effects of the star intervention program on interactions ... · effects of the star intervention...

Effects of the STAR Intervention Program on Interactionsbetween Campers with and without Disabilities during

Inclusive Summer Day Camp Activities

Christina M. Boyd, Jeffrey L. Fraiman, Kelly A. Hawkins, Jennifer M. Labin,Mary Beth Sutter, and Meghan R. Wahl

University of Maryland

Abstract: The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of a peer intervention program designed to increaseinteractions between children with and without disabilities in an inclusive summer camp. A multiple probesingle subject design was used to determine the effects of the STAR intervention on six dyads of campers agedfive through ten over two week sessions. Each dyad consisted of one camper with a mild to moderate disabilityand one camper without a disability. The results showed an overall increase in the number of interactions anddemonstrated that the STAR program was effective in increasing interactions between campers with and withoutdisabilities. Factors contributing to the success of the intervention are discussed as well as limitations.

Many studies have investigated the dynamicsof social interaction between young childrenwith and without disabilities. In particular, theuse of peer training has been examined as anintervention to increase social interactions inpreschool and elementary school settings(Garfinkle & Schwartz, 2002; Goldstein, Kacz-marek, Pennington, & Shafer, 1992; Hundert& Houghton, 1992; Odom, Chandler, Os-trosky, McConnell, & Reaney, 1992). English,Goldstein, Kaczmarek, and Shafer (1996) de-veloped a peer skills training program thattaught children to “stay,” “play,” and “talk”with a peer with a disability. English, Gold-stein, Shafer, and Kaczmarek (1997), Gold-stein and English (1997), and Laushey andHeflin (2000) investigated the effectiveness ofthe “stay-play-talk” training procedure in pre-school and kindergarten children. In all threestudies, children without disabilities receivedtraining sessions during which they were

taught how to interact with a child with adisability. The results showed a substantial in-crease in the interactions within the dyad afterthe “stay-play-talk” procedure was taught.

Gonzalez-Lopez and Kamps (1997) pro-vided information about disabilities to typi-cally developing peers. In addition, theytaught social skills to children with autism andtheir peers, which increased the incidence ofpositive interactions between the children.Sasso, Mundschenk, Melloy, and Casey (1998)examined the effects of multiple variables onthe social behavior of children with autismand other developmental disabilities. Resultsof the research suggested that dyads pro-moted social interaction on the part of thechild with a disability better than triads. Fur-thermore, the study showed that social behav-iors were more prevalent during peer-initiatedfree play than when peers were instructed toteach a child with a disability how to play aspecific game. Despite these findings, few re-search studies have been published regardingattempts to increase social interaction be-tween children with and without disabilitiesoutside of the school setting. Though pre-school and elementary schools are critical are-nas for social development in young children,they are not the only settings where childrencome together, interact, and make friends.

Authors are members of the University of Mary-land Gemstone Program, a multidisciplinary four-year research program for selected honors students.Dr. Francey Kohl, the faculty mentor, assisted inpreparing the manuscript. Correspondence con-cerning this article should be addressed to Dr.Francey Kohl, 1308 Benjamin Building, Departmentof Special Education, University of Maryland, Col-lege Park, MD 20742.

Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 2008, 43(1), 92–101© Division on Developmental Disabilities

92 / Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities-March 2008

One widely overlooked arena for social inter-action is community recreation programs.

There is a demonstrated benefit of socialinteraction during leisure activities for chil-dren with disabilities (Bedini, 2000). Studieshave examined methods to improve inclusiverecreation in areas such as staff training andadministrative or structural modification(Herbert, 2000; Schleien, Germ, & McAvoy,1996). In addition, several studies have dem-onstrated the benefit of inclusive recreationon the social acceptance of children with dis-abilities (Anderson, Schleien, McAvoy, Lais, &Seligmann, 1997; Devine, 2004; Sable, 1995).However, these studies did not address im-proving interactions between children withand without disabilities, which is an exten-sively studied area in educational settings. Dueto the lack of intervention studies in leisuresettings, research is needed to determine theimpact of peer training at recreation sites.Therefore, the purpose of this investigationwas to examine effects of a peer interventionprocedure designed to increase interactionsbetween children with and without disabilitiesduring an inclusive summer day camp.

