202

Abstract
Interaction with peers is important for the develop-
ment of children, but children with special needs
may feel rejected by their peers. The present study
examines self-assessment of relationships with peers
by children with intellectual disability (ID; n = zo)
and children from the general population (n = zo).
All participants attended a regular primary school
and were aged between ; and 1o. years; both sexes
were represented in the samples. The Behavior
Rating Prole was applied. The results of the chil-
dren with ID on the Student Rating Scale: Peers
did not show statistically signicant differences
from the results of children from general popula-
tion, with both groups responding similarly to the
self-perception scale. However, the sociometric
results obtained from their peers clearly show that
children with ID are not accepted by their class-
mates. Peers frequently and more often refuse to
study, sit together in class or socialize after classes
with children with ID than is the case for children
without ID. Despite the high frequency of rejection,
it is concluded that children with ID of younger
primary school age have average condence in their
own abilities and in the success of their relation-
ships with their peers. Further education among the
children who reject them could have a negative
impact on their self-esteem.
Keywords children, peers, primary school, relation-
ships, self-assessment, sociogram
Introduction
A number of research studies have reported
negative attitudes toward children with intellectual
disability (ID) and found that their sociometric
position within class is low. They are less often
chosen as team mates (Guralnick 1o), more often
ignored or rejected by their social environment, and
have a lack of social sensitivity, social insight and
communication skills (Luftig 188). Since children
with development difculties show signicant
decits in their social competence, this can some-
times result in their isolation and withdrawal
(Guralnick 18, 1o).
Research into the reasons for the negative atti-
tudes of children without difculties toward their
peers with ID has found inadequate behaviour in
studying situations, abnormal physical appearance,
social incompetence and poor social behaviour to
be contributory causes (Siperstein & Bak 18;
Bak & Siperstein 18;). Siperstein & Leffert (1;)
found that, while 16% of children with ID are
accepted in their classes, 16% are actively rejected
Journal of Intellectual Disability Research
voLc:c ( ian1 pp zozz11 cNc zoo1
zoo1 Blackwell Science Ltd
Self-assessment of relationships with peers in children
with intellectual disability
A. Z

ic & L. Igric
Faculty of Special Education and Rehabilitation, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia
Correspondence: Anamarija Z

