International Journal of Educational Research 103 (2020) 101641

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Educational Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijedures

Students’ perspective on inclusion: Relations of attitudes towards

T
inclusive education and self-perceptions of peer relations
Nadine Spörera,*, Jenny Lenkeita, Stefanie Bossea, Anne Hartmanna, Antje Ehlerta,
Michel Kniggeb
a
University of Potsdam, Germany
b
Humboldt University Berlin, Germany

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: The goal of the present study was to analyze how students’ attitudes towards inclusive education
Peer relations develop over the course of a school year and how these attitudes relate to students’ peer relations.
Inclusion Sixth- and seventh-graders of 44 inclusive classes filled out a questionnaire at two measurement
Students points within one school year to assess attitudes towards inclusive education and peer relations.
Attitudes
Applying multilevel regression analyses it turned out that changes in peer relations over time
Special educational needs
were positively predicted by students’ attitudes towards instructional adaptations for students
with behaviour difficulties. Further, students with self-perceived behavior difficulties reported
lower scores for peer relations compared to students without self-perceived difficulties.
Results are discussed with respect to structural factors and individual characteristics affecting
inclusive education.

1. Introduction

In the process of implementing the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN General Assembly, 2007),
students all over the world should be enabled to learn together in one and the same classroom regardless of their individual char-
acteristics. Even though classrooms have ever been diverse, teachers of such inclusive classes face the challenge to instruct students
with different cultural and family backgrounds, socio-emotional developments as well as different approaches to learning, and,
therefore, different educational needs. An important aspect of school-based education is to foster the social well-being of all students
(UNESCO Office Bangkok & Regional Bureau for Education in Asia & the Pacific, 2016). International studies comparing the situation
of students in different countries, however, indicated that those with special educational needs are at risk for social exclusion
compared to students without special educational needs (SEN)1 (OECD, 2017).
In Germany, the 16 federal states are responsible for the implementation of inclusive education. Consequently, there is a broad
variability regarding the inclusion rate as well as the measures used to foster inclusive learning. In the federal state of Brandenburg,
where the present study is situated, about 50 % of the students with a diagnosed SEN learn in inclusive schools whereas the other 50
% keep learning in non-inclusive settings. Compared to other federal states of Germany, this quota of inclusion is rather high (Klemm,
2018).

Corresponding author at: University of Potsdam, Karl-Liebknecht-Strasse 24-25, 14476 Potsdam, Germany.
⁎

E-mail address: nadine.spoerer@uni-potsdam.de (N. Spörer).

1
We will use the term “special educational needs” to characterize the group of students needing intensive educational adaptations to reach their
learning goals. This status may be related to a disability but also to family characteristics. Differing from this, we use the term “disability” when
reporting results of the literature review of de Boer et al. (2012).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2020.101641
Received 22 November 2019; Received in revised form 26 June 2020; Accepted 29 June 2020
Available online 15 July 2020
0883-0355/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
N. Spörer, et al. International Journal of Educational Research 103 (2020) 101641

The success of inclusive education depends on structural factors as well as the attitudes of all involved actors (Goldan & Schwab,
2018; Sipperstein, Norins & Mohler, 2007). According to Vogel and Wänke (2016), an attitude is the psychological tendency of a
person based on an evaluation. The evaluation process may refer to an individual or an object and has a cognitive, affective, and
behavioral component. Evaluation processes differ with respect to valence (e.g., positive, negative or neutral evaluation) and strength
(Vogel & Wänke, 2016).
In the context of inclusive education, attitudes influence how individuals perceive and behave in classroom-based learning si-
tuations. Empirical research in the field mainly focused on attitudes of students without SEN towards peers with disabilities (de Boer,
Pijl, & Minnaert, 2012). The present study is tangent to this line of research, as it focusses on students’ attitudes towards inclusive
learning settings rather than towards individuals, and aims to investigate antecedents and consequences of this particular attitude
facet.

2. Conceptual and empirical background

2.1. Students’ attitudes towards peers with SEN and inclusive learning settings

As one of the first contributions to the topic Rosenbaum, Armstrong and King (1986) evaluated the attitudes of students without
SEN towards students with SEN. Based on an assessment of fifth to eighth grade students, they found that girls reported more positive
attitudes than boys. Further, personal experiences with children with SEN were positively related to these attitudes.
Picking up on these findings, other studies then targeted variables relating to attitudes. Laws & Kelly, 2005, for example, found
that students’ attitudes towards peers with SEN differed according to the type of SEN. In their study, students without SEN, aged from
nine to 12 years, were asked to report their attitudes towards children with behavioral difficulties, intellectual difficulties, and
physical difficulties. Students were more negatively minded towards peers with behavioral difficulties compared to those with in-
tellectual or physical difficulties. Sipperstein et al. (2007) found a similar pattern of results in their review on attitudes towards
people with intellectual disabilities.
de Boer et al. (2012) identified 20 studies analyzing students’ attitudes towards peers with disabilities in their literature review,
with the majority of studies reporting neutral attitudes and girls holding more positive attitudes than boys. Regarding the effects of
age, type of disability as well as experience with and knowledge about disabilities, results of the reviewed studies were mixed, where
for example five of the reviewed studies found positive effects of experience on students’ attitudes towards peers with disabilities, but
three studies reported negative effects (de Boer et al., 2012).
Whereas the aforementioned studies focused on students’ attitudes towards individuals, students’ views on further aspects of
inclusive education, such as the inclusive learning setting, are rarely targeted. Thus, it remains unanswered if the pattern of empirical
results regarding attitudes towards peers with SEN can be transferred to attitudes towards inclusive learning settings. Kalyva and
Agaliotis (2009) compared the attitudes of 30 sixth grade students attending school together with a child in a wheelchair, and 30
students of the same grade having no school-based contact to a child in a wheelchair. They found that students in contact with that
child expressed more positive attitudes towards the inclusion of children with physical disabilities compared to students without such
contact. More recently, Bosse et al. (2018) developed a self-report questionnaire designed to assess attitudes of students towards
instructional adaptations in inclusive learning settings. Although students’ attitudes were positive in general, Bosse et al. (2018)
found that students expressed stronger acceptance of instructional adaptations when settings were modified for students with
learning difficulties. Adaptations for students with behavioral and language difficulties were, however, less accepted. It remains
unclear, however, how stable these attitudes are and how they affect social participation processes such as peer relations.