Method

Participant Selection

The study was conducted in an inclusive sum-mer day camp organized by a suburban com-munity recreation program in the mid-Atlan-tic region of the United States. Theinvestigation took place during regularlyscheduled camp hours (9am-5pm) at indoor

and outdoor camp facilities. The camp pro-gram included activities such as organizedteam sports, games, arts and crafts, and swim-ming. The ratio of camp staff to children wasapproximately 1 to 5. The ratio of childrenwith disabilities to children without disabilitieswas approximately 1 to 10. There were fourtwo-week camp sessions in which approxi-mately 20 campers attended per session. Thestudy was implemented during two camp ses-sions, the first and third of the sequence. Dur-ing each camp session, campers at three dif-ferent sites were observed. Participants weresummer day campers between five and tenyears of age and consisted of a combination ofboys and girls. Table 1 displays participantcharacteristics, including age and gender.

Children with disabilities. Recreation coor-dinators were asked to mail an informationletter and a permission form to parents of allcampers with disclosed disabilities, maintain-ing confidentiality until there was an agree-ment by parents for their child to participatein the research. Three campers with disabili-ties participated in each camp session, for atotal of six campers with disabilities over allcamp sites. All children with disabilities forwhom a parental permission form was re-turned were potential participants. Severity ofthe disabilities ranged from mild to moderate.

Children without disabilities. On the firstday of camp, campers without disabilities andtheir parents were approached. The researchwas explained and parents were asked if theywould allow their child to participate. If par-ents agreed to have their child participate,information letters and permission forms

TABLE 1

Characteristics of Campers With and Without Disabilities

Campers Without Disabilities Campers With Disabilities

CampSession Gender Age Gender Age Disability (Verbal Ability)

1-A Male 7 Female 5 Emotional Disorder (Verbal)1-B Female 7 Male 10 Autism (Verbal)1-C Male 5 Male 5 Autism (Language Delay)2-A Male 8 Male 8 Visual Impairment (Verbal)2-B Female 7 Male 10 Autism (Verbal)2-C Male 7 Male 7 Autism (Limited language usage)

STAR Intervention Program / 93

were provided and parents were asked to re-turn them by the second day of camp. Oncepermission was granted, three campers with-out disabilities from each camp session wereselected based on counselor recommenda-tions or random selection from those whovolunteered by returning their permissionform.

Procedure

Experimental design. A multiple probe sin-gle subject experimental design was used.During the second day of camp, baseline ob-servations of interactions between camperswith and without disabilities began. Camper Awas observed for a minimum of three baselinesessions at the same time that Campers B andC were observed for one observation. Whenbaseline data were stable for Camper A, theintervention procedures were implemented.The intervention continued with Camper Auntil a noticeable increase in the number ofinteractions was observed and then Camper Bwas observed for three additional baseline ob-servation sessions and Camper C was observedfor one additional baseline session. WhenCamper B had a stable baseline, the interven-tion procedure was implemented. Likewise,intervention continued until Camper Bshowed a noticeable increase in the numberof interactions. Intervention observationswere continued for Campers A and B, whileCamper C was observed for an additionalthree baseline observations before the inter-vention began.

Dependent variable and data collection. Thedependent variable was the percentage of in-tervals in which an interaction between camp-ers with and without disabilities occurred. Theprimary focus of each observation interval wasthe camper without a disability, namelyCamper A, B, or C. Interactions were definedas social behaviors occurring between camp-ers with and without a disability including: (a)non-verbal communication (e.g., sustainingeye contact for three seconds, smiling, wav-ing); (b) talking to each other; (c) directingan activity (e.g., explaining the directions foran art project); (d) sharing materials; (e) par-ticipating in an activity together (e.g., assem-bling a puzzle); (f) prompting a skill (e.g.,gesturing to cut materials, modeling how to

open a jar of paint); (g) physical assistance(e.g., taking the hand of camper with a dis-ability to connect the dots); and (h) physicalor verbal encouragement (e.g., patting on theback, giving a high five, saying “good job”).

Data were collected during 5 minute obser-vation sessions. Within the 5 minutes, therewere a total of twenty 10 second intervals forobserving that were separated by 5 secondintervals for recording. The observer wasprompted via an earphone with a tape re-corded signal to start observing, to stop ob-serving, or to record. A partial interval record-ing system was used in which an interval wasmarked indicating that an interaction was ob-served regardless of the frequency of interac-tions or length of time for each interaction. Atthe end of each observation session, the per-centage of intervals in which interactions oc-curred was determined. Data collection pro-cedures were identical for all baseline andintervention conditions across all campersand camp sessions.