ic PhD, Faculty of Special

Education and Rehabilitation, University of Zagreb, Kus lanova
a, 1ooo Zagreb, Croatia (e-mail: anis@erf.hr).
by their peers, and 68% have little or no social
inuence in their class.
Research by Nazor & Nikolic (11) conducted
in regular schools in Croatia has shown that 68% of
children with difculties in psychosocial develop-
ment (e.g. attention decit hyperactivity disorder
(ADHD), combined difculties and ID) fall into
the group of rejected pupils. Although children with
ID do not always have negative positions, their
status signicantly worsens when their ID is com-
bined with some additional difculty. Among the
reasons identied for such negative social status are
aggressiveness, and an inability to cooperate or
communicate verbally.
The above research raises questions about the
perception of relationships with peers of children
with ID. The currently available studies in this area
are based on children with learning disabilities. For
example, Priel & Leshem (1o) reported equal
self-perception of peer acceptance among children
with learning disabilities and their peers without
learning difculties, in spite of a signicantly lower
sociometric position and lower teacher evaluation of
social acceptance. Work by Smith & Nagle (1)
has shown that children with learning disabilities
consider themselves less competent in their acade-
mic, social and behavioural functioning than do
their peers.
In discussing cognitive and affective factors which
may explain why many children with learning dis-
abilities exhibit positive feelings of self-worth
despite their low academic achievement, Clever
et al. (1z) emphasized the process of discounting,
or downplaying, the perceived value of that domain.
Moreover, Clever et al. (1z) mentioned the self-
protective mechanism of exaggerated self-perception
which has been attributed to childrens selective
social comparisons, i.e. by comparing their own
performance to that of relatively less competent
classmates, children are able to maintain more posi-
tive self-appraisals.
Although the educational integration of children
with ID in regular schools in Croatia has existed for
zo years, the social and educational results of this
programme are still not satisfactory. This is mainly
because classes are relatively large ( o students),
the curriculum is too strict, teacher attitudes toward
integration are still not positive and there are few
special education consultants in regular schools.
Integration in Croatia encompasses children with
mild developmental difculties, including ID, and
usually takes the form of full integration. The
educational legislation states that one class can have
no more than three students with developmental
difculties and the total number of pupils should
not exceed z. Pupils with ID have the right to
education that follows an individualized curriculum,
applies individualized procedures and comprises
extended professional treatment conducted by
a special education consultant. When necessary,
the education is conducted in special groups and
classes within the regular school. This form of inte-
gration is called part-time integration and children
receive educational services in a resource setting for
a few hours each day. Part-time integration includes
students with mild ID.
Because children with ID cannot master the
regular school curriculum, their teacher and the
special education consultant develop an individ-
ualized curriculum. In other words, children are
expected to master a part of the school curriculum
in a manner appropriate to their abilities. It is
important to stress that this adjustment relates to
the content, as well as to the teaching means and
methods.
However, in spite of the positive legislation
described above, integration has not been realized
in a satisfactory manner. Unfortunately, full-time
integration in Croatia mostly consists of special
needs students simply being physically present in
the regular classroom, often without any profes-
sional support because there are not enough profes-
sional teams in schools to provide help for these
students, or their teachers and parents. Therefore,
the curriculum is often not presented in a manner
that is comprehensible to children with ID, which
diminishes the effects of individualized programmes.
Children with ID in regular classes often starts to
disturb lessons because of their inability to follow
the pace and amount of educational content, and
the lack of additional help for them. Typically, the
subsequent reaction of the teacher is not oriented
towards providing the necessary attention to the
disruptive student (i.e. through giving appropriate
tasks), but rather, manifests itself through anger,
frustration and helplessness, primarily because the
teachers themselves often do not have adequate
professional help in working with students with
Journal of Intellectual Disability Research voLc:c ( ian1 cNc zoo1
A. Z

ic & L. Igric Relationships with peers

203
zoo1 Blackwell Science Ltd, Journal of Intellectual Disability Research q, zozz11
special needs. It is often the case that these children
develop unacceptable behavioural patterns and thus
become a problem in school. The assumption of the
present study is that the conditions of integration,
such as they are, will have a negative impact on the
self-perception of children with ID.
The present authors attempts to show how chil-
dren with ID perceive their relationships with peers,
and examine whether there are any statistically
signicant differences between their self-perception
and the self-perception of children from the general
population. The present study also examines how
this self-perception relates to the sociometric
position of this group within class, making the
assumption that the obviously low position of
pupils with ID would affect their self-esteem.
Subjects and methods
Sample
The present sample consisted of a group of chil-
dren with ID (n = zo) and a group of children
from the general population (n = zo). The subjects
were aged between ; and 1o. years, included both
sexes, and attended regular primary schools in the
Republic of Croatia. The sample was formed on the
basis of data collected from children attending z8
regular primary schools throughout the Republic of
Croatia. Data concerning the intellectual abilities of
children with ID were collected from the childrens
school records. Intellectual abilities were measured
at the regular school assessment, the purpose of
which is to outline the educational plan for each
child. These assessments are conducted by a
psychologist using the Croatian adaptation of the
Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children. The intel-
lectual abilities of the children from the general
population were not assessed. The sample of
children with ID was formed at random, and the
sample of children from the general population
chosen to match the former in terms of age, sex
and socio-economic background (Table 1). Previous
research studies in Croatia have shown that socio-
economic background is best represented by the
educational level of parents, and therefore, this
variable was chosen to represent it.
The group of children with ID consisted of two
subgroups: (1) 1o children whose IQ ranged
Journal of Intellectual Disability Research voLc:c ( ian1 cNc zoo1
A. Z