2.2. Students’ social participation in inclusive education

When students learn together in a group, an important goal of education is to foster the social participation of all students, so that
each student takes full and active part in daily school life as a valued and integral member of the school community (Farrell, 2000). In
the context of inclusive education, a key issue for successful learning is the social participation of all students regardless of their
personal backgrounds and educational needs (Koster, Nakken, Pijl, & van Houten, 2009). Notwithstanding, literature reviews on
social aspects of participation have indicated that students with SEN are at greater risk of social isolation compared to students
without SEN, perceive their peer relations more negatively, feel less integrated in the social processes of their class, and have fewer
friends (Bossaert, Colpin, Pijl, & Petry, 2013; Frostad & Pijl, 2007; Koster et al., 2009; Lindsay, 2007). Pijl, Frostad, and Flem (2008)
found that students with SEN have a two to three times greater risk of social exclusion compared to their peers without SEN. More
recently, Krawinkel, Südkamp and Tröster (2017) compared two different facets of the social participation of German primary school
students with and without SEN in inclusive learning settings. Students with SEN had lower peer acceptance scores and perceived their
own participation as lower than their classmates without SEN.
Using propensity score matching, Henke et al. (2017) investigated whether second and third grade students with and without SEN
differ in their social participation. They assessed different aspects of social participation such as peer relations, self-perceived social
integration, and number of friends. While controlling for family background, academic achievement and behavioral aspects, they
found no differences in social participation between students with and without SEN.
In addition to prior studies, Crede, Wirthwein, Steinmayr and Bergold (2019) focused on students with difficulties in emotional
and social development. They also used propensity score matching to investigate whether these students differ from their peers
without SEN with regard to their social participation. Here, students with SEN in emotional and social development indicated lower

2
N. Spörer, et al. International Journal of Educational Research 103 (2020) 101641

scores on the social integration and peer relations constructs.

2.3. Relation between students’ attitudes and social participation

The degree to which students with SEN may participate in positive social relations depends on a set of variables. In the field of
inclusive education, characteristics related to the individual student with SEN, his or her classmates as well as the classroom context,
must be considered (de Boer, Pijl, Post, & Minnaert, 2013). Students’ attitudes towards facets of inclusive education is theoretically
conceptualized as a characteristic of classmates. It is assumed that positive attitudes of peers may increase the acceptance of students
with SEN and, therefore, positively affects peer relations (Okagaki, Diamond, Kontos, & Hestenes, 1998).
Three of 20 studies reviewed by de Boer et al. (2012) evaluated the relationship between students’ attitudes towards peers with
disabilities and their social participation operationalized as social interactions, acceptance, friendship, or self-perception. Whereas
one study focused on three- to six-year old preschool children (Okagaki et al., 1998), the other two addressed seventh-grade students
(Godeau et al., 2010; Vignes et al., 2009). However, only Vignes et al. (2009) examined the relation between attitudes of typically
developed students towards peers with disabilities and their social participation. Results showed that students having a friend with a
disability reported a more positive attitude. Similarly, a cross-sectional study with primary school students found a significant
relationship between attitudes towards students with SEN and peer acceptance of those students (de Boer et al., 2013).
Grütter, Gasser and Malti (2017) investigated whether adolescents without SEN would develop more positive attitudes towards
the inclusion of students with SEN, if they had close friendships with them and if they expressed negative emotions about social
exclusion. They used students’ close relationships to predict their attitudes towards the inclusion of students with SEN in social
activities (e.g., invitations to a birthday party). To assess students’ emotions about exclusion, a hypothetical social exclusion dilemma
was presented and students were asked to indicate their emotions. Results showed that having a close relationship with a peer with
SEN was not sufficient to bring about a positive change in adolescents’ attitudes towards their inclusion in social activities. Rather,
they needed to anticipate negative emotions when hypothetically excluding students with SEN from social activities.
Due to the cross-sectional nature of the reviewed studies, the relations cannot be interpreted as causal. Further, it remains
unanswered to which degree other facets such as students’ attitudes towards inclusive learning settings relate to indicators of social
participation and how stable these associations may be over time.

2.4. The present study

The present study aims to evaluate how students’ attitudes towards inclusive learning settings develop over the course of a school
year and how these attitudes relate to students’ self-reported peer relations. Why may students’ views on inclusive learning settings be
of relevance for peer relations and, therefore, social participation processes within the classroom? Creating and maintaining a sense
of community within the classroom depends, among other things, on how students perceive themselves as well as their classmates
(Krawinkel et al., 2017). Linked therewith is the ability to establish a realistic self-concept about personal strengths and weaknesses
as well as to take over the perspective of classmates who may struggle with academic learning (Wendelborg & Tøssebro, 2011;
Wentzel, 2005). Due to the heterogeneity of classes, it is of substantial significance to adapt instructional processes to students’
different educational needs. Whereas differentiated instruction may have positive effects on the academic progress of students
(Decristan, Fauth, Kunter, Büttner, & Klieme, 2017), differentiation regarding time or task difficulty may not be seen as fair by
students. In turn, it might be assumed that in classes where students get insight into the relevance of differentiated instruction, they
may develop a positive attitude towards instructional adaptations. We further assume that these positive attitudes are related to
students’ acceptance of classmates with SEN. Informing students about different strengths and needs of students and different in-
structional ways of addressing these strengths and needs may change the perspective of students without SEN on students with SEN.
Moreover, it may also change the perspective of students with SEN on students with a different SEN. The reviewed research pos-
tulated a positive relation of attitudes towards students with SEN and social participation (de Boer et al., 2013; Vignes et al., 2009).
Accordingly, it is assumed that students’ attitudes towards inclusive learning settings (e.g., differentiated instruction) increase the
acceptance of students with SEN and, therefore, support positive interactions between students. Consequently, students’ positive
attitudes towards instructional adaptations should predict students’ self-reported peer relations. However, only with a longitudinal
research design can the effect of students’ attitudes on changes in peer relations be causally interpreted.
While prior studies focused on the attitudes of students without SEN, this study aims to investigate whether systematic differences
in attitudes towards instructional adaptations exist between students with and without SEN. Due to their potentially increased
individual experience with instructional adaptations, it may be assumed that students with SEN develop a more positive attitude
towards instructional adaptations than students without SEN.
To examine the validity of these ideas, a longitudinal study with sixth and seventh grade students from inclusive German schools
was set up. Both, students with and without SEN reported on their attitudes towards instructional adaptations and self-perceived peer
relations within their classroom in the first half (t1) as well as the second half (t2) of a school year. Based on the aforementioned
theoretical assumptions, the hypotheses guiding this research were as follows:
H1. At both measurement points, students with SEN report higher scores for attitudes towards instructional adaptations compared to
students without SEN.
H2. At both measurement points, students with SEN report lower scores for self-perceived peer relations compared to students
without SEN.

3
N. Spörer, et al. International Journal of Educational Research 103 (2020) 101641

H3a. Students’ attitudes at t1 are positively related to students’ self-perceived peer relations measured at t1.
H3b. Students’ attitudes at t1 positively predict changes in students’ self-perceived peer relations.

