the purpose of this article is to critically review the literature on young children’s attitudes toward peers with disabilities with an emphasis on measurement issues. Assessment instruments and the type of information that these assessments provide about the dimensions of attitudes toward peers with disabilities based on a conceptual model of attitude formation suggested by Triandis are highlighted. p. 132

much of the empirical work in special education has focused on the outcomes of children with disabilities as a result of enrollment in inclusive programs. The benefits that typically developing children achieve as a result of participation in inclusive programs have largely been overlooked p. 132

positive attitude development can be a benefit that typically developing children obtain from participating in inclusive programs p. 132

some researchers have focused on young children’s understanding about peers with disabilities (Diamond, 1993; Diamond & Hong, 2010; Diamond & Huang, 2005; Diamond & Kensinger, 2002), and the relationship between children’s understanding p. 132

and acceptance of peers with disabilities and their actual play behaviors with their peers with disabilities p. 133

A conceptual scheme for young children’s attitude formation that was developed by Triandis (1971) includes three components: cognitive, affective, and behavioral aspects. The cognitive component includes knowledge about disabilities and beliefs about the causes and consequences of having a disability, whereas the affective component refers to emotional reactions (i.e., fear, anxiety, hope) that occur in response to peers with disabilities. The behavioral component of young children’s attitude formation refers to a predisposition to act in a certain manner. p. 133

researchers have used a variety of methods such as scales, questionnaires, interviews, sociometric peer ratings, and behavioral observations to assess young children’s attitudes toward peers with disabilities p. 133

there is limited research on the measurement of young children’s attitudes toward peers with disabilities p. 133

This limitation is not a result of disinterest in young children’s attitudes, but it stems from the methodological challenges of assessing young children’s attitudes p. 133

For example, when studying the attitudes of adults or older children, attitudes can be inferred from what people say about a referent or from the feelings they describe. However, it can be challenging to ask preschoolers to express what they think or how they feel about individuals with disabilities. p. 133

The criteria for inclusion in the review were as follows: (a) The article included at least one method to assess young children’s attitudes toward peers with disabilities, (b) the participating children were preschoolers or kindergarteners, and © the article was published in a peer-reviewed journal in English between 1990 and 2010. p. 133

Another important issue is accessing detailed information about the different aspects of the attitude construct. p. 133

A total of 19 research articles were identified that met the criteria established for this review. p. 133

Sociometric peer ratings p. 134

Pictorial Scale of Perceived Competence and Social Acceptance for Young Children p. 134

Social Acceptance Scales p. 134

Sociometrics p. 134

Peer rating assessment p. 135

These researchers first taught typically developing peers of 80 preschoolers with disabilities to sort pictures of foods and then toys into one of three boxes along a 3-point continuum of “like to eat [or play with] a lot, a little or not at all.” Each box represented 1 of the 3 points on the continuum with a happy face (like a lot), neutral face (like a little), or a sad face (don’t like at all). After practicing this task with pictures of food and toys, the children were asked to sort pictures of their classmates, using the same three boxes. p. 137

A major finding in this study was that children who were more willing to play with hypothetical children with disabilities were more likely to interact with their classmates with disabilities in free play situations. p. 139

Interesting that none of the studies looked at correlations - certain kids more likely to accept handicapped kids, etc? Or is that just not reported in this article? p. 139

Researchers have cautioned that methods such as scales, sociometric peer ratings, and interviews rely on children’s self-report (e.g., Diamond et al., 2008; Favazza & Odom, 1996), causing concern that children might provide responses they believe would please an examiner or that are socially appropriate. p. 139

For example, Okagaki and her colleagues (1998) measured the social play of 36 preschoolers toward their classmates with and without disabilities using a 2-s look and 15-s record sweep method. p. 139

One of the main findings was a positive relationship between children’s reported preference to play with classmates with disabilities and their overall score for understanding disabilities. However, they also found that actual social play with classmates with disabilities was not related to children’s understanding of disabilities or reported preference to play with classmates with disabilities. Possible reasons for the inconsistent results compared with previous studies (Diamond, 2001; Okagaki et al., 1998) included the following: (a) Hestenes and Carroll did not include parallel play as an observational category, whereas Okagaki and colleagues merged parallel and social play, and (b) one of the two classrooms observed by Hestenes and Carroll only included children with disabilities during free play, whereas Diamond (2001) and Okagaki et al. (1998) conducted their studies in inclusive classrooms. p. 140

the three studies together suggest the possible presence of the following relationships: (a) children’s reported willingness to play with hypothetical children with disabilities may be related to their play interactions with classmates with disabilities (Okagaki et al., 1998), (b) children’s acceptance ratings of hypothetical peers with disabilities may be related to their social interactions with classmates with disabilities (Diamond, 2001), and © children’s understanding of disabilities may be related to their reported preference to play with classmates with disabilities (Hestenes & Carroll, 2000). p. 140