J Dev Phys Disabil (2009) 21:279–300

DOI 10.1007/s10882-009-9142-z
O R I G I N A L A RT I C L E

The Effects of Social and Isolate Toys on the Social

Interaction of Preschool Children with Disabilities

Coralie Driscoll & Mark Carter

Published online: 23 June 2009

# Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2009

Abstract Research on the use of toys and materials as a setting event for social
interaction between children with disabilities and peers has been encouraging. Studies to
date have been methodologically problematic, with interpretation being complicated by
artificial settings as well as group size and composition that were not consistent with
typical preschools. This study investigated the effect of the availability of social and
isolate toys during free play in typical inclusive community preschools. A small n
alternating treatment design was used to compare effectiveness of social and isolate toys
on the social interaction of children with disabilities. Despite sound procedural integrity,
only modest intervention effects were found for 2 of the 6 target children, who
demonstrated consistently more social interaction in the social toy condition. These
findings raise questions as to the extent to which findings in more artificial settings
translate into inclusive community preschools.

Keywords Preschool children . Disability . Social interaction . Setting events

The trend towards inclusion of children with disabilities in preschool settings

(Diamond 2001; Hemmeter 2000) has highlighted the importance of peer interaction
(Guralnick et al. 1995; Parker and Asher 1987). Children with disabilities may not
automatically learn to interact with peers, making planned interventions necessary
(Grubbs and Niemeyer 1999; McConnell 2002). Interventions need to be both
practical and acceptable to teachers in order for them to be implemented (Odom
et al. 1993). Direct teaching and peer-mediated interventions have limitations in
inclusive preschools (Grubbs and Niemeyer 1999) as they may be seen as intrusive,
time consuming, adult intensive (see Ivory and McCollum 1999; Martin et al. 1991;
O’Gorman Hughes and Carter 2002; Shearer et al. 1996) and perhaps even
inconsistent with best practice in early childhood education (Carter and O’Gorman

C. Driscoll : M. Carter (*)

Macquarie University Special Education Centre, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW 2109, Australia
e-mail: mark.carter@mq.edu.au
280 J Dev Phys Disabil (2009) 21:279–300

Hughes 2001). Setting event interventions have been of interest as they offer an
alternative and relatively unobtrusive approach (Carter and O’Gorman Hughes 2001;
Ivory and McCollum 1999).
Fundamentally, use of setting events involves the manipulation of context in order
to increase the probability of certain types of behavior (Kantor 1959; Nordquist et al.
1991). While the area is conceptually problematic (Carter and Driscoll 2007; Mahon
et al. 1999) there has been renewed and considerable interest in setting events in
recent years (Carter and Driscoll 2007; Davis and Fox 1999). Setting event
interventions are potentially easy to implement, require limited staff training, and are
time and resource efficient (Driscoll and Carter 2004). A survey of preschool
teachers, many with special education training, conducted by Odom et al. (1993)
revealed that teachers were more likely to use a whole class intervention, such as
using materials to encourage social interaction, than more individualized interven-
tions, such as teaching peers strategies or directly teaching social skills to children
with disabilities.
The type of toy that is available to preschool children is an environmental setting
event that may influence social interaction between children with disabilities and
peers (Beckman and Kohl 1984; Martin et al. 1991). Several studies have been
conducted to examine this issue. These studies have typically involved manipulation
of the availability of social and isolate toys and have examined social interaction or
proxy measures of interaction, involving levels of social or cognitive play. For
example, Martin et al. (1991) used a post-test only control group design to examine
the effects of availability of social and isolate toys on positive and negative social
interaction. Participants were recruited from those attending a prekindergarten
summer program. Eighteen children with a wide variety of disabilities and six
typically developing children were randomly assigned to integrated or segregated
groups of six children. Groups were exposed to either social or isolate toy conditions
for five observation days in a 12 m2 area.
Researchers have generally reported that some toys and activities may be more
conducive to social interaction than others (e.g., Beckman and Kohl 1984; Ivory and
McCollum 1999; Martin et al. 1991). Most researchers have reported that social toys
encourage social interaction of preschool children with disabilities, whereas isolate
toys facilitate more isolate play (Carter and O’Gorman Hughes, 2001; Kim et al.
2003; Raab 2003). Carter and O’Gorman Hughes (2001), however, provided a
detailed analysis of the conditions under which research was conducted and
concluded that all experimental studies included one or more characteristic that were
artificial and not consistent with a typical inclusive preschool environment. One
aspect of concern has been the size or location of the play area. For example, some
researchers used very restricted play areas that ranged from 7.2 m2–16.7 m2
(Beckman and Kohl 1984; Ivory and McCollum 1999; Levine 1986; Martin et al.
1991; Rettig et al. 1993; Trembley 1988). Others have used artificial isolated areas
either away from or within the classroom (i.e., Beckman & Kohl 1984; Cowden and
Torrey 1990; Ivory and McCollum 1999; Levine 1986; McCabe et al. 1999; Rettig
et al. 1993; Trembley 1988), university or research affiliated settings where expertise
may differ from that in typical preschools (e.g., Hendrickson et al. 1987; Johnson
and Ershler 1985; McCabe et al. 1999; Rubin 1977; Stoneman et al. 1983) or
segregated programs for children with disabilities (e.g., Cowden and Torrey 1990).
J Dev Phys Disabil (2009) 21:279–300 281