ic & L. Igric Relationships with peers

204
zoo1 Blackwell Science Ltd, Journal of Intellectual Disability Research q, zozz11
between ( and 6; and (z) 1o children whose IQ
ranged between ;o and ;. The latter subgroup was
made up of children whose intellectual functioning
was below average, but who could not be precisely
dened as having ID in the strict sense. The above
subgroups were equivalent in terms of the chil-
drens age and sex (each group consisted of three
boys and seven girls), and the educational levels
of the mothers (four had lower educational back-
grounds, ve secondary school qualications and
one had a university degree). A one-way analysis of
variance (Table z) indicated that the subgroups did
not statistically differ in any of the variables consid-
ered (i.e. Student Rating Scale: Peers and socio-
metric variables), and therefore, can be considered
as one sample (mean IQ = 68.). For the purposes
of the present research, the subjects were described
as children with ID. The same term had been used
in the research by Rutland & Campbell (16) for
the sample of children whose IQ ranged between 1
and 86.
All of the children in the present study were
fully integrated, i.e. they attended all their school
courses with the children from the general popula-
tion. However, since the subjects with ID could
not follow the regular curriculum designed for
the general population, they all had individualized
curricula.
Measuring instruments
The measuring instrument used was the Croatian
adaptation of the Behavior Rating Prole, Second
Edition (BRP-II; Brown & Hammill 1o). It is a
highly standardized measure of childrens behaviour
Table 1 Age, sex and educational level of the parents in both
subsamples
Children with Children from
intellectual the general
Variable disability population
Mean age (months) 112.3 111.35
Sex ratio (male:female) 6:14 6:14
Educational level:
low 8 8
secondary school 10 10
college/university 2 2
Journal of Intellectual Disability Research voLc:c ( ian1 cNc zoo1
A. Z

