Peer-mediated interventions (PMIs) offer substantial academic and social benefits to adolescents served under the special education categories of intellectual disability, autism, and multiple disabilities (i.e., intellectual and developmental disabilities [IDD]). However, limited attention has focused on the impact of PMI on participating peers without disabilities. This systematic review identified all experimental (e.g., single case, group experimental) and descriptive (e.g., qualitative, survey) studies addressing PMIs implemented at the secondary level with students with IDD. Among the 98 PMI studies that we identified in this review, 66 (67.3%) studies included some qualitative or quantitative measure of peer impact. Across these studies, the impact on peers was addressed in 10 different areas. This review provides new insights into the ways peer impact has been evaluated and how peers have been impacted by their PMI experience. Recommendations for research and practice aimed at addressing the benefits of involving peers without disabilities in these interventions are provided.
Although the significance of sibling relationships is widely affirmed, little is known about these relationships in young adulthood. In this study, we examined the experiences and perspectives of 155 siblings (ages 18–30) of individuals with intellectual disability or autism. Our focus was on how young adults spend time with their brother or sister with a disability, the ways in which they view their relationship, and the expectations they hold for the future. We found that most siblings spent time together engaging in a wide range of activities, described their relationships as of high quality, and held varied expectations regarding their brother's or sister's future. Several factors were associated with more time spent together and higher quality relationships. We address implications for practice and suggest future directions for research.
Introduction: Special education eligibility criteria vary across U.S. states; this study reports a systematic analysis of interstate eligibility criteria in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) category of visual impairments including blindness. Method: Eligibility criteria for all 56 U.S. states, territories, and Washington, DC, were collected and coded on 20 different variables. Variables included use of federal language, qualifying conditions, assessment components, and eligibility team member requirements. Results: Fourteen of 56 states use similar or identical eligibility criteria written in IDEA. Forty-one states (73%) included language that specified criteria or operationally defined what it meant to be a student with a visual impairment in their state. Although about half of the states included an eye report as part of the eligibility process, few specifically mentioned functional vision, learning media, and orientation and mobility assessments in their criteria. Discussion: Significant interstate variations in the interpretation of who qualifies as a student with a visual impairment exist in the United States. Some eligibility criteria were written in an unclear language, making the criteria hard to interpret. Given that identification and prevalence rates of students with disabilities, including students with visual impairments, correlate to components of eligibility criteria, future work should seek to develop an operationalized universal definition of who qualifies as a student with visual impairment in schools. Implications for Practitioners: Since significant interstate variations exist, students, families, and educators must have easy access to all states’ criteria so that families may understand how a student's eligibility for services may change if they move between states.
Background Understanding the positive qualities of individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities can provide a much‐needed counterpoint to deficit‐based depictions of disability. Method This study examined how 163 young adults (ages 18–30) viewed the strengths of their brothers and sisters with intellectual disability or autism using the Assessment Scale for Positive Character Traits‐Developmental Disabilities (Woodard, 2009). In addition, the authors examined factors that may shape their perspectives. Results Overall, siblings' ratings of strengths were moderate to high, indicating an overall portrait of strengths. The majority of brothers and sisters with disabilities was described as having multiple strengths and their profiles on this measure were highly individualized. Lower overall ratings were associated with several variables, including not using speech as a primary mode of communication, exhibiting challenging behaviours, having autism and not currently living together. Conclusions The authors offer recommendations for future research and practice related to supporting siblings with and without disabilities.
Although the impact of peer-mediated interventions on students with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) has been studied extensively, little attention has focused on the peers without disabilities who are so central to these interventions. We reviewed 98 studies to examine the portrait of more than 3,000 peers without disabilities who have participated in peer-mediated interventions involving middle and high school students with IDD. Peer and student demographics were very diverse, as were the methods for peer recruitment and selection, the interventions they delivered, the settings in which they spent time with students with IDD, and the ways in which they were prepared for these roles. However, reporting in these areas was limited across studies. We offer recommendations for strengthening research and practice focused on the contributions of peers within these evidence-based interventions.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.