Clearly, the conduct of research under artificial conditions limits conclusions that can
be drawn about the efficacy of the intervention in more typical inclusive preschool
environments.
Another artificial aspect of previous studies has been group sizes, which have
often included unusual proportions of children with disabilities and children with
typical development. For example, some studies have included groups of only four
children where 1–4 participants had disabilities or developmental delay (Beckman
and Kohl 1984; Cowden and Torrey 1990; Rettig et al. 1993). Martin et al. (1991)
used groups of six children with half or all of the children with special needs.
Several studies have been conducted using a realistic class sizes with typically
developing children (e.g., Hendrickson et al. 1981; Rubin 1977) but included no data
on children with disabilities. Innocenti et al. (1986) used apparently typically
developing children but did not include information on group size. While Stoneman
et al. (1983) included 6 “mildly” handicapped children in an investigation within a
mainstream classroom of 21 children, the research was not experimental and was
conducted in a model research preschool. Ivory and McCollum (1999) conducted an
investigation using small class sizes of 14 children, with 40% of the children with
developmental delay or disability and the rest of the children in the class at risk of
academic failure. In contrast, O’Gorman Hughes and Carter (2002) used regular
preschool classes (28 and 29 children) that included two target children with
disabilities. It is to be noted that O’Gorman Hughes and Carter attempted to more
closely approximate a regular preschool setting and results of the study were
different to previous research in which more artificial settings were typically
employed. The study did, however, have significant limitations because the target
children with disabilities only attended the class on an occasional basis. Thus, extant
research has not approximated inclusive preschool classrooms with regard to group
size and composition.
Research needs to be conducted within regular inclusive preschools under natural
conditions to determine whether the availability of social and isolate toys
differentially impact on social interactions of children with disabilities. It is
important to note that the issue extends beyond the need to simply directly replicate
research in natural community settings. The extant corpus of research differs
substantively from typical community preschool settings on important physical and
organizational dimensions. No experimental studies have been conducted to date
using a standard play area, regular participants enrolled in the preschool as well as
regular group size and class composition. This makes it difficult to extrapolate
findings from previous studies into community settings.
The present study employed an alternating treatment design in two inclusive
community preschools. The aim was to determine whether the availability of social
and isolate toys in free play resulted in differential social interaction between
preschool children with disabilities and their peers. The research was conducted with
children with disabilities in inclusive preschool settings under natural conditions,
including typical classrooms, group size and composition. In addition, the study
extends previous research by examining a wider range of outcome variables, and
providing clear participant descriptions including disability and developmental
status. The small n methodology was used to enable the examination of individual
responses to intervention, differences that may be masked in group design studies.
282 J Dev Phys Disabil (2009) 21:279–300

Method1

Setting

The study was conducted in two separate but typical inclusive community
preschools in middle class areas. The preschools ran for 5 days per week offering
a 3 day placement to 4 to 5 year-old children and 2 day placement to 3 to 4 year-old
children. In Preschool 1, nineteen 3-year-old children attended the relevant class for
two consecutive full days. The classroom play area used for the research was 12 m×
5 m. The Director and two teacher’s aides taught the class. Nineteen to 20 children
aged 4 to 5 years were enrolled in the relevant class in Preschool 2. The children in
this class attended for three consecutive full days, with the exception of two target
children with disabilities who attended for two consecutive days a week due to early
intervention commitments on other days. The main classroom area used for the
research was a horseshoe shape with a 9.7 m×5.6 m area and two smaller areas
measuring 1.9 m×2.8 m and 2.1 m×3.4 m. Three staff taught the class: a Director, a
teacher, and either a teacher’s aide or a special needs teacher who alternated on the
research days.

Participants

Peers Peers in Preschool 1 were 8 boys and 8 girls. The Director reported that one
peer had learning disabilities and used English as a second language, and three
children had various minor speech difficulties. A further child used English as a
second language. The mean age of the peers was 3 years 6 months (range 38–
44 months). In Preschool 2, there were 16–17 peers. The peers were 9 boys and 7
girls at the beginning of the study. One boy left during the study and two new girls
joined the class. The Director, reported that three peers had minor speech problems
and another child was diagnosed with obsessive compulsive disorder. A further five
children used English as a second language. The mean age of the peers was 4 years
5 months (range 50–62 months).

Children with disabilities The target children in Preschool 1 were Paul (3 years
5 months) who was diagnosed with Down syndrome and had a global, mild to
moderate disability; Harry (3 years 9 months) who had an overall mild
developmental delay, a moderate level of difficulty in personal social skills, and
average performance skills and Jenny (3 years 7 months) who had a severe
communication disorder. In Preschool 2, Karl (4 years 5 months) was diagnosed
with pervasive developmental disorder and scattered skills, Alex (5 years 2 months)
was reported to have autism, and Helen (5 years 1 month) had a moderate to severe
language delay. Diagnostic information was confirmed from psychometric or
diagnostic reports from outside agencies, except for Alex, who was enrolled in an
early intervention program for children with autism. Both preschools were receiving
disability support funding for the enrolled children. In addition, the target children in
both preschools were administered the Developmental Profile II (Alpern et al. 1985),

1
The research described was approved by the University Human Research Ethics Committee.
J Dev Phys Disabil (2009) 21:279–300 283

the REEL-2 Receptive-Expressive Emergent Language Test (REEL-2) (Bzoch and

League 1991), and the Social Skills Rating System (SSRS) (Gresham and Elliott
1990), using the classroom teacher and parents as the informants. Details are
presented in Table 1.