ic & L. Igric Relationships with peers

205
zoo1 Blackwell Science Ltd, Journal of Intellectual Disability Research q, zozz11
at home, in school and among peers. The battery
consists of six instruments (three Student Rating
Scales, i.e. Home, School and Peers; a Parent
Rating Scale; a Teacher Rating Scale; and a
Sociogram) which provide an evaluation of a
students behaviour by different people, including
parents, teacher and classmates.
Brown & Hammill (1o) have reported that the
BRP-II has good reliability over a very wide range
of children. It has been assessed using children
from the general population (a normative sample
consist of z68z students, aged between 6.6 and
18.6 years), children with emotional difculties (z;
elementary school students, mean age 11.6 years,
placed in a z( h-care institutional setting, and z;
students, matched with the institutionalized group
for age and gender, placed in public school special
education classes) and children with learning
difculties (; adolescents, mean age 16.o years,
attending high school special education classes, and
z; elementary school students, matched with the
two groups with emotional difculties for age and
gender ). The items are homogenous and have
itemitem consistency. The preliminary validity
evaluation showed good representation of items
in all ve scales, with results on all scales highly
intercorrelated and correlated with results on other
measures of self-concept, personality and behaviour
(Brown & Hammill 1o).
The assessment of the measuring characteristics
of the BRP-II battery was conducted in the
Republic of Croatia on a sample of z1o children
with ID (IQ range = o8) attending regular
primary schools. The highest diagnostic standard
(Table ) was reached by the Teacher Rating Scale
(Cronbachs a = o.() and the Parent Rating Scale
(Cronbachs a = o.8). The Cronbachs a coef-
cients for the Student Rating Scale: School (o.8)
and Student Rating Scale: Peers (o.81) can be
considered reliable, and can be applied in research
and diagnostics. The Student Rating Scale: Home
has the lowest Cronbachs a coefcient (o.;6) and
can be used for research purposes.
All scales have lower homogeneity and represen-
tativeness measures, but nevertheless, can be
considered sufciently representative. Total
Table 2 Signicance of differences between subgroups within the group of children with intellectual disability identied using a one-way
analysis of variance
Variable Wilks lambda d.f. 1 d.f. 2 F-value P-value
Student Rating Prole: Peers 2 18 2.9100 0.1052
Acceptance 0.8236 3 16 0.3619
Rejection 0.8816 3 16 0.5565
Choice/Isolation 0.8522 3 16 0.4513
Rank 0.9723 3 16 0.9270
Table 3 Reliability, representativeness and homogeneity of scales within the Behaviour Rating Prole, Second Edition
Representativeness Standard measure
Scale Cronbachs a coefcient of homogeneity
Student Rating Scale:
Home 0.761 0.449 0.131
School 0.829 0.628 0.192
Peers 0.805 0.574 0.160
Parent Rating Scale 0.885 0.766 0.194
Teacher Rating Scale 0.935 0.934 0.307
homogeneity is very low and could be improved by
leaving out items with low metric characteristics
(items and 1( in Student Rating Scale: Home).
Based on these results, the present authors consid-
ered the BRP-II battery to be a good diagnostic
instrument for children with ID integrated in
regular schools.
In the present research, relationships with the
peers were assessed by the participants themselves
on the Student Rating Scale: Peers. The scale con-
sists of zo negatively formulated items in which
the pupil assesses her/his behaviour by answering
questions with true or false; for example:
(6) Some of my friends think it is fun to cheat,
skip school, etc. (True/False)
Because all items are negatively formulated, every
denial brings one point. The maximum score is zo
points.
The perception of participants by their peers is
measured through sociometric analyses based on
the nomination technique. The following questions
were presented to the class: With whom would
you prefer to sit? With whom you the least like to
sit? With whom would you prefer to play after
school? With whom would you the least like to
play after school? With whom would you prefer
to study? and With whom would you the least like
to study?
Procedure
In the present research, the sample of children with
ID were individually assessed using the Student
Rating Scale: Peers. Testing sessions were con-
ducted in a separate room in the school. During the
examination, the only people in the room were the
trained examiner and the child. Initially, the exam-
iner would explain to the child the purpose of the
examination by stating that she/he was interested in
what the child thought about her/his relationships
with other children in her/his class. The meanings
of true and false were then explained, and exam-
ples were given to clarify them and to allow practice
in providing answers. The actual assessment did not
start until the examiner was certain that the child
understood the system of giving answers. To avoid
mistakes caused by reading errors, the examiner
would read, pointing to the text, and in turn, the
child would show their agreement (i.e. true or
false).
If the child did not answer, the examiner would
then vary the statement using synonyms to explain
the situation to the child. When the examiner was
certain that the child understood the situation, the
statement was repeated in its original form.
The sociometric evaluation was conducted on the
same day, involving the entire class to which the
child with ID belonged.
The sample of children from the general popu-
lation were examined using the Student Rating
Scale: Peers. This measure was group administered
after the purpose of the investigation had been
explained, comprehension of the true and false
answers on the negatively formulated statements
veried, and instructions on answering completed.
The examiner would then read the statements
for the whole class and the students would
mark their answers on the answer sheet. The
sociometric examination was conducted immedi-
ately afterwards.
Data processing
Results from the Students Rating Scale: Peers and
sociometric analyses were processed by standard
descriptive statistics. For the items of the Students
Rating Scale: Peers, the proportion and numbers of
negative answers (which are scored with one point)
were established. After the sociometric results were
veried, the number of accepting (A) and rejecting
(RJ) answers, and the pupils rank were divided by
the total number of pupils in the class and multi-
plied by zo, thus obtaining the pupils position in a
class of zo pupils. In addition to the sociometric
variables, the choice/isolation variables (i.e. I
1
, I
2
and I
3
) were calculated by averaging acceptance and
rejection variables:
The differences between the results of children
with ID and the children from the general popula-
tion were assessed by the discriminant analysis for
the total on the Student Rating Scale: Peers.
Statistically signicant differences were assessed
on the individual variables of the Student Rating
Scale: Peers. Forward stepwise discriminant analysis
was applied separately for the sociometric variable
I A RJ
1 1 1
= + ( ) z.
Journal of Intellectual Disability Research voLc:c ( ian1 cNc zoo1
A. Z

ic & L. Igric Relationships with peers

206
zoo1 Blackwell Science Ltd, Journal of Intellectual Disability Research q, zozz11
Journal of Intellectual Disability Research voLc:c ( ian1 cNc zoo1
A. Z

