are presented in Figure5. For Tom, Figure 5 indicates no systematic differences in active engage-ment across the baseline (M = 91%; range, 83% to 100%), Peer Support(M = 92%; range, 84% to 100%), and Adult Involvement conditions (M


= 88%; range, 70% to 100%). Susan's active engagement was higher inthe Peer Support (M = 83%; range, 44% to 97%) and Adult Involvementconditions (M = 87%; range, 70% to 96%), relative to baseline (M = 65%;range, 39% to 98%). Susan's social interactions with peers are displayedin Figure 6. The data in the top panel show that the Peer Support conditionoccasioned more frequent and longer social interactions between Susan and

Fig. 6. Social interaction data for Susan. The data are arrayed as a scatter plot indicating theoccurrence and frequency of social interactions for the class period under study for Susan.The top panel shows social interactions between Susan and Tom (Susan's peer support). Thebottom panel shows social interactions between Susan and other classroom peers. Closedsquares indicate no social interaction. Closed circles indicate one interaction per class period.Open Circles indicate two, or more, interactions during the class period.

Tom, when compared to the Adult Involvement and baseline conditions.Her interactions with other peers (bottom panel) tended to be more fre-quent in the Adult Involvement condition, but frequent interactions oc-curred across all conditions.

DISCUSSION

We studied the effects of adult involvement on the active engagementof peers without disabilities who provided support to students with severedisabilities in general education classrooms. Our findings indicate that: (a)two peers without disabilities had comparable levels of active engagementin the Peer Support and Adult Involvement conditions that were higherthan baseline; (b) students with severe disabilities showed varied and dis-tinct differences in active engagement across the three conditions, with peerinvolvement generally associated with higher levels; and (c) students withsevere disabilities interacted more frequently and for longer periods of timewith peers without disabilities in the Peer Support condition. These resultssupport the use of peer support programs in general education classrooms.In particular, our findings indicate that the involvement of special educatorswithin peer support arrangements is an important influence on the im-proved academic performances of peers without disabilities.

It is important to reiterate that all three peers without disabilities whoparticipated in this investigation were performing at, or below, a "C" gradelevel. Our current results replicate those of Cushing and Kennedy (1997)by demonstrating that peer support arrangements can improve the aca-demic participation of peers without disabilities. Similar findings also havebeen reported by Shukla et al. (in press). Overall, the results of Cushingand Kennedy (1997), Shukla et al. (in press), and the current study indicatethat peers without disabilities who are performing at, or below, modal gradelevels can benefit academically from participating in peer support programs,while peers who are performing at higher levels do not evidence decreasesin academic performance.

This finding runs contrary to the conjecture of a number of authorsregarding the potential negative impact of inclusive educational arrange-ments (Anderegg & Vergason, 1996; Idstein, 1993; Kauffman & Hallahan,1995; Leiberman, 1996). Such findings call into question arguments againstinclusive education based on the potentially detrimental effects, or side-ef-fects, on the academic performances of peers without disabilities. However,our current findings would be more strongly supported if future researchincluded measures of academic gains (e.g., classroom grades and home


work performance) to supplement the data presented on active classroomengagement (e.g., Cushing & Kennedy, 1997).

Our findings extend previous research on peer supports by demon-strating that adult involvement in these arrangements influences the activeengagement of peers without disabilities. These results can be interpretedas suggesting that the adult contact occurring within peer support arrange-ments is an important variable affecting peers without disabilities havingacademic difficulties. Although it is possible to further interpret our resultsas suggesting that peer support arrangements may not be necessary forpeers to improve their academic performances, we would argue peer sup-ports can provide multiple benefits to those involved (including improvedacademic participation). Proponents of inclusive education have focused onthe potential of this perspective to improve a range of outcomes for a va-riety of students (e.g., Stainback, Stainback, & Ayres, 1996). As was notedin the introduction of this paper, a range of social and academic benefitscan accrue for individuals participating in peer support arrangements. De-cisions regarding what type of instructional procedures to employ in generaleducation classrooms should be based on the outcomes identified to beachieved. If academic and social gains are determined to be beneficial, peersupport programs provide a demonstrated means of achieving these goals.

In summary, we demonstrated the academic improvements observedfor peers without disabilities who participate in peer support programs maybe a result of increased contact with adults. Our results suggest that therole of special educators in peer support programs may be more influentialthan previously acknowledged. If adult involvement is an influential vari-able impacting peers' performances in peer support programs, increasedattention to the explicit activities of special educators in these groups iswarranted. Future research could include (a) assessment of the social re-inforcers involved in peer participation, (b) how to adjust adult involvementbased on the results of peer social interests and academic needs, and (c)how to maximize the social participation of students and peers withoutnegatively affecting academic gains.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Support for this research was provided by a grant from the Office ofSpecial Education and Rehabilitative Services (Contract #H086D40009)from the U.S. Department of Education. The opinions presented in thisarticle do not necessarily reflect the positions or policies of the U.S. De-partment of Education, and no official endorsement is implied.