Materials

Apparatus used for the investigation included a Panasonic VHS MIV-M50 video
camera, an earpiece for the camera, an Optimus 33-9956 unidirectional stereo
condenser microphone, a tripod with a quick release mechanism, a portable CD
player with an earpiece, an audio CD-ROM with an auditory sequence of signals and
a multipurpose sling bag to hold the CD player. A photo of each child (back and
front view) was taken and numbered to facilitate coding. Materials that were
available in the relevant classes, and would be considered typical preschool
activities, were used. Toys and materials were identified as social or isolate
according to previous studies (see Table 2 for activities and supporting references).
For example, in several studies painting and puzzles have been identified as isolate
toys while dress-up props and dolls have been identified as social toys. In Preschool
1, activities 1–11 were available in the social condition, with two sets of activity 4,
and activities 1–10 were available in the isolate condition, with two sets of activities
6 and 7. In Preschool 2, activities 1–9 were available in both conditions with two
sets of activity 7 in each condition. This was consistent with the typical number of
activities set up in each class. In all instances, the specified type of activity was used
with variations in the material determined by preschool staff (e.g., the painting
activity might involve sponge painting or easel painting, puzzles available varied).

Measures

Dependent variables included positive and negative social interaction, social level of
play, and cognitive level of play. The primary dependent variable was social
interaction. Both social and cognitive play have been used in previous research as
indices of social interaction so they were included as secondary dependent variables.
In addition, adult presence (defined as being in the same activity area as the target
child, communicating with the target child, or being within 1 m of the target child)
was monitored as it was considered to be a possible confounding variable.
A social interaction was defined as appropriate or inappropriate verbal, vocal, or
gestural behavior either deliberately directed to an individual by the target child or in
response to a communication. This included simultaneous use or exchange of objects
(Carter et al. 1995; Ghuman et al. 1998). Sub-categories included (a) appropriate
vocal, (b) appropriate verbal, (c) inappropriate vocal, (d) inappropriate verbal, (e)
appropriate gestural, (f) inappropriate gestural, and (g) non interactive. An
interaction was considered to have occurred when any of (a) to (f) was present.
Definitions of social play were based on Parten’s (1932), Bakeman and Brownlee’s
(1980), and Guralnick and Hammond’s (1999) scales of social participation. Social
play consisted of the following seven sub-categories: (a) unoccupied (alone, away
from peers, not playing), (b) together (with peers, not engaged), (c) solitary (playing
284 J Dev Phys Disabil (2009) 21:279–300

Table 1 Summary of standardized assessments

Developmental Profile IIa

Name Physical age Self-help age Social age Academic age Communication age
Paul 20 (−25) 14 (−29) 12 (−33) 24 (−21) 6 (−39)
Harry 38(−7) 28 (−17) 20 (−25) 26 (−19) 20 (−25)
Jenny 46 (+3) 54 (+11) 42 (−1) 38 (−5) 18 (−25)
Karl 40 (−13) 56 (+3) 20 (−33) 34 (−19) 18 (−35)
Alex 38 (−24) 50 (−12) 34 (−28) 66 (+4) 42 (−20)
Helen 42 (−19) 54 (−7) 42 (−19) 48 (−13) 34 (−27)
REEL-2a
Name Receptive Receptive Expressive Expressive Combined Language
language age quotient language age quotient language age quotient
Paul 11 (−34) 24 3 (−42) 7 7 (−38) 16
Harry 18 (−27) 40 10 (−35) 22 14 (−31) 31
Jenny 30 (−13) 70 7 (−36) 16 18.5 (−24.5) 43
Karl 16 (−37) 30 18 (−35) 34 17 (−36) 32
Alex 36 (−26) 58 36 (−26) 58 36 (−26) 58
Helen 33 (−28) 54 36 (−25) 59 34.5 (−26.5) 56.5
SSRS – Social Skills
Name Informant Frequency rating Level of behavior Standard score Percentile rank
Paul Teacher Total = 17 Fewer 74 4
Parent Total = 41 Average 87 19
Harry Teacher Total = 25 Average 86 18
Parent Total = 27 Fewer 68 2
Jenny Teacher Total = 44 Average 100 50
Parent Total = 47 Average 91 27
Karl Teacher Total = 1 Fewer 42 <2
Parent Total = 18 Fewer 59 <2
Alex Teacher Total = 19 Fewer 77 6
Parent Total = 40 Average 86 18
Helen Teacher Total = 14 Fewer 62 <2
Parent Total = 22 Fewer 64 <2
SSRS – Problem Behaviors
Name Informant Frequency rating Behavior level Standard score Percentile rank
Paul Teacher Total = 7 Average 107 68
Parent Total = 8 Average 107 68
Harry Teacher Total = 6 Average 104 61
Parent Total = 7 Average 102 55
Jenny Teacher Total = 6 Average 111 77
Parent Total = 2 Fewer <85 <16
Karl Teacher Total = 11 More 118 88
Parent Total = 5 Average 91 27
Alex Teacher Total = 10 Average 115 98
Parent Total = 12 More 126 96
Helen Teacher Total = 10 More 126 96
Parent Total = 8 Average 110 75

a
Values in months. Brackets show the differential to chronological age
Table 2 Activities for the isolate and social conditions

Social condition Supporting references Isolate condition Supporting references

1. Dress-up props, e.g.,
hospital/shop/dress-up clothes.
2. Dollhouse and accessories.
3. Dolls/teddy bears and dolls
clothes (can be set up separately
or with the house/blocks).
Hendrickson et al. (1981); Ivory and
McCollum (1999); Martin et al. (1991);
Dunn (1993).
Cowden and Torrey (1990); Ivory
and McCollum (1999).
Cowden and Torrey (1990);
Rettig et al. (1993); Ivory and
McCollum (1999); Levine (1986).
1. Cutting and pasting. Ivory and McCollum (1999); Stoneman
et al. (1983).
2. Books. Beckman and Kohl (1984); Rettig et al.
(1993); Ivory and McCollum (1999);
Martin et al. (1991).
3. Clay/dough. Cowden and Torrey (1990); Beckman
and Kohl (1984); Rettig et al. (1993);
Ivory and McCollum (1999);
Martin et al. (1991).
J Dev Phys Disabil (2009) 21:279–300