ic & L. Igric Relationships with peers

207
zoo1 Blackwell Science Ltd, Journal of Intellectual Disability Research q, zozz11
for rank, the acceptance and rejection variables, and
the choice/isolation variables.
Results
The descriptive statistics of the self-perception of
relationships with peers on the Student Rating
Scale: Peers (Table () indicate that children with
ID have similar self-perception to those in the
general population.
Discriminant analysis shows that there were no
statistically signicant differences between the total
results in the Student Rating Scale: Peers of chil-
dren with ID and those from the general population
(Wilks l = o.8o, F
1,38
= o.o;((, P < o.;86).
The results on the items (Table ) also show that
there were no statistically signicant differences
between group means, except with respect to the
possibility of spending the night at the friends
home, an opportunity less often available to chil-
dren with ID than to children from the general
population.
As the vast majority of items show similar results
for the two groups, it can be stated that children
with ID do not signicantly differ from those from
the general population with regard to their percep-
tion of their relationships with peers.
The question of the popularity of children with
ID among their peers is raised by these results.
Sociometrics were used to establish the relative fre-
quencies of acceptance and rejection, and the rank-
order position of every child with regard to sitting
together in class, playing after school and studying
together. It should be noted that desks are shared
by two students in Croatian schools, and therefore,
choosing a sitting-mate is an important element of
socialization within the class.
The results of the analysis of descriptive statistics
(Table 6) show a very pronounced tendency for
peers to reject sitting, playing and studying with
children with ID. Unlike children from the general
population, who experience a higher number of
acceptances than rejections, children with ID rarely
experience acceptance and rejection is very strong.
Pupils with ID were typically rejected by between
one and 1o classmates (lower and upper quartiles)
in a class of zo, and were typically chosen for
sitting together, playing and studying by none or
only one of her/his classmates. It can be added
that rejection was least present in the playing after
school situation and acceptance was highest in the
sitting together situation.
These predominating rejection scores are re-
sponsible for the average rank-positions of children
with ID in all three situations (i.e. sitting together,
playing after school and studying together), which
was around the sixteenth or seventeenth position in
a zo-pupil class. In other words, these children are
at the bottom of the popularity list. In children
without difculties, the average rank positions in
different situations are around the ninth or tenth
position, i.e. the middle position in a class, as
would be expected. The results for the choice/
isolation analysis show that peers are not indifferent
toward children with ID, but on the contrary,
actively reject them.
The differences between the two groups (i.e.
children with ID and general population children)
are rather striking. Since these variables are not
independent, discriminant analysis was conducted
separately for the acceptance and rejection vari-
ables, separately for choice/isolation variables, and
separately for rank variables. All three analyses
yielded discriminant models according to which
children with ID differ signicantly from those
from the general population.
For the acceptance and rejection variables,
the discrimination model (Wilks l = o.11,
F
2,37
= 1;.68; P < o.oooo) showed that the greatest
Sample
Quartile
Subsample size Mean SD Lower Upper
Children with intellectual disability 20 15.35 3.44 13.0 17.5
General population children 20 15.05 3.52 13.5 17.0
Table 4 Descriptive statistics for the total
on the Student Rating Scale: Peers
Journal of Intellectual Disability Research voLc:c ( ian1 cNc zoo1
A. Z