3. Method

3.1. Participants and design

The present research is part of a longitudinal study on inclusive education in the federal state of Brandenburg in Germany. The
goal of the research project is to identify individual and contextual characteristics influencing the social and academic development
of students with and without SEN in inclusive primary and secondary schools. Participating schools committed themselves to in-
cluding all children regardless of their SEN status in Social-emotional development, Learning and Language (SLL). Thus, instead of
attending a special needs school, students with a diagnosed or suspected SEN are enabled to learn in the specific mainstream school of
their neighbourhood. A formal psychological diagnostic process was initiated only if the student’s parents desired one.
At the beginning of the study, 90 classes from four different grades (2nd grade: 40 classes, 3rd grade: 10 classes, 6th grade: 20
classes, 7th grade: 20 classes) were selected using a stratified random sample from the total population of 184 project schools. Sixth
and seventh grade students answered questions regarding their attitudes towards instructional adaptations in inclusive learning
settings. Therefore, the sample of the present study consisted of 442 classes and included N = 895 students (457 boys, 415 girls, 23
gender missing). The average age of students was 12.4 years (SD = 0.85). In the federal state of Brandenburg, primary school
comprises grades one to six. Secondary education starts in grade seven and is separated into two parts (Gymnasium vs. compre-
hensive schools). Seventh graders included in the present sample learned in inclusive comprehensive schools.
Class teachers were asked to provide information on their students’ SEN status. Teachers of two classes did not respond to our
request. In the remaining 42 classes, 43 students (5.1 %) had been diagnosed with a SEN in the learning domain, 12 (1.4 %) in the
language domain, and 33 (3.9 %) in the domain of social-emotional development. Further, 12 (1.4 %) students had been diagnosed
with SEN other than SLL. Students could be diagnosed with a SEN in two or more domains and the sample overall included a total of
87 (10.4 %) students with a diagnosed SEN.

3.2. Data collection

Data were collected at two measurement points (t1: November 2018, t2: May 2019). Students attitudes, peer relations, and self-
perceived difficulties in SLL were assessed in whole-class arrangements in the morning of a school day. Data collection was conducted
by trained research assistants and was based on a standardized manual. For students with mental disabilities or visual impairments,
the font size of the printed assessment materials was increased. Further modifications (e.g., a personal assistant, extra time, as-
sessment in small groups or individualized assessment situation) were provided if needed.
While students filled in their questionnaires, class teachers were asked to give information about the age and gender of their
students and to report which students had a diagnosed SEN. At both measurement points, parents were asked to answer questions to
characterize their family situation.
Data collection was approved by the Ministry of Education. Due to the federal state-wide assessment of data within the project,
participation was mandatory for classes and teachers. However, students were allowed to stop answering the questionnaire at any
time. Parents were informed about the context and the content of the survey. They were further informed that their children could
quit the assessment procedure at any time.

3.3. Instruments

3.3.1. Demographic data

Gender was recoded into 0 for girls and 1 for boys. Based on parents’ information about their professional training and current
professional position, the highest of both parents’ international socio-economic index of occupational status (HISEI) (ISEI,
Ganzeboom, 2010) was computed as an indicator of their occupational prestige and, therefore, the family’s socio-economic back-
ground. ISEI scores typically range from 16 indicating a lower socio-economic background to 90 indicating a high socio-economic
background. Classroom teachers reported on students’ official SEN diagnosis.

3.3.2. Peer relations

Peer relations within a classroom were measured with six items adapted from Rauer and Schuck (2003) (e. g., “In our class, we are
all good friends.”). With these items, each student indicated to which degree students had positive peer relations with classmates.
Compared to the original version, items were reformulated to make them easier to understand. Ratings were made on a four-point
Likert scale ranging from 0 (strongly disagree) to 3 (strongly agree). The internal consistency of the scale was good; Cronbachs αt1 =

2
These 44 classes include 38 regular classes and six groups where students learn in inter-year learning settings, that is they learn with students
who are formally in a different year of their school career. Specifically, these are three groups of the sixth grade and three groups of the seventh
grade.

4
N. Spörer, et al. International Journal of Educational Research 103 (2020) 101641

.792 and αt2 = .827.

3.3.3. Attitudes towards instructional adaptations

Students’ attitudes were assessed with five items indicating attitudes towards different aspects of adapted instruction such as
additional time to finish a learning task, additional support, or easier learning tasks (Bosse et al., 2018). The attitudes were separately
assessed towards the three SEN facets of SLL (e.g., “It is okay that students with behavioral difficulties / learning difficulties/
language difficulties get extra time to complete a learning task.”) resulting in a total of 15 items. For each SEN, a vignette was created
to provide students with a description of prototypical behavior. The respective paragraph was between 31 and 34 words long. The
vignette for a description of learning difficulties, for example, was as follows: „The next sentences are about students who have
learning difficulties. They need more time to understand a learning task and it takes longer until they have completed a task. “Ratings
were made on a four-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (strongly disagree) to 3 (strongly agree). The internal consistency of the scales
were good for each SEN and time point (behavioral difficulties: αt1 = .917, αt2 = .932; learning difficulties: αt1 = .817, αt2 = .841;
language difficulties: αt1 = .904, αt2 = .916).

3.3.4. Self-perceived SEN

Having read the vignette, students were also asked to indicate for each domain separately whether they assess themselves as
having learning, language, or behavioral difficulties. For each domain, answers were coded with 0 (not being a student with diffi-
culties) or 1 (being a student with difficulties).

3.4. Statistical procedure

Analyses were conducted using the SPSS (Version 25, IBM Corp., 2017) and Mplus (Version 8.3, Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2017)
software packages. Since students were nested in classes, we had to account for the resulting non-independence of observations (Bryk
& Raudenbush, 2002). Analyses of the intraclass correlation of peer relations at t2 indicated a dependency in data within classes (ICC
= .26). Therefore, we submitted all data to a multilevel regression analysis. Specifically, a series of two-level linear regression models
were run in Mplus where students had been nested into classrooms. These models also enable us to distinguish within-group asso-
ciations and between-group associations. In a first series, we tested cross-sectional relations. To predict peer relations at t1, con-
tinuous measures of students’ attitudes at t1 were treated as independent level 1 variables. Gender, HISEI, diagnosed SEN, and self-
perceived difficulties were treated as level 1 control variables. Due to the substantial proportion of variance in peer relations which
was related to the class level, we further controlled for students’ attitudes (mean) and the number of students with self-perceived
difficulties (percentage) at class level. In a second series, we then tested for longitudinal relations between students’ attitudes at t1
and peer relations at t2 while controlling for peer relations at t1. Alpha was set at p < .05.
Due to the absence of individual students either at t1 or t2 and due to non-response of teachers, missing data occurred. More
specifically, the missing rate for students’ reports at t1 and t2 on the relevant three attitude scales and the peer relations scale was on
average rather low with 13.2 % (min: 11.7 %, max: 15.0 %). Across these eight variables the missing rates were higher for students
with SEN (mean: 19.5 %, min: 14.9 %, max: 25.3 %) than without SEN (mean: 11.0 %, min: 8.8 %, max: 13.5 %). Within the group of
students with SEN, lowest missing rates occurred for those with SEN in the area of learning (mean: 10.2 %, min: 9.1 %, max: 12.1 %)
and highest for those in the area of language (mean: 31.8 %, min: 27.3 %, max: 36.4 %). Across all groups, missing rates were
generally higher at t2. We used the full-information maximum likelihood (FIML) estimator provided by Mplus to estimate parameters
specified in our statistical models.
With regards to diagnosed SEN and self-perceived difficulties in the domains of learning, language, and social-emotional de-
velopment, categories were not exclusive, meaning that students could have had a SEN diagnose and self-perceived difficulties,
respectively, in more than one domain. Therefore, multiple t-tests rather than analyses of variance were applied. Because of the
number of comparisons, Bonferroni correction of alpha level was applied, and alpha was set at p < .01.