4. Blocks.
5. House materials e.g., kitchen,
dishes, phone, bed.
6. Puppets (may improvise a
puppet stage).
7. Toy vehicles e.g., trucks,
planes (can be set up with
road mat, road, airport mat).
8. Trains with track.
9. Turn taking game. e.g., lotto.
10. Balls (can be set up with
a bucket).
11. Sand/rice play (with
implements but not with animals).
Cowden and Torrey (1990); Beckman
and Kohl (1984); Hendrickson et al. (1981);
Ivory and McCollum (1999).
Cowden and Torrey (1990); Ivory and
McCollum (1999); Martin et al. (1991);
Levine (1986); Dunn (1993).
Cowden and Torrey (1990); Beckman
and Kohl (1984); Hendrickson et al.
(1981); Ivory and McCollum (1999);
Martin et al. (1991).
Beckman and Kohl (1984); Rettig et al.
(1993), Martin et al. (1991).
Stoneman et al. (1983). As above,
classified as toy vehicles.
Hendrickson et al. (1981).
Beckman and Kohl (1984); Hendrickson
et al. (1981); Martin et al. (1991).
Hendrickson et al. (1981).
4 Animals.
5.Crayons / textas /pencils.
6. Construction e.g., lego.
(without toy vehicles or trains).
7. Painting.
8. Puzzles.
9. Pattern making e.g., parquetry/
mosaics/magnet board.
10. Pegboards
Cowden and Torrey (1990); Hendrickson
et al. (1981); Levine (1986).
Cowden and Torrey (1990); Beckman
and Kohl (1984); Hendrickson et al. (1981);
Rettig et al. (1993); Ivory and McCollum
(1999); Martin et al. (1991).
Hendrickson et al. (1981); Ivory and
McCollum (1999); Stoneman et al. (1983).
Ivory and McCollum (1999); Martin et al.
(1991); Dunn (1993).
Cowden and Torrey (1990); Beckman
and Kohl (1984); Hendrickson et al.
(1981); Rettig et al. (1993); Ivory
and McCollum (1999); Martin et al.
(1991); Levine (1986).
Hendrickson et al. (1981); Martin et al.
(1991).
As above
285
286 J Dev Phys Disabil (2009) 21:279–300

alone, different toys), (d) parallel (beside peer, similar activity), (e) group (playing/
interacting with peers), (f) transition to another activity/visibly absent (moving
between activities or visibly absent from play room), and (g) adult (direct adult
involvement). Detailed definitions are available in Table 3.
Definitions for cognitive play were based on the categories by Smilansky (1968),
with an additional non-play category from Johnson et al. (1987). Cognitive play
included the following five sub-categories: (a) sensory (using objects for sensory
stimulation or repetitive/inappropriate play), (b) constructive (constructing, explor-
ing, examining), (c) dramatic (role-play, brings life to inanimate objects), (d) games
with rules, and (e) non-play (not engaged/not touching play materials). Detailed
definitions are available in Table 4.

Table 3 Definitions of social play variables

Variable Definition

Unoccupied “The child apparently is not playing, but occupies himself with
watching anything that happens to be of momentary interest.
When there is nothing exciting taking place, he plays with his
own body, gets on and off chairs, just stands around, follows the
teacher, or sits in one spot glancing around the room.” (Parten
1932, p. 249). In this category toys are not the focus of attention
but would include holding an object without playing or attending
to it visually. The target child must be alone, away from peers
and not at an activity with peers.
Together The target child is with or near peers at an activity, but apparently
unoccupied (i.e., not engaged with either object or interaction).
In this category toys are not the focus of attention but would
include holding an object without playing or attending to it
visually.
Solitary The target child plays alone and independently with toys that are
different from those used by the children near him, making no
attempt to get close to other children. The child pursues his own
activity without reference to what others are doing.
Parallel The target child plays independently but next to another child
playing with similar toys. He may play with the toy in his own
way. The primary focus is on the activity.
Group The target child is engaged in a group activity with peers playing
together. Interest is in the association with peers, not the activity.
The group may be playing without any organization but the
conversation is about the common activity and there may be
borrowing of play materials, following each other with toy
vehicles, and attempts to control who plays in the group. The
activity may be goal directed with 1 or 2 children directing the
activity of others and children taking on different roles. Includes
the target child interacting (verbal and non verbal) with peers but
not playing.
Transition/visibly absent from play, Transition: The target child intentionally walks from one activity to
playroom (i.e., absent) another activity within 6 s. Visibly absent from play /playroom
(absent): The target child is visible but out of the playroom (also
includes auditory evidence), is in timeout, or is involved in
focused but non play behaviours that are not related to play or a
play activity.
Adult The target child is directly involved in any activity with an adult.
J Dev Phys Disabil (2009) 21:279–300 287

Table 4 Definitions of cognitive play variables

Variable Definition

Sensory play An activity that enables the target child to experience the sensory
stimulation it creates. Includes holding play materials without
playing with or attending to the materials visually. Also includes
using toys inappropriately in a non-constructive or repetitive manner.
Constructive play The target child manipulates play materials in order to construct
or create something. Also includes simple play, exploring toys,
examining toys and playing appropriately (here you must make
the distinction between handling or examining, and staring or
using objects in a bizarre, repetitive or stereotyped manner).
Dramatic play The target child is engaged in any activity that involves make-believe
including dramatisation of life situations or bringing inanimate
objects to life.
Games with rules The target child recognises and conforms to established rules of
a game. Note if the child is playing a game with rules but does
not follow the rules.
Non play The target child is not engaged/is not touching play materials. Includes
holding /touching furniture without any play, blowing nose, eating
morning tea, getting on a chair. Dramatic play that involves fantasy,
or role-play without toys is coded as dramatic.