Independent variable. After baseline datawere completed for the campers without dis-abilities, the first part of the peer interventionwas implemented. Using the “stay-play-talk”training by English et al. (1996) as a basis, theSTAR intervention was developed for thisstudy to target elementary school aged chil-dren in recreation settings. The interventionconsisted of four behaviors that were modeledand taught to the campers without disabilitiesto increase interactions with campers with dis-abilities: “S” stood for stay, “T” for talk, “A” forassist, and “R” for reward. Campers withoutdisabilities were asked after their baseline ob-servations were completed if they would par-ticipate in the STAR intervention. Before thetraining session began, the campers withoutdisabilities were each read an assent form andparticipation in the research was agreed to bythe campers.

At the time of the STAR intervention, camp-ers without disabilities were separated fromthe group for no longer than 20 minutes. Thesession began with a series of questions posedto the campers: (a) What is a disability? (b)What are different types of disabilities? and(c) What are possible similarities and differ-ences between their camp experience and theway campers with disabilities may experiencethe camp? If the campers did not respond,


appropriate answers were provided. Thecampers without disabilities were told thatduring an activity such as arts and crafts, theywould be given a button illustrating the STARacronym, which would be used as a reminderof how to interact with campers with disabili-ties. The campers were partnered with camp-ers with disabilities and asked to be a “STAR.”After showing the campers the button duringthe intervention, the acronym was explained.The explanation included examples as well asopportunities for the campers to participatein role playing the four behaviors of “STAR.”The scenarios, which were used in the roleplay, were chosen based partly on the disabil-ities of their assigned campers. After the STARintervention was completed, the campers re-turned to the group. Each day, when the tar-geted activity occurred (e.g., arts and crafts),the second part of the STAR intervention wasimplemented. The campers without disabili-ties were partnered with the assigned camperswith disabilities, given the STAR button, andreminded by one of the researchers to stay,talk, assist, and reward the campers with dis-abilities.

Interobserver reliability. Six observers (allauthors) acted as the primary and secondarydata collectors. Prior to the implementationof the study, all observers became familiarwith the definition of the dependent variableand what qualified as an interaction betweencampers. Data collectors were paired off andgiven a tape recorder with a double jack fortwo separate ear phones. Observers practiceddata collection and calculations on a video ofchildren interacting until a reliability agree-ment of 90% or above was reached. A point bypoint formula was used to calculate reliability:number of agreements of interaction intervalsdivided by the number of agreements plusdisagreements of interaction intervals multi-plied by 100. During camp observations, twoobservers entered the room with the tape re-corder and double jack earphones, sat as faraway as possible from one another and lis-tened for the observe, record, or stop promptswith separate headsets.

Procedural reliability. Procedural reliabilitywas calculated for two different aspects of thestudy: (a) during all training sessions in whichthe campers without disabilities were taughtthe STAR intervention and (b) before daily

observation sessions when a reminder of theSTAR procedures was given along with theSTAR button. Procedural reliability was ob-served and recorded by one of the authors. Achecklist of steps that was to be followed forthe STAR intervention was used to insure alltraining steps were completed. During proce-dural reliability, the researcher observed andrecorded the number of steps completed cor-rectly. To calculate reliability, the followingformula was used: number of steps completeddivided by total number of steps multiplied by100.

Results

Results of the STAR intervention program onthe percentage of interactions between camp-ers with and without disabilities in Camp Ses-sion 1 are presented in Figure 1. The baselinecondition for Camper 1-A consisted of threeobservation periods with no interactions oc-curring with the camper with a disability. Theintervention condition for Camper 1-A con-sisted of 12 observation periods with an aver-age of 33.8% interactions with the camperwith a disability, ranging from 5-55%. Thebaseline condition for Camper 1-B consistedof four observation periods with an average of3.8% interactions with the designated camperwith a disability and a range of 0-15%. Whenthe intervention condition was introduced forCamper 1-B over 12 observation periods, anaverage of 20.4% interactions occurred, rang-ing from 0-45%. The baseline condition forCamper 1-C consisted of five observation pe-riods during which no interactions occurredwith the camper with a disability. The inter-vention condition for Camper 1-C consisted ofthree observation periods with an average of35% interactions with a range of 10-75%.

Results of the STAR intervention programon the percentage of interactions betweencampers with and without disabilities overeach observation period in Camp Session 2are presented in Figure 2. The baseline con-dition for Camper 2-A consisted of three ob-servation periods with an average of 1.7% in-teractions with the camper with a disability,ranging from 0-5%. When the interventioncondition for Camper 2-A was in effect for 16observation periods, the average percentageof interactions was 31.6% with a range of 10-


Figure 1. Effects of STAR intervention program on percentage of interactions between campers with andwithout disabilities during camp Session 1.