4. Results

4.1. Preliminary analyses

Before testing the three hypotheses, we examined whether students who had a diagnosed SEN in one of the SLL domains also
perceived themselves as having difficulties in the respective domain. Whereas only 5.1 % of the students had a diagnosed SEN in the
learning domain (language: 1.4 %; social-emotional development: 3.9 %, respectively), 33.6 % reported having learning difficulties
(language: 11.9 %; social-emotional development: 11.5 %, respectively). Table 1 informs about the distribution of diagnosed SEN and
self-perceived difficulties within and across the three domains.

4.2. Differences between groups of students with regards to attitudes towards instructional adaptations

The first hypothesis states that students with SEN report higher scores for attitudes towards instructional adaptations compared to
students without SEN at both measurement times. Tables 2 and 3 give an overview of the descriptive statistics of students’ attitudes
towards instructional adaptations depending on whether students had a diagnosed SEN or reported to have difficulties in the domains
of SLL. To evaluate differences between students without or with a diagnosed SEN we ran multivariate analyses of variance with the

5
N. Spörer, et al. International Journal of Educational Research 103 (2020) 101641

Table 1
Observed number of students by diagnosed SEN and self-perceived learning difficulties for the domains of learning, language, and social-emotional
development.
Self-perceived learning difficulties (n Self-perceived language difficulties (n Self-perceived behavior difficulties (n
= 261) = 93) = 89)

yes no yes no yes no

No diagnosed SEN (n = 749) 196 473 75 601 68 606

Diagnosed SEN Learning (n = 43) 29 9 7 32 8 29
Diagnosed SEN Language (n = 12) 6 3 4 5 2 6
Diagnosed SEN SED (n = 33) 20 7 5 21 9 17

Note. SEN = Special educational needs, SED = Social-emotional development. Numbers in categories do not add up to number of cases in each
category, as information on both, self-perceived difficulties and diagnosed SEN, is not available for all students.

three attitude scales as dependent variables. No statistically significant difference in attitudes based on whether students had a
diagnosed SEN or not were found at t1 and t2 (p > .01). Further, results from independent t-tests also showed no significant dif-
ferences for attitudes at t1 or at t2 (p > .01) between students with a specific diagnosed SEN in one of the three SLL domains and
those without a diagnosed SEN (Table 2).
A somewhat different pattern of results emerged when comparing students with and without self-perceived difficulties. Again, no
statistically significant difference in attitudes based on whether students categorized themselves as either having a difficulty or not
were found at t1 and t2 (p > .01). However, when looking at groups of students in the specific domains of perceived difficulties,
results were somewhat different (Table 3). Whereas at t1 no significant differences between students with and without a self-per-
ceived difficulty in any of the three SLL domains occurred (p > .01), this pattern of results changed at t2. Compared to students
without self-perceived learning difficulties, students with self-perceived learning difficulties had more positive attitudes towards
instructional adaptations for students with language difficulties, t(756) = −2.90, p = .004, and behavior difficulties, t(749) =
−3.05, p = .002 (Table 3). The effect sizes for both differences were small with Cohen’s d = 0.231 and d = 0.244, respectively. No
further significant differences occurred. Therefore, hypothesis 1 was partially confirmed.
Additionally, results show that students’ attitudes overall differed with regards to domains. Students attitudes were most positive
towards instructional adaptations for students with learning difficulties (t1: M = 2.12, SD = 0.68, t2: M = 2.13, SD = 0.69),
followed by adaptations for students with language difficulties (t1: M = 1.85, SD = 0.83, t2: M = 1.71, SD = 0.87). Students
reported least positive attitudes towards instructional adaptations for students with behavior difficulties (t1: M = 1.21, SD = 0.86,
t2: M = 1.18, SD = 0.90). Independent t-tests revealed significant differences (p < .01) between all three domains at both mea-
surement times; learning vs. language at t1: t(783) = 10.54, p < .001 and t2: learning vs. language at t2: t(762) = 15.55, p < .001,
reflecting a small effect size with Cohen’s d = 0.356 at t1 and d = 0.353 at t2 respectively; learning vs. behavior at t1: t(780) =
28.62, p < .001 and learning vs. behavior at t2: t(754) = 28.44, p < .001, reflecting a large effect size with Cohen’s d = 1.174 at t1
and d = 1.197 at t2 respectively; language vs. behavior at t1: t(778) = 21.41, p < .001, and language vs. behavior at t2: t(755) =
17.23, p < .001, reflecting a medium effect size with Cohen’s d = 0.757 at t1 and d = 0.610 at t2 respectively.
In our sample, the overall attitudes of students towards instructional adaptations for students with learning difficulties and
behavior difficulties remained relatively stable over the course of a school year (learning difficulties t1: M = 2.12, SD = 0.68, t2: M
= 2.13, SD = 0.69; behavior difficulties t1: M = 1.21, SD = 0.86, t2: M = 1.18, SD = 0.90) with differences being non-significant
(learning difficulties t1 to t2: t(686) = 0.45, p > .01; behaviour difficulties t1 to t2: t(684) = 1.49, p > .01). A significantly negative
decline in attitudes was only found for adaptations for students with language difficulties (t1: M = 1.85, SD = 0.83, t2: M = 1.72, SD
= 0.87; t(684) = 4.70, p < .001). Stability, nevertheless, remained also in the hierarchy of the attitudes, where those towards
adaptations for students with learning difficulties were most positive, followed by those towards adaptations for students with
language and, finally, behavior difficulties.