REFERENCES

Anderegg, M. L, & Vergason, G. A. (1996). Preserving the least restrictive environment:Revisited. In S. Stainback & W. Stainback (Eds.), Controversial issues confronting specialeducation: Divergent perspectives (pp. 44-54). New York: Allyn and Bacon.

Barlow, D. H., & Hersen, M. (1984). Single case experimental designs (2nd ed.). New York:Pergamon Press.

Breen, C. G. (1990). Setting up and managing peer support networks. In C. G. Breen, C. H.Kennedy, & T. G. Haring (Eds.), Methods for facilitating the inclusion of students withdisabilities in integrated school and community contexts (pp. 54-105). Santa Barbara:Graduate School of Education, University of California.

Cushing, L. S., & Kennedy, C, H. (1997). Academic effects of providing peer support ingeneral education classrooms on students without disabilities. Journal of Applied BehaviorAnalysis, 30, 139-152.

Dugan, E., Kamps, D., Leonard, B., Watkins, N., Rheinberger, A., & Stackhaus, J. (1995).Effects of cooperative learning groups during social studies for students with autism andfourth-grade peers. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 28, 175-188.

Evans, I. M., Salisbury, C., Palombaro, M., & Goldberg, J. S. (1994). Children's perceptionof fairness in classroom and interpersonal situations involving peers with severedisabilities. Journal of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 19, 326-332.

Fryxell, D., & Kennedy, C. H. (1995). Placement along the continuum of services and itsimpact on students' social relationships. Journal of The Association for Persons with SevereHandicaps, 20, 259-269.

Gaylord-Ross, R., & Pitts-Conway, V. (1984). Social behavior development in integratedsecondary autistic programs. In N. Certo, N. Haring, & R. York (Eds.), Public schoolintegration of severely handicapped students: Rational issues and progressive alternatives (pp.197-219). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Haring, T. G., & Breen, C. G. (1992). A peer-mediated social network intervention to enhancethe social integration of persons with moderate and severe disabilities. Journal of AppliedBehavior Analysis, 25, 319-334.

Hunt, P., & Goetz, L. (in press). Research on inclusive education: Programs, practices, andoutcomes. Journal of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps.

Hunt, P., Staub, D., Alwell, M., & Goetz, L. (1994). Achievement by all students within thecontext of cooperative learning groups. Journal of The Association for Persons with SevereHandicaps, 19, 290-301.

Idstein, P. (1993). Swimming against the mainstream. Phi Delta Kappan, 75, 336-340.Kauffman, J. M., & Hallahan, D. P. (1995), The illusion of full inclusion: A comprehensive

critique of a current special education bandwagon. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.Kennedy, C. H., Cushing, L. S., & Itkonen, T. (1997). General education participation

improves the social contacts and friendship networks of students with severe disabilities.Journal of Behavioral Education, 7, 167-189.

Kennedy, C. H., Shukla, S., & Fryxell, D. (1997). Comparing the effects of educationalplacement on the social relationships of intermediate school students with severedisabilities. Exceptional Children, 64, 31-47.

Kishi, G. S., & Meyer, L. H. (1994). What children report and remember: A six-year follow-upof the effects of social contact between peers with and without severe disabilities. Journalof The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 19, 277-289.

Leiberman, L. M. (1996). Preserving special education...for those who need it. In S. Stainback& W. Stainback (Eds.), Controversial issues confronting special education: Divergentperspectives (pp. 16-28; 2nd ed.). New York: Allyn and Bacon.

Leitenberg, H. (1973). The use of single-case methodology in psychotherapy research. Journalof Abnormal Psychology, 82, 87-101.

Shukla, S., Kennedy, C. H., & Cushing, L. S. (in press). Supporting intermediate schoolstudents with severe disabilities in general education classrooms: A comparison of twoapproaches. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions.


Stainback, S., Stainback, W., & Ayres, B. (1996). Schools as inclusive communities. In S.Stainback & W. Stainback (Eds.), Controversial issues confronting special education:Divergent perspectives (pp. 31-43)(2nd ed.). New York: Allyn and Bacon.

Wacker, D. P., Steege, M. W., Northup, J., Sasso, G., Berg, W., Reimers, T., Cooper, L.,Cigrand, K., & Donn, L. (1990). A component analysis of functional communicationtraining across three topographies of severe behavior problems. Journal of AppliedBehavior Analysis, 23, 417-430.

Werts, M. G., Caldwell, N. K., & Wolery, M. (1996). The effects of fluent peer models onthe observational learning of response chains by students with disabilities. Journal ofApplied Behavior Analysis, 29, 53-66.


adult influence on the participation of peers without disabilities in peer support programs

Documents