Figure 2. Effects of STAR intervention program on percentage of interactions between campers with andwithout disabilities during camp Session 2.


55%. The baseline condition for Camper 2-Bconsisted of four observation periods with anaverage of 2.5% of interactions occurring withthe camper with a disability, ranging from0-10%. Once the intervention condition wasintroduced for Camper 2-B over 12 observa-tion periods, the average percentage of inter-actions was 16.7% with a range of 0%-60%.The baseline condition for Camper 2-C con-sisted of five observation periods with an aver-age of 1% of interactions occurring with thedesignated camper with a disability, rangingfrom 0-5%. The intervention condition forCamper 2-C consisted of 12 observation peri-ods with an average of 20.8% interactions witha range of 0-65%.

Results of this investigation showed that af-ter the intervention training was given to eachcamper without a disability, the average per-centage of interactions between campers withand without disabilities increased across all sixcampers. The mean percentage of increasedinteractions for all six campers from baselineto intervention conditions was 26.4%.

Interobserver reliability. During the baselineconditions for Camp Session 1 (N � 12)across all three campers, reliability measureswere taken on 75% of all sessions and themean reliability calculation was 100%. Duringintervention sessions for Camp Session 1 (N �27) across all three campers, reliability mea-sures were taken on 44% of all sessions, with amean of 97.5% agreement and a range of90-100%. Therefore, in Session 1 across allconditions and campers, reliability was takenon 54% of all observations with a mean of99.2% agreement and a range of 90-100%.

During baseline conditions for Camp Ses-sion 2 (N � 12) across all three campers,reliability measures were taken on 75% of allsessions and the mean reliability calculationwas 100%. During intervention conditions forCamp Session 2 (N � 40) across all threecampers, reliability measures were taken on27.5% of all sessions, with a mean of 95.8%agreement and a range of 90-100%. There-fore, in Camp Session 2 across all conditionsand campers, reliability was taken on 36.5% ofall observations with a mean of 98% rangingfrom 90-100%. Overall, for Camp Sessions 1and 2 across all baseline conditions, interven-tion conditions, and six campers, interob-server reliability was obtained on 44% of all

observations with a mean of 98.6% agreementand a range of 90-100%.

Procedural reliability. On 100% of all STARintervention training sessions across bothcamp sessions with six campers, proceduralreliability was taken by a secondary observer. Achecklist of 20 critical steps necessary to im-plement the STAR intervention program wasgenerated. During the intervention trainingsessions, the secondary observer indicatedwhether the trainer implemented the STARintervention consistently. The number ofsteps implemented during the interventiontraining divided by the total number of steps(N � 20) multiplied by 100 yielded proce-dural reliability results. For Camp Sessions 1and 2, the mean procedural reliability was100%.

On 38.9% of all daily reminder sessionsacross both camp sessions, procedural reliabil-ity was taken by a secondary observer. A check-list of five critical steps necessary to implementthe daily reminders was generated. During thedaily reminder sessions, the second observerindicated whether the trainer implementedeach step. The number of steps implementedduring intervention conditions divided by thetotal number of steps (N � 5) multiplied by100 yielded procedural reliability results. ForCamp Sessions 1 and 2, the mean proceduralreliability for the reminder procedures was100%.

Discussion

The STAR program was shown to be an effec-tive intervention to increase interactions be-tween campers with and without disabilities ineach of the six pairs in an inclusive summerday camp. These results were similar to thosefound by English et al. (1997), Goldstein andEnglish (1997), and Laushey and Heflin(2000) in school settings. It is believed thatthe increase in interactions between camperswith and without disabilities during the twoweek camp sessions was a direct result of acombination of variables. First, the initialtraining session provided useful informationon disabilities by emphasizing similaritiesacross all campers and helped to make thecampers feel more comfortable around theirpeers with disabilities. The importance oftraining for children without disabilities re-


garding how to effectively interact with chil-dren with disabilities has been echoed by sev-eral other studies (Goldstein & English;Gonzalez-Lopez & Kamps, 1997). Secondly,the STAR procedures (specifically, “stay, talk,assist, and reward”) were effective becausecampers without disabilities were given spe-cific ways to initiate and sustain interactionswith campers with disabilities. Finally, thedaily reminders were beneficial and necessarybecause they prompted the campers to assistcampers with disabilities in specific camp ac-tivities.