4.3. Differences between groups of students with regards to peer relations

The second hypothesis stated that students with SEN report lower scores for self-perceived peer relations compared to students
without SEN at both measurement times. Tables 2 and 3 give an overview of the descriptive statistics of students’ self-perceived peer
relations depending on whether students had a diagnosed SEN (Table 2) or reported to have difficulties in the domains of SLL
(Table 3). Independent t-tests showed that no significant differences for peer relations between students with a diagnosed SEN in one
of the three domains compared to those without a diagnosed SEN at t1 nor at t2 (p > .01). Again, this pattern of results changed when
comparing students with and without self-perceived difficulties in one of the SLL domains.
With regards to peer relations at t1, students with self-perceived difficulties in all three SLL domains reported lower scores than
students without difficulties (Table 3). For students with self-perceived behaviour difficulties this difference was significant, t(770) =
4.33, p < .001, and reflects a medium effect size with Cohen’s d = 0.487. The same pattern occurred for t2: Students with behavior
difficulties reported significantly lower scores than students without behavior difficulties, t(747) = 2.60, p = .009. Further, students
with self-perceived learning difficulties reported significantly lower scores than students without self-perceived learning difficulties, t
(754) = 2.58, p = .010. Both effects are small with Cohen’s d = 0.295 and d = 0.216, respectively. No differences occurred between

6
 N. Spörer, et al.

Table 2
Means, standard deviations and t-test results for attitudes and peer relations by diagnosed SEN.
Without SEN (n With SEN (n = SEN Learning (n SEN Language (n SEN SED (n = Without SEN vs. With Without SEN vs. SEN Without SEN vs. SEN Without SEN vs. SEN SED
= 749) 87) = 43) = 12) 33) SEN1 Learning Language

M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD t df p t df p t df p t df p

Attitude: learning 2.11 0.68 2.05 0.71 2.02 0.81 1.93 0.55 2.13 0.65 0.77 718 .439 0.79 689 .431 −0.11 706 .912
t1
Attitude: learning 2.12 0.69 2.20 0.69 2.24 0.71 2.05 0.66 2.25 0.68 −0.99 688 .321 0.31 656 .760 −0.86 670 .392
t2
Attitude: 1.83 0.83 1.83 0.87 1.70 0.98 1.89 0.73 2.08 0.71 0.90 715 .371 −0.23 687 .821 −1.52 704 .128

7
language t1
Attitude: 1.67 0.87 1.94 0.81 2.01 0.84 1.8 0.82 2.08 0.72 2.30 687 .022 −0.42 657 .678 −2.18 671 .030
language t2
Attitude: 1.18 0.85 1.27 0.90 1.31 0.88 1.18 0.93 1.25 1.02 −0.91 715 .361 0.00 686 .997 −0.44 703 .660
behavior t1
Attitude: 1.15 0.89 1.36 0.94 1.44 0.96 1.35 1.06 1.42 0.93 −1.91 682 .057 −0.63 654 .528 −1.39 667 .166
behavior t2
Peer relations t1 1.85 0.62 1.73 0.65 1.82 0.67 1.67 0.62 1.60 0.56 1.60 755 .111 0.33 720 .741 0.88 690 .381 2.03 707 .042
Peer relations t2 1.72 0.65 1.59 0.66 1.67 0.62 1.29 0.8 1.47 0.71 1.48 724 .138 0.39 694 .696 1.82 664 .070 1.79 679 .074

Note. SEN = Special educational needs, SED = Social-emotional development.

1
For comparisons of attitude scales at t1 and t2 between students with and without a diagnosed SEN, multivariate analysis of variance was conducted. Results: t1: F(3, 742) = 0.618, p = .603; Wilk's Λ
= 0.998, partial η2 = .002; t2: F(3, 701) = 1.829, p = .140; Wilk's Λ = 0.992, partial η2 = .008.
International Journal of Educational Research 103 (2020) 101641
 N. Spörer, et al.

Table 3
Means, standard deviations and t-test results for attitudes and peer relations by self-perceived difficulties.
Without With difficulties Learning Language Behavior Without difficulties vs. Without vs. with Without vs. with Without vs. with
difficulties (n = (n = 325) difficulties (n = difficulties (n = difficulties (n = with difficulties1 learning difficulties language difficulties behavior difficulties
449) 261) 93) 89)

M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD t df p t df p t df p t df p

Attitude: 2.15 0.66 2.08 0.70 2.11 0.71 2.09 0.69 1.97 0.72 0.53 770 .598 0.41 777 .679 2.12 769 .035
learning t1
Attitude: 2.14 0.68 2.12 0.70 2.14 0.68 1.96 0.70 2.07 0.74 −0.42 759 .671 2.37 760 .018 0.82 746 .415
learning t2

8
Attitude: 1.86 0.8 1.84 0.87 1.87 0.85 1.85 0.95 1.89 0.85 −0.25 768 .802 −0.01 776 .992 −0.43 768 .671
language t1
Attitude: 1.68 0.85 1.74 0.88 1.86 0.86 1.87 0.90 1.69 0.90 −2.90 756 .004 −1.72 761 .085 0.32 747 .751
language t2
Attitude: 1.21 0.84 1.21 0.88 1.22 0.87 1.15 0.92 1.17 0.86 −0.26 767 .794 0.74 774 .459 0.43 772 .671
behavior t1
Attitude: 1.11 0.89 1.25 0.91 1.33 0.90 1.30 0.86 1.32 0.97 −3.05 749 .002 −1.28 754 .200 −1.61 746 .109
behavior t2
Peer relations t1 1.91 0.61 1.77 0.64 1.78 0.65 1.75 0.64 1.58 0.66 2.93 767 .004 2.24 769 .026 1.82 777 .069 4.33 770 .001
Peer relations t2 1.79 0.64 1.64 0.65 1.61 0.64 1.59 0.63 1.55 0.61 2.83 679 .005 2.58 754 .010 1.88 758 .061 2.60 747 .009

1
For comparisons of attitude scales at t1 and t2 between students with and without self-perceived difficulties, multivariate analysis of variance was conducted. Results: t1: F(3, 758) = 0.912, p = .434;
Wilk's Λ = 0.996, partial η2 = .004; t2: F(3, 662) = 1.875, p = .132; Wilk's Λ = 0.992, partial η2 = .008.
International Journal of Educational Research 103 (2020) 101641
N. Spörer, et al. International Journal of Educational Research 103 (2020) 101641

Table 4
Correlations (Pearson r) of variables.
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

(1) Attitude: learning t1 –

(2) Attitude: language t1 .58* –
(3) Attitude: behavior t1 .36* .50* –
(4) Attitude: learning t2 .44* .33* .26* –
(5) Attitude: language t2 .25* .43* .33* .58* –
(6) Attitude: behavior t2 .12* .30* .49* .37* .55* –
(7) Peer relations t1 .04 .08* .06 .11* .08* .03 –
(8) Peer relations t2 .04 .02 .09* .15* .06 .01 .59*

Note: *p < .05.

students with and without perceived language difficulties. Therefore, hypothesis 2 was partially confirmed.