ic & L. Igric Relationships with peers

208
zoo1 Blackwell Science Ltd, Journal of Intellectual Disability Research q, zozz11
contributions to the overall difference came from
the more frequent rejection of sitting together with
children with ID (root 1 = o.;z) and the more
frequent acceptance of playing after school with
children from the general population (root
1 = o.(8zz).
The discriminant model of the choice/isolation
variables (Wilks l = o.661;, F
1,38
= 1.(z8;
P < o.ooo1) showed that children with ID were
mentioned more often in the situation of sitting
together than those from the general population.
However, Table 6 indicates this popularity was a
negative one.
Discriminant analysis of rank positions yielded
similar results. The groups are signicantly different
(Wilks l = o.(8, F
2,37
= 1.z; P < o.oooo), and
the difference is a result of the poorer position of
children with ID in rank z (playing after school;
root 1 = o.611) and rank 1 (sitting together; root
1 = o.((1o).
Discussion
The sociometric results in the present study clearly
show that children with ID were not accepted by
their classmates. The number of children willing to
sit with them in class, play after school or study
with them was very small, and the number of chil-
dren who refused to do so was large. This results in
signicantly lower rank positions for children with
ID in comparison with those from the general
population.
The present results are comparable to those
obtained in other, similar studies (Nazor & Nikolic;
Table 5 Number and percentage of children in the two samples considering Student Rating Scale: Peers statements to be incorrect and the
signicance of the differences between the two samples
Number of subjects considering statement
to be false
Children with Children from the
intellectual disability general population
Item Statement Percentage Number Percentage Number P-value
6 Some of my friends think it is fun to cheat, skip 85 17 80 16 0.7719
school, etc.
7 Other students dont like to play or work with me 75 15 80 16 0.7919
10 Other kids dont seem to like me very much 90 18 75 15 0.3890
13 I get into too many arguments with people I know 95 19 95 19
19 Other people dont like to share things with me 80 16 65 13 0.4623
21 I spend too much time playing/working by myself 65 13 75 15 0.6315
22 My friends say that I am clumsy 85 17 85 17
24 Other kids dont listen to me when I have something 75 15 60 12 0.4831
important to say
25 I dont have enough friends 80 16 75 15 0.7919
30 Other kids say I act like a baby 100 20 90 18
31 I seem to get into a lot of ghts 90 18 80 16 0.5390
32 It is hard for me to make new friends 85 17 80 16 0.7719
34 I get real angry with the way other kids treat me 70 14 60 12 0.6448
42 I get teased a lot by the other kids 65 13 65 13
43 I rarely get to spend the night with my friends at 20 4 70 14 0.0374
their homes
44 People think Im unattractive 90 18 90 18
53 I dont tell anybody how I feel 50 10 65 13 0.5061
54 I am rarely invited to a friends home to eat or play 70 14 50 10 0.3734
56 Other kids are always picking on me 70 14 85 17 0.4323
60 Some people think I am dumb 95 19 80 16 0.3239
J
o
u
r
n
a
l