Coding procedures for dependent variables A 10 s partial interval recording system

was used. No coding occurred in an interval if the target child was not visible during the
whole 10 s interval, resulting in that interval being deleted. The longest type of
interaction (i.e., verbal, vocal, or gestural) during any part of the 10 s interval was coded
for social interaction. Instances where the child appeared to speak but the words were
inaudible or unintelligible, were coded as vocalizations. For social and cognitive play, the
category of play that occurred for the longest period in each 10 s interval was recorded.

Procedures

Experimental procedures The first author explained the purpose of the study to
classroom staff and addressed questions before the investigation commenced. The
research was conducted during free play periods where children were able to select
activities of interest and engage in play with partners of their choosing. The number and
type of activities were kept constant throughout the investigation for each condition. In
the intervention phases, either isolate or social toys were made available in a
counterbalanced order across weeks. Staff from each preschool set up the classroom
using a preplanned list with the specified activities and a timetable of conditions. After
consultation with staff, access to toys that were not permitted was restricted using
strategies such as putting a sheet over items or turning them around to prevent use.
Informal observations prior to the study indicated that preschool staff generally took a
supervisory role during the free play period. Typically, there was a minimum of teacher
intervention or direction, similar to “selected free choice” described by Stoneman et al.
(1983). In general, teachers tended to interact when there was a safety or health issue,
or when inappropriate behavior occurred. Nevertheless, there were times when a
288 J Dev Phys Disabil (2009) 21:279–300

substantial amount of interaction with a specific child or small number of children

occurred, particularly when the special needs teacher was present, which was unrelated
to addressing health or problem behavior. It was important for the researchers to be
sure that any observed differences in social interaction were a result of environmental
rearrangements rather than unsystematic differences in teacher behavior. In addition,
there is evidence that teacher interaction may inhibit interaction between children
(Burnstein 1986; Chandler et al. 1992; DeKlyen and Odom 1989; Goldstein et al.
1997; Halliday et al. 1985; Harper and McCluskey 2003). Thus, staff were asked to
standardize their interactions with the target children by giving quick, limited
responses to child initiated interactions and to intervene only if a child was (a) in
danger of physical harm, (b) breaking a rule, (c) playing with a toy from the wrong
condition, or (d) there was a health issue. Staff were also asked to keep a distance of
more than 1 m (a big footstep) away from target children where possible. In effect,
these conditions standardized the typical teacher behavior during the free play period.
The camera operator videotaped the normal routine in the preschool for two
consecutive days so the staff and children could acclimatize to the videotaping. The
children were instructed by the staff not to talk to the camera operator who was busy
working. The camera operator scanned the room to video all activities set up each
day before starting to video the target children. The free play sessions typically ran
for 80 min in Preschool 1 and 75 min in Preschool 2 and 27 min of video was
collected in each session. In Preschool 1, video recording initially started
approximately 5 min after all the children had finished morning tea and started to
play. This routine changed in the latter part of the study as the weather was getting
cold so the staff decided to begin the day with indoor playtime instead of outdoor
play. During this time, recording started after all the children had arrived. This was
approximately 40 min after playtime began. In Preschool 2, recording started after
all the children had arrived at school and the parents had left the playroom. This was
approximately 30 min after the start of the indoor play session.
The camera was positioned near a wall with a good view of the whole classroom.
Within a session the camera operator systematically videotaped each target child for
3 min followed by a 30 s period to reorientate the video camera to the next child.
Each target child was videotaped three times on a rotational basis until 9 non-
consecutive min of videotape for each participant had been obtained. The camera
operator rotated the child to be videoed first each day throughout the study. If a
target child was absent, the same rotation order was implemented with the video left
running for the absent child’s observation time. The portable CD player was carried
in a sling bag by the camera operator with a specifically prepared audio CD-ROM
that provided 10 s time signals (for coding purposes) and a series of additional
signals to alert the camera operator (via an earpiece attached to the video camera)
when to video the next child. The CD player earpieces were attached to the
directional microphone so the signals would be transferred onto the video recording.

Research Design

An alternating treatment design (Barlow and Hayes 1979) was used to compare effects
of social and isolate toys on the social behavior of the target children in free play. In
the first week of the research, 2 days of orientation (baseline) were conducted with the
J Dev Phys Disabil (2009) 21:279–300 289

usual mixture of social and isolate toys. In the subsequent 9 weeks, isolate toys or
social toys were each presented on 1 day per week in counterbalanced order.