4.4. Multilevel regression analyses

Before testing the multilevel structure of the data, we examined the interrelations of students’ attitudes and peer relations (see
Table 4). As expected, positive correlations between the three facets of students’ attitudes were found both within t1 and t2. Further
positive correlations were found between t1 and t2 indicating a moderate stability of each construct.
The multilevel regression analysis first tested for cross-sectional relations (see Table 5). In Model 1, peer relations were predicted
by students’ attitudes. No significant relations were found. In a second step, diagnosed SEN and self-perceived difficulties were
integrated as predictors (Model 2). Here, self-perceived differences were significantly (p < .05) negatively related to peer relations
whereas diagnosed SEN was not significantly related. As reported above (section 4.3), particularly students with self-perceived
behaviour difficulties reported lower scores for peer relations compared to students without difficulties. This effect became non-
significant, though, when controlling for gender and socio-economic status of the family (Model 3), suggesting that boys and students
from lower socio-economic backgrounds are more likely to perceive themselves as having a SEN. Further, the analysis showed that
peer relations tend to become less positive with an increasing number of students reporting self-perceived difficulties in the class-
room. This compositional effect was significant (Model 4). Model 4 explains 2.1 % of the variance at individual, 9.9 % of variance at
the class level, and 4.1 % of the total variance of peer relations at t1.
A second series of multilevel regression analyses tested for longitudinal relations (see Table 6). In Model 1, peer relations at t2
were predicted by peer relations at t1. Here, a significant positive relation was found indicating a moderate stability of students’
assessment. Next, students’ attitudes were modelled as predictors (Model 2). Whereas attitudes towards instructional adaptations for
students with behavior difficulties (p < .05) and language difficulties (p < .05) were significantly positively related to changes in
peer relations over time, attitudes towards instructional adaptations for students with learning difficulties were not significantly
related. Only the effect of students’ attitudes towards instructional adaptations for students with behavior difficulties remained stable

Table 5
Multilevel regression analyses: Cross-sectional results for predicting peer relations at t1.
Model 0 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

B SE p B SE p B SE p B SE p B SE p

Student level b0
Constant 1.87 0.05 < .01 1.86 0.10 < .01 1.90 0.10 < .01 2.00 0.13 < .01 1.68 0.49 < .01
Attitudes: learning −0.04 0.04 .35 −0.05 0.04 .23 −0.06 0.04 .17 −0.06 0.04 .15
Attitudes: language 0.03 0.03 .34 0.03 0.03 .37 0.01 0.04 .86 0.00 0.04 .95
Attitudes: behavior 0.02 0.03 .45 0.02 0.03 .52 0.04 0.04 .29 0.04 0.04 .26
SEN (diagnosed) 0.05 0.07 .46 0.15 0.08 .07 0.15 0.08 .07
SEN (self-perceived) −0.10 0.05 .05 −0.12 0.06 .07 −0.11 0.07 .10
Gender −0.04 0.04 .35 −0.04 0.04 .33
HISEI 0.00 0.00 .67 −0.00 0.00 .45
Classroom level g0
Attitudes: learning (mean) 0.14 0.25 .59
Attitudes: language (mean) 0.48 0.29 .10
Attitudes: behavior (mean) −0.43 0.24 .07
SEN (self-perceived) (pct) −0.01 0.00 .01
ICC 0.26
Explained student level variance in 0.69 −2.08 2.08 2.08
%
Explained class level variance in % 0.99 4.95 −18.81 9.90
Overall explained variance in % 0.77 −0.26 −3.33 4.10

Note: All predictor variables were measured at t1.

9
 N. Spörer, et al.

Table 6
Multilevel regression analyses: Longitudinal results for predicting peer relations at t2.
Model 0 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5

B SE p B SE p B SE p B SE p B SE p B SE p

Student level b0
Constant 1.71 0.06 < .01 0.67 0.07 < .01 0.65 0.08 < .01 0.71 0.09 < .01 0.66 0.12 < .01 0.68 0.44 .12
Peer relations t1 0.56 0.03 < .01 0.56 0.04 < .01 0.56 0.03 < .01 0.57 0.04 < .01 0.57 0.04 < .01
Attitudes: learning 0.03 0.04 .38 0.02 0.04 .52 0.01 0.04 .78 0.00 0.04 .95
Attitudes: language −0.07 0.03 .05 −0.06 0.03 .07 −0.06 0.03 .07 −0.06 0.03 .09
Attitudes: behavior 0.07 0.02 < .01 0.06 0.02 .01 0.08 0.03 < .01 0.08 0.03 < .01
SEN (diagnosed) 0.01 0.07 .90 0.06 0.08 .45 0.05 0.08 .50

10
SEN (self-perceived) −0.11 0.03 < .01 −0.08 0.04 .04 −0.07 0.04 .07
Gender 0.01 0.05 .85 0.01 0.06 .90
HISEI 0.00 0.00 .83 0.00 0.00 .97
Classroom level g0
Attitudes: learning (mean) 0.16 0.19 .40
Attitudes: language (mean) −0.05 0.30 .88
Attitudes: behavior (mean) −0.07 0.20 .73
SEN (self-perceived) (pct) −0.00 0.00 .11
ICC 0.26
Explained student level variance in % 28.84 29.15 30.09 34.48 34.48
Explained class level variance in % 59.09 60.00 60.00 59.09 60.91
Overall explained variance in % 36.60 37.06 37.76 40.79 41.26

Note: All predictor variables were measured at t1.

International Journal of Educational Research 103 (2020) 101641
N. Spörer, et al. International Journal of Educational Research 103 (2020) 101641

when controlling for other characteristics. Next, diagnosed SEN and self-perceived difficulties were integrated as predictors (Model
3). Comparable to the results of the cross-sectional analyses, the negative change in peer relations was significantly higher for
students with self-perceived difficulties than for their peers who do not perceive themselves as having difficulties. This effect re-
mained relatively stable when controlling for gender and socio-economic status of the family (Model 4). Nevertheless, as in the cross-
sectional analysis, changes in coefficients and significance levels suggest that boys and students from low socio-economic back-
grounds are more likely to perceive themselves as having a SEN. It should be kept in mind that all groups of students perceived peer
relations at t2 less positive than at t1. No compositional effects were found to predict the change in peer relations (Model 5). Model 5
explains 34.5 % of the variance at individual, 60.9 % of variance at the class level and 41.3 % of the total variance of peer relations at
t2. To sum up, changes in students’ self-perceived peer relations were partially influenced by students’ attitudes at t1 while con-
trolling for individual and compositional characteristics. Therefore, hypothesis 3 was partially confirmed.