o
f

I
n
t
e
l
l
e
c
t
u
a
l

D
i
s
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
v
o
L
c
:
c

(

i
a
n
1

c
N
c

z
o
o
1
A
.
Z

i
c

&

L
.
I
g
r
i
c

R
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p
s

w
i
t
h

p
e
e
r
s
2
0
9

z
o
o
1
B
l
a
c
k
w
e
l
l

S
c
i
e
n
c
e

L
t
d
,
J
o
u
r
n
a
l

o
f

I
n
t
e
l
l
e
c
t
u
a
l

D
i
s
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
q

,
z
o
z

z
1
1
Table 6 Descriptive statistics for the sociometric variables
Children with intellectual disabilit Children from the general population
Quartile Quartile
Variable Mean Minimum Maximum SD Lower Upper Mean Minimum Maximum SD Lower Upper
Sitting together:
acceptance 0.70 0 3.08 0.90 0 0.85 1.98 0 6.43 1.42 0.80 2.91
rejection 6.74 0 15.2 5.0 1.20 10.97 0.69 0 2.4 0.79 0 1.07
Choice/isolation 1 3.72 0 7.6 2.31 1.53 5.68 1.34 0.36 3.21 0.71 0.77 1.82
Rank 1 16.63 6.09 20.0 4.88 14.54 20.00 8.83 1.88 15.7 4.60 4.55 12.11
Playing after school:
acceptance 0.51 0 2.73 0.78 0 0.77 1.64 0 3.20 0.92 1.05 2.18
rejection 6.03 0 15.0 4.66 1.81 8.58 1.22 0 3.57 1.02 0.71 1.94
Choice/isolation 2 3.27 0.32 7.5 2.23 1.25 4.71 1.43 0.4 2.80 0.58 1.09 1.82
Rank 2 17.14 8.46 20.0 3.49 13.94 20.0 10.25 2.50 17.19 4.53 6.97 14.00
Studying together:
acceptance 0.64 0 2.73 0.98 0 0.8 1.61 0 7.14 1.79 0.64 1.81
rejection 6.37 0 14.4 4.64 2.03 10.29 1.20 0 5.00 1.35 0 1.91
Choice/isolation 3 3.51 0 7.6 2.20 1.87 5.15 1.41 0 3.67 1.04 0.74 2.07
Rank 3 16.47 5.65 20.0 4.88 13.15 20.0 10.39 1.07 20.0 4.70 6.74 13.63
11) showing poorer social acceptance and more
frequent rejection of children with ID in compari-
son to other children in a regular class. It was
expected that the acceptance frequencies would be
low and these have proven to be so. The greatest
area of concern is the frequency of rejections, espe-
cially with regard to sitting together in class.
A question remains as to the extent to which this
lack of peer acceptance is inuenced by inadequate
integration conditions (e.g. the teachers lack of
training in working with pupils with special needs,
the lack of special education consultants in regular
schools and too many pupils in the class) or by
the characteristics of children with ID (e.g.
cognitive competence, academic skills and social
competence).
In spite of the low sociometric position of chil-
dren with ID, the results on the Student Rating
Scale: Peers show that these children feel as com-
petent in peer relationships as their classmates
from the general population. The results obtained
from their peers do not conrm the self-perception
results of children with ID, however, with only a
very small number of children wishing to study,
sit or play with them, and a far greater number
refusing to do so.
Because the Student Rating Scale: Peers deals
with self-perception, there is an open question
regarding the reliability of this perception. It is
known that the assessment of self-perception among
young children presents specic problems, and
that children under the age of 8 or years tend to
overrate their competence (Priel & Leshem 1o).
Some authors explain this as a result of cognitive
immaturity, while others have suggested that the
factors of social experience are also responsible for
the observed inaccuracy of young childrens self-
perceptions (Priel & Lesham 1o). It is indeed
possible that the discrepancy found between the
self-perception of peer relationships and sociometric
status can be attributed to the cognitive immaturity
of children with ID, and this may have protected
them from realizing the true feelings of their peers
towards them.
In contrast to the differences in sociometric posi-
tion, the overall similarity in self-perception of the
two groups of children is in accordance with the
ndings of Priel & Leshem (1o) on self-perceived
acceptance and sociometric results in children with
learning disabilities. Irrespective of their different
characteristics, these two groups seem to have had
similarities in their relationships with peers, similar-
ities which can perhaps be explained by the fact
that the children from both samples are members
of stigmatized groups.
Given that the children with ID perceived their
relationships with peers as satisfactory, whereas the
sociometric results showed that their position was
very low, their feelings of satisfaction were evidently
misplaced. However, it is possible that children with
ID have satisfactory relationships with children in
their neighbourhood who are not their classmates
and perhaps such out-of-school experiences inu-
enced their self-perception during examination.
In fact, it is often the case that children with ID
play with younger children in their neighbourhood
and this may enable them to feel equally or more
competent than their playmates.
The present authors conclude that, in spite of the
high frequency of rejections, children with ID of
younger primary school age perceive their relation-
ships with their peers in a similar way to children
from the general population, i.e. they have an
average condence in their own abilities and in
the success of their relationships with their peers.
Although it is encouraging that children with ID
have a positive image of their social status, because
the children in the sample were of younger primary
school age, it can be assumed that continued
education among children who reject them might
well have a negative impact on their self-esteem.
Discussing the consequences of peer rejection,
Asher et al. (1o) and Kupersmidt et al. (1o)
highlighted the loneliness, social dissatisfaction and
feelings of personal inadequacy which may increase
the risk of affective disorders and/or lead to more
extremely maladjusted behaviour. Therefore, early
intervention is necessary through activities which
might improve the position of children with ID in
the peer group and several studies have suggested
means of doing so; for example, cooperative learn-
ing (Jacques et al. 18), educational intervention
programmes (Gash 16) and cooperative games
(Acton & Zarbatany 188).
The results of the present study show the neces-
sity of ensuring that specialist support services are
Journal of Intellectual Disability Research voLc:c ( ian1 cNc zoo1
A. Z