However, there were sudden drops in inter-actions for certain observation sessions. Inmost of these cases, camp circumstances be-yond the researchers’ control led to the de-creased frequency of interactions. Decreasesin interactions occurred when observed activ-ities ended prematurely. The remainder ofthe observation session was then conductedwhile transitioning to another activity and in-teractions were not as likely to occur. In in-stances where the frequency of interactionsdropped to zero, the primary reason was thatthe camper without a disability became tooengrossed in his or her own assigned activityand failed to interact with the camper with adisability.

The atmosphere surrounding the camp alsoaffected the frequency of interactions betweencampers. On multiple occasions the observa-tion periods were affected by changes in thedaily schedule that resulted in all or part ofthe observation occurring during activitieswhere interactions were made difficult by theconstraints of the activity. Not all observationswere able to occur during the passive activityof arts and crafts as originally planned and itwas found that physical, outdoor activities of-ten produced fewer interactions betweencampers. Some observation periods were alsoconducted during unstructured activities be-cause field trips occupied the majority of theday, which also decreased the frequency ofinteractions observed. Another factor wasdaily absences by either camper, interruptingthe flow of the intervention. Also, counselors,particularly the counselors in training (CIT)who were adolescent volunteers, on occasioninterfered with the campers during observa-tion sessions. Most of the campers with disabil-ities were assigned a CIT by the recreation

department who would sometimes monopo-lize the attention of his or her camper, whichobstructed the camper without a disabilityfrom assisting his or her partner.

Despite the success of the intervention, theprogram could be improved by refining theSTAR procedures. It was found that the train-ing for some of the campers without disabili-ties appeared to have been too advanced fortheir age, which ranged from five to eightyears. The concept of a disability was not al-ways understood by the younger campers,which affected the implementation of theSTAR procedures. This was especially true ofsituations where campers had a disability thatwas not visible. Some of the campers had milddisabilities, such as an emotional disorder,which were not discernable to other campers.Additionally, some campers without disabili-ties would focus on only one or two compo-nents of the STAR intervention, such as stayand talk. One possible way to remedy theproblem would be to use picture symbols forstay, talk, assist, and reward displayed on anindex card that could be placed in front of thecamper. The modeling and role-playing com-ponent of the intervention was also essential.Adding more practice to the role-playing com-ponent may help the camper without disabil-ities to better understand the expectations ofthe STAR procedure. This could be accom-plished by including a guided approach thatwould start with modeling, then a promptedrole-playing situation, and finally lead to inde-pendent role-playing by the camper.

Although the daily reminders were criticalto the success of the STAR program, theycould also be improved in three ways. The firstrecommendation is to implement a role-play-ing component similar to the initial interven-tion into the daily routine by having the camp-ers act out specific behaviors of the STARinterventions before receiving the buttoneach day. This may enhance younger camp-ers’ understanding of the procedures and fur-ther increase their interactions. The secondrecommendation would be to allow the campstaff to give the daily reminders. This familiar-ity may help the campers feel more comfort-able in asking questions about the campers’disability, how to assist, and what is expectedof them, as well as facilitate generalization ofthe STAR behaviors across the entire day. The


last recommendation would be to provideconstructive feedback at each daily remindersession to the campers without disabilitiesabout their interactions the previous campday.

Limitations

There were several factors both foreseen andunforeseen that produced limitations to theresults of the STAR intervention. As is oftenthe case with inclusive recreation programs,there were very few participants with disabili-ties at each camp site. For this study therewere only one or two campers with disabilitieswho had permission to participate in the studyat each camp site and these campers had milddisabilities that were not apparent to the othercampers. It is unclear if the results of the studywould have been different if the campers withdisabilities had impairments easily recogniz-able to the other campers (e.g., a child in awheelchair).

An additional limitation to the researchcomes as a result of the design of the inter-vention itself. During the baseline condition,the campers with and without disabilities wereseated away from each other, essentially elim-inating any opportunity for interaction be-tween the two. During the intervention obser-vations, the campers with and withoutdisabilities were seated next to each other.Simply placing the campers next to each othermay have increased the incidence of interac-tion between them. The campers without dis-abilities were always free to move during theintervention; however, most stayed in the seatthey were asked to sit in. Had the participantpool been larger, it may have been possible totake baseline data and complete the interven-tion with a camper who was initially sittingnext to the camper with a disability.