Interobserver Agreement

The first author was the primary observer. A research assistant acted as the second
observer. The researcher trained the second observer using videotapes of session
from the preschools but these training tapes were not used for reliability. Discussion,
demonstration, guided practice, and independent practice was conducted for one
variable until 80% reliability was obtained for one videotaped session. Other
variables were then cumulatively trained one or two at a time until at least 80%
agreement was obtained on each. A total of 8 hr of reliability training was provided.
Subsequent to the reliability training, the second observer independently coded 20%
of the total recordings. Sessions in which all three target children attended were
randomly selected for this purpose. The second observer was not informed about the
purpose of the research and was blind to the treatment condition. Reliability was
calculated by dividing agreements by agreements plus disagreements and multiplying
by 100. An agreement occurred when both observers coded exactly the same behavior in
the same interval. A disagreement occurred when the behavior was not exactly the same.
For social interaction, an agreement was only coded when the observers agreed on both
the presence of the interaction and the type of interaction (i.e., verbal, vocal, or gestural).
Point-by-point agreement for every interval was calculated for all variables. Social
interaction and adult presence occurred at a low frequency so occurrence reliability was
also calculated, consistent with the recommendations of Alberto and Troutman (2003).
For the purposes of the occurrence reliability estimate, only observations in which at
least one of the observers recorded an occurrence were included in the calculation.
Again, reliability was calculated by dividing agreements by agreements plus
disagreements and multiplying by 100. Finally, in order to correct for chance
agreements, kappa was calculated for all variables.
Overall mean point-by-point agreement was 98.1% (range 95.4–99.5%) for social
interaction, 93.4% (range 90.5–98.1%) for social play, 94.5% (range 91.7–96.3%) for
cognitive play, and 98% (range 91.5–100%) for adult presence. Mean occurrence
reliability was 90.8% (range 84.4–100%) for social interaction and 95.1% (range 86.7–
100%) for adult presence. Of the total of 24 reliability sessions, kappa could not be
calculated for social interaction in four instances as there was perfect agreement on a
single category. Excluding these sessions, the mean reliability across children was 0.91
(range 0.76–1). For social play mean kappa was 0.86 (range 0.75–0.95). For cognitive
play, Kappa could not be calculated for one session. In the remaining sessions the mean
kappa was 0.82 (range 0.62–0.92). For adult presence, kappa could not be calculated in
six sessions and in the remaining sessions mean kappa was 0.93 (range 0.79–1).

Treatment Integrity

Any interval where the target child played with the wrong category of toy was recorded.
All data during these intervals were discarded from the analysis. Procedural integrity
was calculated by dividing the number of intervals where the child played only with the
nominated category of toy by the total number of intervals and multiplying by 100.
290 J Dev Phys Disabil (2009) 21:279–300

Mean procedural integrity across the study was 97.1% for Alex, 98.9% for Karl, and
100% for the remaining four students. Adult interaction was a possible confounding
variable, so it was important to determine the extent to which interaction occurred. The
frequency of adult presence and direct adult involvement (i.e., the target child is directly
involved in any activity with an adult, as measured on the social play scale) with each
target child was measured. The mean percentage of direct adult involvement for
comparison days (i.e., when child attended both days in a week) was low (range across
target children 0.3–1.6% social, 0.9–2.5% isolate). The level of adult presence was low
with a mean range for individuals from 2.9–11.1% in the social condition and 1.3–9.4 %
in the isolate condition during weeks with comparison data.

Results

Frequency of each target child’s total peer social interaction was calculated as a
percentage of the total number of intervals in which data were recorded for each day.
Data on total peer social interaction, which included both positive and negative
interactions, are presented in Fig. 1. These data reveal that a reasonably consistent
pattern of difference in favor of the social condition was only evident for Harry and
Helen. Visual inspection of Harry’s data indicated a very modest but consistently
higher level of social interaction with peers while using social toys when compared
with isolate toys. The overall mean percentage for peer social interaction for Harry
was 16.1% for the social condition and 8.1% for the isolate condition. When analysis
was limited to weeks with comparative data, the mean percentage was 16.7% in the
social condition and 7.9% in the isolate condition. There was a higher level of social
interaction during the social condition in each of the 5 weeks with comparative data.
Effects were more substantial for Helen. For the 8 weeks with comparative data
there was a higher level of social interaction during the social condition in 5 weeks,
in 2 weeks the level of interaction was the same, and in 1 week there was a higher
level during the isolate condition. The lack of a difference between conditions in the
first 2 weeks may have been related to the fact that Helen had only just started to
attend the preschool. The isolate data were atypically high in week 5. During this
week, a new child started at preschool. She had no existing friendships and they both
enjoyed completing a jigsaw puzzle together. This pattern of interaction was not
repeated, as the new peer soon established a relationship with another child who
started preschool the following week. The overall mean percentage for peer social
interaction for Helen was 23.3% for the social condition and 12.6% for the isolate
condition. When analysis was limited to weeks with comparative data the mean
percentage was 25.1% for the social condition and 12.6% for the isolate condition.
A clear and consistent pattern of difference was not evident for the remaining children.
Despite the limited evidence of a consistent difference between conditions in the graphic
data, it was of interest that the overall mean level of social interaction was slightly higher
in the social condition for all children for all weeks as well as when analysis was limited
to comparative weeks (M difference = 3.7% Paul, 6.2% Jenny, 2% Karl, 2.6% Alex).
Further, in the weeks with comparative data, examination of the paired observations
revealed that 5 of the 6 target children (with the exception of Alex) interacted at a
higher level for more days in the social condition than the isolate condition.
J Dev Phys Disabil (2009) 21:279–300 291

100
90

80
70

60
50
40
30
20

10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Week

Social Isolate Orientation Day 1 Orientation Day 2

Paul

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Week

Social Isolate Orientation Day 1 Orientation Day 2

Harry

Fig. 1 Percentage of intervals with social interaction

Subtypes of peer interaction were further examined. Number of intervals with each
type of interaction was expressed as a percentage of total intervals of interaction for each
day. Examination of Paul’s data on positive and negative interactions indicated
consistently more positive than negative interactions in both the social and isolate
conditions. Slightly more positive interaction was observed in the social condition (M
positive = 95.2% social, M positive = 88.6% isolate, for comparative weeks). For Paul,
peer interactions were mostly gestural (92.9% social, 73.3% isolate), with a few
vocalizations (7.1% social, 26.7% isolate) and no verbalizations in either condition.
Harry exhibited more positive than negative social interaction in both conditions (M
292 J Dev Phys Disabil (2009) 21:279–300

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Week
Social Isolate Orientation Day 1 Orientation Day 2

Jenny

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Week
Social Isolate Orientation Day 1 Orientation Day 2
Karl