ic & L. Igric Relationships with peers

210
zoo1 Blackwell Science Ltd, Journal of Intellectual Disability Research q, zozz11
Guralnick M. J. (18) Social competence as a future
direction for early intervention programmes. Journal of
Mental Deciency Research , z;81.
Guralnick M. J. (1o) Social competence and early inter-
vention. Journal of Early Intervention tq, 1(.
Jacques N., Wilton K. & Townsend M. (18) Cooperative
learning and social acceptance of children with mild
intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual Disability
Research qz, z6.
Kupersmidt J. B., Coie J. D. & Dodge K. A. (1o) The
role of poor peer relationships in the development of
disorder. In: Peer Rejection in Childhood (eds S. R. Asher
& J. D. Coie), pp. z;(o. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Luftig R. L. (188) Assessment of the perceived school
loneliness and isolation of mentally retarded and
non-retarded students. American Journal on Mental
Retardation z, (;z.
Nazor M. & Nikolic M. (11) Djecas teskocama u
razvoju u redovnim s kolama. [Children with develop-
ment difculties in regular education.] Primjenjena
Psihologija tz, 1z;.
Priel B. & Leshem T. (1o) Self perception of rst and
second grade children with learning disabilities. Journal
of Learning Disabilities z, 6;(z.
Rutland A. F. & Campbell R. N. (16) The relevance of
Vygotskys theory of the zone of proximal development
to the assessment of children with intellectual disabil-
ities. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research qo, 118.
Siperstein G. N. & Bak J. J. (18) Understanding
factors that affect childrens attitudes toward mentally
retarded peers. In: Mainstreaming Handicapped Children:
Outcomes, Controversies, and New Directions (ed. C. J.
Meisel), pp. ;. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Hillsdale, NJ.
Siperstein G. N. & Leffert J. S. (1;) Comparisons of
socially accepted and rejected children with mental
retardation. American Journal on Mental Retardation tot,
1.
Smith D. S. & Nagle R. J. (1) Self-perception and
social comparisons among children with LD. Journal of
Learning Disabilities z8, 6(;1.
Received August ; revised June
Journal of Intellectual Disability Research voLc:c ( ian1 cNc zoo1
A. Z

ic & L. Igric Relationships with peers

211
zoo1 Blackwell Science Ltd, Journal of Intellectual Disability Research q, zozz11
involved in improving childrens acceptance among
their peers. The research project that the present
paper was derived from deals with the effects
which better teacher training can have on the self-
perception and sociometric position of children
with ID in integrated classrooms. The Croatian
Association for Professional Help to Children with
Special Needs aims to widen its activities to under-
take programmes which would engage whole
classes. These are intended to change the position
of children with special needs. The engagement of
special educator consultants in regular schools who
are involved in additional programmes is also nec-
essary if this problem is to be remedied.
References
Acton H. M. & Zarbatany L. (188) Interaction and
performance within cooperative groups: effects on
nonhandicapped students attitudes toward their
mildly mentally retarded peers. American Journal on
Mental Retardation , 16z.
Asher S. R., Parkhurst J. T., Hymel S. & Williams G. A.
(1o) Peer rejection and loneliness in childhood. In:
Peer Rejection in Childhood (eds S. R. Asher & J. D.
Coie), pp. z;. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Bak J. J. & Siperstein G. N. (18;) Effects of mentally
retarded childrens behavioral competence on non-
retarded peers behaviors and attitudes: toward estab-
lishing ecological validity in attitude research. American
Journal on Mental Deciency z, 1.
Brown L. & Hammill D. D. (1o) Behavior Rating Prole,
znd edn: Examiners Manual. Pro-Ed, Austin, TX.
Clever A., Bear G. & Juvonen J. (1z) Discrepancies
between competence and importance in self-perception
of children in integrated classes. Journal of Special
Education z6, 1z8.
Gash H. (16) Changing attitudes towards children
with special needs. European Journal of Special Needs
Education tt, z86;.