2000
DOI: 10.1352/0047-6765(2000)038<0138:sfohca>2.0.co;2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Successful Friendships of Hispanic Children and Youth With Disabilities: An Exploratory Study

Abstract: Interviews were conducted with Hispanic children who had a disability and a friend with whom they had a successful friendship, as well as with parents and teachers. We focused the interviews on the children's and adults' descriptions of the friendship, what each of the children gave to and received from the friendship, the evolution of the friendship in terms of intensity, and the influence of Hispanic cultural values. A friendship support conceptual framework is presented to organize the data related to three… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
18
0

Year Published

2000
2000
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
1
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(19 citation statements)
references
References 26 publications
(16 reference statements)
1
18
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Compared with definitions of friendship for students without disabilities, these definitions highlight reciprocity, but also emphasize meaningfulness and spontaneous or natural development over affection and fun. These relationships are not "helping the handicapped" (Murray-Seegert, 1989, p. 87); that is, they are not based on benevolence (i.e., "special friends") or one-way helping, which are viewed as distinct from reciprocity (Turnbull, Blue-Banning, & Pereira, 2000;Van der Klift & Kunc, 2002). For example, in a study of typically developing, middle school boys' perspectives on relationships with students with disabilities, reciprocity was one of three key components of facilitating positive peer relationships (Kalymon, Gettinger, & Hanley-Maxwell, 2010).…”
Section: Articlementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Compared with definitions of friendship for students without disabilities, these definitions highlight reciprocity, but also emphasize meaningfulness and spontaneous or natural development over affection and fun. These relationships are not "helping the handicapped" (Murray-Seegert, 1989, p. 87); that is, they are not based on benevolence (i.e., "special friends") or one-way helping, which are viewed as distinct from reciprocity (Turnbull, Blue-Banning, & Pereira, 2000;Van der Klift & Kunc, 2002). For example, in a study of typically developing, middle school boys' perspectives on relationships with students with disabilities, reciprocity was one of three key components of facilitating positive peer relationships (Kalymon, Gettinger, & Hanley-Maxwell, 2010).…”
Section: Articlementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Relatives or other children with disabilities were also not specifically excluded. This decision was made because past researchers have demonstrated that relatives play a significant part in the social relationships of children from specific cultural groups, including children from Hispanic American (Turnbull, Blue-Banning, & Pereira, 2000) and Aboriginal Australian (Searle, 1989) backgrounds. It should be noted that although not excluded, no siblings were nominated as peers and only one cousin was nominated.…”
Section: Nomination Of Peersmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This connection appears to be the gold standard for inclusion from the perspective of many parents, policy makers and researchers (Harry et al . 1998; Turnbull et al . 2000).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Sebba & Sachdev 1997;Alderson & Goodey 1998;Bax 1999;Carter & Hughes 2005;Siperstein et al 2007). This connection appears to be the gold standard for inclusion from the perspective of many parents, policy makers and researchers (Harry et al 1998;Turnbull et al 2000). While such friendships are undoubtedly valuable, not recognising the full range of friendship options for disabled youth can convey a negative valuation of disability, narrow choices of friendship partners, or dismiss long-lasting friendships (Meyer et al 1998).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%