Fig. 1 (continued)

positive = 68.7% social, M positive = 100% isolate, for comparative weeks). Most of
Harry’s peer interactions were gestures (82% social, 84% isolate) with some
vocalizations (13.1% social, 8% isolate) and verbalizations (4.9% social, 8% isolate).
Jenny’s interactions were consistently more positive in both toy conditions (M=95.7%
social, M=94.6% isolate, for comparative weeks). Most of Jenny’s peer interactions
were gestures (74.5% social, 50.9% isolate), with some vocalizations (18.9% social,
41.8% isolate) and verbalizations (6.6% social, 7.3% isolate).
Most of Karl’s interactions were positive (M=87.5% social, M=75% isolate, for
comparative weeks). Karl’s peer interactions were mostly gestural (68.8% social,
J Dev Phys Disabil (2009) 21:279–300 293

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Week

Social Isolate Orientation Day 1 Orientation Day 2

Alex

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Week
Social Isolate Orientation Day 1 Orientation Day 2

Helen

Fig. 1 (continued)

87.5% isolate) with some vocalizations (31.3% social, 12.5% isolate) and no
verbalizations in either condition.
Most of Alex’s interactions were positive in both conditions (M=72.5% social, M=
84.8% isolate). Interactions were mostly gestural (63.4% social, 56% isolate) but
included both vocalizations (14% social, 9.3% isolate) and verbalizations (22.6%
social, 34.7% isolate). All of Helen’s social interactions were positive (i.e., 100%) in
both the social and isolate conditions. Most of the interactions with peers were
gestural (60.2% social, 83.3% isolate), with some verbalizations (5.3% social, 3.7%
isolate) and vocalizations (34.5% social, 13% isolate).
294 J Dev Phys Disabil (2009) 21:279–300

Social and cognitive play were analyzed in terms of a mean loading score. Social
play in each interval was given a value based on the longest period of social
participation with peers. A value of zero was given for unoccupied play, 1 point for
solitary play, 2 points for together play, 3 points for parallel play, and 4 points for
group play. The loading score per day was then calculated by adding all scores
for the day and dividing by the total number of coded intervals. A mean for the
orientation, social and isolate conditions was then calculated. In the case of the
intervention conditions, this was limited to weeks with comparative data (i.e., weeks
in which the child attended both days). These data are presented in Table 5. There
was no evidence of a consistent or systematic difference across conditions.
Cognitive play in each interval was given a value based on the longest interval of
play with toys. A value of zero was given for non-play, 1 point for sensory play, 2
points for constructive play, 3 points for dramatic play, and 4 points for games with
rules. The mean loading score per day was calculated as previously described. These
data are presented in Table 5. Again, differences across conditions were very small.

Discussion

An alternating treatment small n design was used to investigate whether availability

of social and isolate toys would affect social interaction between children with
intellectual disabilities or moderate to severe language problems and their peers, in a
typical inclusive preschool setting. Social and cognitive levels of play were also
measured to examine a wider range of variables related to social interaction. Unlike
previous studies where research was characteristically conducted in artificial and
atypical environments, the present study was conducted in inclusive community-
based preschools with standard class sizes and intact group compositions.
It was of interest to determine if the availability of social and isolate toys affected
social interaction, social levels of play, and cognitive levels of play between children
with disabilities and their peers in a typical inclusive setting. There was a reasonably
clear and consistent pattern of difference in the frequency of peer social interaction,
in favor of the social condition, for Harry and Helen. Clear evidence of a consistent
difference was not apparent for the other four target children. There were some mean
differences in types of interaction for some children (e.g., more positive interaction

Table 5 Mean play loading scores across conditions

Social play Cognitive play

Orientation Social Isolate Orientation Social Isolate

Paul 1.8 1.8 1.9 1.6 1.7 1.6

Harry 2.2 1.9 1.8 1.5 1.5 1.4
Jenny 2.7 2.9 2.4 1.5 1.8 1.5
Karl 1.2 1.6 1.3 1.6 1.5 1.5
Alex 0.9 2.3 1.7 1.9 1.6 1.5
Helen 2.6 2.4 2.6 2.1 1.3 1.7
J Dev Phys Disabil (2009) 21:279–300 295

in the isolate condition for Harry) but these need to be interpreted in the context of
relatively low overall levels of interaction. Differences in loading scores for social
and cognitive play across conditions were generally small and inconsistent in
direction. Thus, despite demonstration of good procedural reliability, the findings of
the present research were modest, in contrast to the more positive results for most
other studies comparing the effect of social and isolate toys on the frequency of
social interaction for children with disabilities. For example, Beckman and Kohl
(1984) found that children in both integrated and segregated groups engaged in more
social interaction with social toys. Rettig et al. (1993) and Martin et al. (1991)
reported significantly more interaction when social toys were available for children
with disabilities, but little difference across conditions for children with typical
development. The lack of a clinically significant experimental effect for the majority
of children in the present study was similar to the findings of O’Gorman Hughes and
Carter (2002), who used a more natural preschool setting than previous studies.
Nevertheless, the findings in the current study were less positive than those of most
previous research including children with disabilities. There are several possible
reasons that could account for this difference and these will now be considered.
It is possible that participants in previous studies may have been different to those
in the current research. The limited description of children in most of the previous
studies often made it difficult to ascertain both the type and level of disability or
delay. For example, some studies offered limited descriptions of participants but did
not specify the type of disability or developmental delay (e.g., Cowden and Torrey
1990), specified the type of disability but did not offer a detailed level of delay or
disability (e.g., Martin et al. 1991) or the number of children at various levels of
disability (e.g., Beckman and Kohl 1984). Where information has been provided, it
has often been very limited and suggestive of relatively mild disabilities. For
example, Johnson and Ershler (1985) reported that children had a 20% delay in at
least one area. Psychometric data reported by Stoneman et al. (1983) indicated that
most of the participants had an average or low average range of intellectual ability.
In the present study, level of functioning of all children was confirmed with
standardized assessment and some children had significant degrees of disability.
Thus, it is possible that children in the current study had greater levels of disability
than those in previous research. However, given the inadequate description of
participants in previous research, this interpretation remains speculative. Neverthe-
less, the importance of clear participant description in research is highlighted.
A second possible explanation for the differences in the findings in the current
research and previous studies is that articles with significant positive outcomes may
be more likely to be published than articles supporting the null hypothesis,
irrespective of study quality (Carlson et al. 1996; Cleary and Casella 1997; Phillips
2004; Puza 2003). This phenomenon is referred to as publication bias and has been
widely discussed and documented in fields of research ranging from sociology and
marketing, to psychology and medicine (Hubbard and Armstrong 1997; Sterling
et al. 1995; Stern and Simes 1997). Publication bias may distort the evidence on the
true effectiveness and robustness of intervention, because research that does not
demonstrate an experimental effect is less likely to be submitted for review or
published (Sterling et al. 1995). Consequently, publication bias cannot be positively
ruled out as a possible contributing factor to the inconsistency between the present
296 J Dev Phys Disabil (2009) 21:279–300