5. Discussion

5.1. Summary of results

The aim of inclusive education is to foster students with different abilities and preconditions in their cognitive, individual, and
social development in a differentiated way. Its success depends on structural factors as well as the attitudes of all involved actors. This
longitudinal study aimed to evaluate how students’ attitudes towards instructional adaptations in inclusive settings develop over the
course of a school year and how these perspectives relate to students’ self-reported social participation. Three main patterns of results
were found.
First, the analyses revealed that both students with and without SEN had very positive attitudes towards instructional adaptations
for students with learning difficulties. This result is completely in line with a former study investigating fifth-grade students’ attitudes
towards instructional adaptations (Bosse et al., 2018). With regards to language and behavior difficulties, students’ answers were
more varied. This variability could be partially ascribed to students’ self-perceived difficulties but not to a diagnosed SEN.
Second, students with self-perceived difficulties reported lower scores for peer relations compared to students without self-
perceived difficulties whereas no differences occurred between students with and without a diagnosed SEN. Former studies have
indicated that students with SEN are at greater risk of reduced social participation compared to students without SEN (Bossaert,
Colpin, Pijl, & Petry, 2013; Frostad & Pijl, 2007; Koster et al., 2009; Krawinkel et al., 2017; Lindsay, 2007). At the same time, these
differences diminish when controlling for family background, academic achievement and behavioral aspects (Henke et al., 2017). The
present study had similar findings when taking gender and family’s socio-economic background into account. In that sense, self-
perceived difficulties, gender and socio-economic background were interrelated. In the present study’s inclusive educational context
among students with a potential SEN in SLL, a formal psychological diagnostic process was initiated only if the student’s parents
desired one. Thus, students with SEN but without a diagnosis learn together in a class with students that have a diagnosed SEN. Since
both groups may experience similar challenges with regard to social participation, assessments based on difficulties perceived by
students themselves may be more appropriate than assessing the presence or absence of a formal diagnosis.
Third, changes in peer relations over time were positively predicted by students’ attitudes towards instructional adaptations for
students with behavior difficulties. While all groups of students perceive peer-relations at t2 less positive than at t1, positive changes
in peer relations over the course of a school year became more likely when students viewed instructional adaptations for students
with behavior difficulties as warranted. This was expected and is in line with prior research identifying attitudes as relevant factors of
the implementation of inclusive education (de Boer et al., 2012). At the same time, this previous research (ibid.) is extended by the
present study’s focus on attitudes towards instructional adaptations in inclusive settings. To the best of our knowledge, prior studies
focused either on factors influencing the attitudes of students without SEN towards their peers with SEN (e.g., de Boer et al., 2012) or
on the influence of specific indicators of social participation, such as having a friend with SEN, on attitudes towards students with
SEN (e.g., Vignes et al., 2009). In the present study, attitudes of both students with and without SEN were assessed for different
domains allowing a more comprehensive insight into today’s inclusive learning settings. As students’ attitudes were particularly
relevant for predicting students’ change in peer relations, this pattern of results again stresses the importance of longitudinal designs.

5.2. Limitations and future prospects

The study had limitations which should be acknowledged. A first constraint is related to the assessment with a focus on students’
differences in individual characteristics. Although the total sample of 44 classes was relatively large, the number of students with a
specific SEN in the present study is quite small compared to the number of students without SEN (e.g., 12 students with SEN in the
language domain). While a small number of students with SEN in the sample is typical for most studies in the field of inclusive
education and corresponds to the prevalence of SEN diagnosis in the population (Dietze, 2013), it decreases the test power of the
statistical models related to SEN diagnoses. Moreover, missing values on relevant variables were higher for students with SEN, further
decreasing test power. This was specifically mirrored by the non-significant effects of SEN in the multilevel analyses. However, by
including students’ self-perceived difficulties we were able to increase the possibilities for differentiating between groups of students
with difficulties in the three SEN domains. Further, the discussion of our results is limited because students’ self-perception of
difficulties was assessed with only two categories (yes vs. no). For future studies, more differentiated ratings regarding the level of
educational support students need (e.g., ranging from low to high) are recommended.
A second constraint is related to the assessment of social participation. In the present analyses, only a single indicator of students’

11
N. Spörer, et al. International Journal of Educational Research 103 (2020) 101641

social participation, namely peer relations, was assessed. As pointed out by Koster et al. (2009), however, different facets of social
participation should be considered. Moreover, students were asked to rate peer relations on a general level only. To create a higher
degree of external validity with regards to different facets of social participation and different situations in school, future studies
should enhance the measure by adding questions related to a range of subjects (e.g., language vs. subjects related to aesthetics and the
arts) and situations (e.g., academic learning vs. social events). Beyond a global assessment of students’ perspectives on social par-
ticipation, using experience sampling might be appropriate for assessing the self-perceived quality of students’ interactions more
specifically in a broader range of situations (Zurbriggen, Venetz, & Hinni, 2018). Therefore, in future studies it might be beneficial to
evaluate different aspects of students’ social participation by combining different measures.
Third, multicollinearity between the three attitude scales affected their standard errors and therewith undermined statistical
significance when predicting peer relations in the multilevel regression models. However, this impact on descriptive and inferential
statistics may not only be valued as a limitation. Conceptually, it indicates that there is a mutual influence between attitudes towards
instructional adaptations for students with SEN in different areas, and that this interaction may be a favorable process. The nature of
the interdependence between the three attitude scales shall be further explored in future research.
From our research and its limitations arise even further questions that will be worthwhile for future investigations. One is whether
the relationship between attitudes towards instructional adaptations and peer relations is similar for students with and without SEN.
This could be evaluated in a multi-group analysis. Another is, whether students’ attitudes towards instructional adaptations depend
on their experience thereof and whether their teachers adapt instruction for all students or for those with SEN only.

5.3. Implications and conclusion

The reported pattern of results revealed that peer relations and their change over time was differently perceived by students with
and without self-perceived difficulties in school. Here, not a diagnosed SEN but the students’ self-perception of difficulties was
associated with peer relations. The results underline the importance of students’ self-perceived characteristics in the context of social
participation. Depending on the educational system, a formal diagnostic process to assess students’ SEN status is initiated only if
parents wish to. Consequently, a repeated, multifaceted assessment of students’ educational needs is warranted. By regularly listening
to students’ voices not only in the context of social participation but also in the context of academic achievement, teachers may be
able to prevent an unfavorable development of a student. When students reflect about themselves and listen to other students’ voices,
they may further develop realistic self-concepts.
In the present study, students’ ratings were assessed at the beginning and the end of one school year. During that time, students
became more negative about their peer relations in class. That result stresses the need for explicit intervention to foster positive
classroom-based social processes (Krawinkel et al., 2017). Supporting the social competences of all students as well as promoting
prosocial behavior of students in different learning situations seems to be an essential but challenging task for teachers. Here, it seems
important to regularly change the composition of small groups and partner work to enable students to be part of different learning
groups and, therefore, to experience different social interaction processes.
Further, students’ attitudes towards instructional adaptations especially for students with behavioral difficulties predicted
changes in peer relations over the course of a school year. Discussing the relevance of instructional adaptations not only for students
with learning difficulties in class and, consequently, fostering students’ insights into mechanisms of inclusive education may finally
lead to a better social participation of all students in class. Although there clearly remains a need to examine students that require
different levels of support in a broader range of subjects and situations, the results suggest to stronger take students’ perspective on
inclusive education into consideration.

Funding

This work was supported by the Ministry of Education of the federal state of Brandenburg, Germany.