Future Directions

The positive results of the STAR interventionhave far-reaching directions for future re-search. It is important to replicate across dif-ferent variables so the STAR intervention maybe used by a variety of recreation programs inthe future. It is also important to replicate theprocedures using campers with a variety ofdisabilities and a range of severity. This should

include campers with physical, emotional, andcognitive disabilities. Procedures should bereplicated using different recreation settingsand activities, such as team sports, games,swimming, and dance. A final factor to con-sider for future research is the age and gendersimilarities of the pair of campers. Genderand age differences in the dyads may haveaffected the results of this investigation, butfuture replications with pairs of the same gen-der or age versus pairs of differing gender andage will give further insight into facilitatinginteractions in camp settings. Future studiescould also explore different interventionsbased on the age of the child, such as the useof pictures for younger children versus ab-stract presentations for older children. Futureresearch will strengthen the effectiveness ofthe STAR intervention and will expand theopportunity for many recreation programs touse this method to increase friendshipsamong campers with and without disabilities.

References

Anderson, L., Schleien, S. J., McAvoy, L., Lais, G., &Seligmann, D. (1997). Creating positive changethrough an integrated outdoor adventure pro-gram. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 31, 214–229.

Bedini, L. A. (2000). “Just sit down so we can talk”:Perceived stigma and community recreation pur-suits of people with disabilities. Therapeutic Recre-ation Journal. 34, 55–68.

Devine, M. A. (2004). “Being a ‘doer’ instead of a‘viewer’”: The role of inclusive leisure contests indetermining social acceptance for people withdisabilities. Journal of Leisure Research, 36, 137–159.

English, K., Goldstein, H., Kaczmarek, L., & Shafer,K. (1996). “Buddy skills” for preschoolers. Teach-ing Exceptional Children, 28(3), 62–66.

English, K., Goldstein, H., Shafer, K., & Kaczmarek,L. (1997). Promoting interactions among pre-schoolers with and without disabilities: Effects of abuddy skills-training program. Exceptional Chil-dren, 63, 229–243.

Garfinkle, A. N., & Schwartz, I. S. (2002). Peerimitation: Increasing social interactions in chil-dren with autism and other developmental dis-abilities in inclusive preschool classrooms. Topicsin Early Childhood Special Education, 22, 26–38.

Goldstein, H., & English, K. (1997). Interactionamong preschoolers with and without disabilities:Effects of across-the-day peer intervention. Journalof Speech, Language & Hearing Research, 40, 33–49.

Goldstein, H., Kaczmarek, L., Pennington, R., &


Shafer K. (1992). Peer-mediating intervention:Attending to, commenting on, and acknowledg-ing the behavior of preschoolers with autism. Jour-nal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 289–305.

Gonzalez-Lopez, A., & Kamps, D. M. (1997). Socialskills training to increase social interactions be-tween children with autism and their typicalpeers. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Dis-abilities, 12, 2–15.

Herbert, J. T. (2000). Therapeutic adventure staffattitudes and preferences for working with per-sons with disabilities. Therapeutic Recreation Jour-nal, 34, 211–226.

Hundert, J., & Houghton, A. (1992). Promotingsocial interaction of children with disabilities inintegrated preschools: A failure to generalize. Ex-ceptional Children, 48, 311–320.

Laushey, K. M., & Heflin, L. J. (2000). Enhancingsocial skills of kindergarten children with autismthrough the training of multiple peers as tutors.Journal of Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 30,183–193.

Odom, S. L., Chandler, L. K., Ostrosky, M., McCo-nnell, S. R., & Reaney, S. (1992). Fading teacher

prompts from peer-initiated interventions foryoung children with disabilities. Journal of AppliedBehavior Analysis, 25, 307–317.

Sable, J. R. (1995). Efficacy of physical integration,disability awareness, and adventure programmingon adolescents’ acceptance of individuals withdisabilities. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 29, 206–227.

Sasso, G. M., Mundschenk, N. A., Melloy, K. J., &Casey, S. D. (1998). A comparison of the effects oforganismic and setting variables on the socialinteraction behavior of children with develop-mental disabilities and autism. Focus on Autism andOther Developmental Disabilities, 13, 2–17.

Schleien, S. J., Germ, P. A., & McAvoy, L. H. (1996).Inclusive community leisure services: Recom-mended professional practices and barriers en-countered. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 30, 260–273.

Received: 23 August 2006Initial Acceptance: 17 October 2006Final Acceptance: 9 January 2007


effects of the star intervention program on interactions ... · effects of the star intervention...

Documents