References

Bossaert, G., Colpin, H., Pijl, S. J., & Petry, K. (2013). Truly included? A literature study focusing on the social dimension of inclusion in education. International Journal
of Inclusive Education, 17(1), 60–79.
Bosse, S., Jaeuthe, J., Lambrecht, J., Bogda, K., Koch, H., & Spörer, N. (2018). Students’ perspective on inclusion: The development of a measurement instrument for
the assessment of attitudes towards inclusive learning. Empirische Sonderpädagogik, 4, 329–345.
Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (2002). Hierarchical linear models. London, UK: Sage.
Crede, J., Wirthwein, L., Steinmayr, R., & Bergold, S. (2019). Students with special educational needs indicating difficulties in emotional and social development and
their peers in the inclusive classroom: Differences in social participation, attitude towards school and ability self-concept. German Journal of Educational
Psychology, 33, 207–221.
de Boer, A., Pijl, S. J., & Minnaert, A. (2012). Students’ attitudes towards peers with disabilities. A review of the literature. International Journal of Disability,
Development, and Education, 59(4), 379–392.
de Boer, A., Pijl, S. J., Post, W., & Minnaert, A. (2013). Peer acceptance and friendships of students with disabilities in general education: The role of child, peer, and
classroom variables. Social Development, 22(4), 831–844.
Decristan, J., Fauth, B., Kunter, M., Büttner, G., & Klieme, E. (2017). The interplay between class heterogeneity and teaching quality in primary school. International
Journal of Educational Research, 86, 109–121.
Dietze, T. (2013). Inclusion of students with special educational needs in primary school - A description of the situation in the 16 federal states of Germany. Zeitschrift
für Grundschulforschung, 6(1), 34–44.
Farrell, P. (2000). The impact of research on developments in inclusive education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 4, 153–162.
Frostad, P., & Pijl, S. J. (2007). Does being friendly help in making friends? The relation between the social position and social skills of pupils with special needs in

12
N. Spörer, et al. International Journal of Educational Research 103 (2020) 101641

mainstream education. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 22(1), 15–30.

Ganzeboom, H. B. G. (2010). A New International socio-economic index [ISEI] of occupational Status for the International standard classification of occupation 2008
[ISCO-08] constructed with data from the ISSP 2002–2007; with an analysis of quality of occupational measurement in ISSP. Paper Presented at Annual Conference
of International Social Survey Programme.
Godeau, E., Vignes, C., Sentenac, M., Ehlinger, V., Navarro, F., Grandjean, H., et al. (2010). Improving attitudes towards children with disabilities in a school context: A
cluster randomized intervention study. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 52(10), e236–e242.
Goldan, J., & Schwab, S. (2018). Measuring students’ and teachers’ perceptions of resources in inclusive education – Validation of a newly developed instrument.
International Journal of Inclusive Education, 14(1), 1–14.
Grütter, J., Gasser, L., & Malti, T. (2017). The role of cross-group friendship and emotions in adolescents’ attitudes towards inclusion. Research in Developmental
Disabilities, 62, 137–147.
Henke, T., Bosse, S., Lambrecht, J., Jäntsch, C., Jaeuthe, J., & Spörer, N. (2017). Primary school children with special educational needs and their social participation.
German Journal of Educational Psychology, 31(2), 111–123.
IBM Corp (2017). IBM SPSS statistics for windows, version 25.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.
Kalyva, E., & Agaliotis, I. (2009). Can contact affect Greek children’s understanding of and attitudes towards peers with physical disabilities? European Journal of
Special Needs Education, 24(2), 213–220.
Klemm, K. (2018). Unterwegs zur inklusiven schule. Lagebericht 2018 aus bildungsstatistischer Perspektive [on the way to inclusion. Status report 2018 from the perspective of
educational statistics]. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Stiftung.
Koster, M., Nakken, H., Pijl, S. J., & van Houten, E. (2009). Being part of the peer group: A literature study focusing on the social dimension of inclusion in education.
International Journal of Inclusive Education, 13, 117–140.
Krawinkel, S., Südkamp, A., & Tröster, H. (2017). Social participation in inclusive classrooms: Relevance of classroom and teacher characteristics. Empirische
Sonderpädagogik, 3, 277–295.
Laws, G., & Kelly, E. (2005). The attitudes and friendship intentions of children in United Kingdom mainstream schools towards peers with physical or intellectual
disabilities. International Journal of Disability, Development, and Education, 52(2), 79–99.
Lindsay, G. (2007). Educational psychology and the effectiveness of inclusive education/mainstreaming. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 1–24.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998). Mplus user’s guide2017, Retrieved from:(8th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén. https://www.statmodel.com/.
OECD (2017). PISA 2015 Results (Volume III): Students’ Well-Being. Paris, France: OECD Publishing.
Okagaki, L., Diamond, K. E., Kontos, S. J., & Hestenes, L. L. (1998). Correlates of young children’s interactions with classmates with disabilities. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 13(1), 67–86.
Pijl, S. J., Frostad, P., & Flem, A. (2008). The social position of pupils with special needs in regular schools. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 52(4),
387–405.
Rauer, W., & Schuck, K. D. (2003). Fragebogen zur Erfassung emotionaler und sozialer Schulerfahrungen von Grundschulkindern dritter und vierter Klassen (FEESS 3-4)
[Questionnaire for assessing emotional and social school experiences of third and fourth grade students]. Weinheim: Beltz.
Rosenbaum, P. L., Armstrong, R. W., & King, S. M. (1986). Children’s attitudes toward disabled peers: A self-report measure. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 11(4),
517–530.
Sipperstein, G. N., Norins, J., & Mohler, A. (2007). Social acceptance and attitude change. Fifty years of research. In J. W. Jacobson, J. A. Mulick, & J. Rojahn (Eds.).
Handbook of intellectual and developmental disabilities. Issues in clinical child psychology (pp. 133–154). New York: Springer Publishing Co.
UN General Assembly, Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, resolution adopted by the General Assembly, 24 January 2007, A/RES/61/106.
UNESCO Office Bangkok and Regional Bureau for Education in Asia and the Pacific (2016). Happy schools: A framework for learner well-being in the Asia-Pacific. Paris:
UNESCO & UNESCO Bangkok Office.
Vignes, C., Godeau, E., Sentenac, M., Coley, N., Navarro, F., Grandjean, H., et al. (2009). Determinants of students’ attitudes towards peers with disabilities.
Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 51(6), 473–479.
Vogel, T., & Wänke, M. (2016). Attitudes and attitude change (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Wendelborg, C., & Tøssebro, J. (2011). Educational arrangements and social participation with peers amongst children with disabilities in regular schools. International
Journal of Inclusive Education, 15(5), 497–512.
Wentzel, K. R. (2005). Peer relationships, motivation, and academic performance at school. In A. J. Elliot, & C. S. Dweck (Eds.). Handbook of competence and motivation
(pp. 279–296). (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Publications.
Zurbriggen, C., Venetz, M., & Hinni, C. (2018). The quality of experience of students with and without special educational needs in everyday life and when relating to
peers. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 33(2), 1–16.

13