findings and much of the previous research. Our knowledge that publication bias is
widespread and systematic across a range of fields of research, however, strongly
underscores the importance of publication of research that substantively supports the
null hypothesis (like the present study).
Perhaps the most likely difference between the present study and previous
research was that regular preschool settings with typical group composition were
examined. This contrasts with previous research, which has typically examined
artificial or atypical settings, and/or artificially constructed groups. Thus, it is
possible, if not likely, that more modest results in the present study may reflect the
differences in setting and group composition. The position that the differences in
results may be accounted for by the artificiality of most previous research is
supported by the study of O’Gorman Hughes and Carter (2002). Of the previous
studies in this area, O’Gorman Hughes and Carter used a setting that arguably most
closely approximated a regular preschool classroom, and this was the only other
study that reported substantively negative findings for children with disabilities in
relation to differences between social and isolate conditions.
The primary data on levels of social interaction arising from the alternating
treatment design provided evidence of only a relatively weak intervention effect for
two participants. Nevertheless, there were some small overall differences in favor of
the social condition, possibly suggesting a very limited effect. Although often
starting from a very low level, the mean level of social interaction for weeks with
comparative data was higher in the social condition for all the children and more
than 100% higher for Harry and Karl, and almost 100% higher for Paul and Helen.
In addition, data for comparative weeks indicated that 5 of the 6 target children
interacted at a higher level for more weeks in the social than the isolate condition.
Small n designs, such as the one employed in this research, typically rely on visual
inspection of data rather than inferential statistical analysis and are best suited to
detecting relatively large clinical treatment effects (Alberto and Troutman 2003;
Baer 1977). Causal inferences about subtle treatment differences are difficult to
judge unless they are very consistent. Close examination of some data in the present
study indicates that there may have been some very small effects that the research
design selected was not suited to detect. If the differences, however, were not
sufficient to provide a clearly demonstrated effect within the alternating treatment
design, the clinical significance must be open to question.
While the overall results in the present research were not particularly
encouraging, reasonably positive results were obtained for one student (i.e., Helen)
and small but consistent differences for a second (i.e., Harry). This highlights the
advantage of using a small n design. The effects of the intervention for individuals,
particularly for children with disabilities, may be masked in a group design. The
small n design used in the study was ideal for determining the effects of the
intervention for each child, and there was evidence that children responded
differentially to the intervention.
The findings of the present study illuminated several possible directions for future
research. There is a need to replicate the existing study to establish whether the
findings are robust across a wider variety of settings and children. Within the present
study, the effects of a setting event intervention were examined in isolation. It
remains possible that such interventions could be used to enhance the efficacy of
J Dev Phys Disabil (2009) 21:279–300 297

more intensive interventions such as direct teaching and peer-mediated strategies.

Consequently, it is also suggested that future research be conducted to examine
whether manipulation of toy and material types can be used to enhance the effec-
tiveness of more intrusive interventions.
There is a number of limitations of the present research that should be
acknowledged. Several limitations relate to external validity. The small sample of
target children places restrictions on the extent to which the findings of the study can
be extended to other children and settings. Direct and systematic replication will
assist in overcoming this limitation. It should be noted, however, that the present
study was conducted under conditions that were far more typical of an inclusive
preschool environment than previous research. While teachers generally undertook a
supervisory role in the free play period, as was the case in the earlier Stoneman et al.
(1983) study, there was nevertheless irregular interaction which could vary in
duration, which was considered a potentially confounding variable. The decision
was taken to standardized teacher interaction with children to address this possible
confound. While this effectively standardized typical practice during the free play
periods and represented only a limited change in teacher behavior, it must be
acknowledged that it did represent a change to the normal practice during the free
play period and may compromise external validity. It should be noted, however, that
there is a body of research suggesting that extensive teacher interaction may inhibit
child interactions (Burnstein 1986; Chandler et al. 1992; DeKlyen and Odom 1989;
Goldstein et al. 1997; Halliday et al. 1985; Harper and McCluskey 2003). For
example, Harper and McCluskey (2003) found that levels of adult-child interaction
correlated negatively with child-child interactions in free play in inclusive preschool
classrooms. Further, analysis of event sequences indicated that adult initiations to
children decreased the probability of child-child initiations. There is certainly
substantial evidence that constraining teacher interactions during naturalistic free
play periods may increase the probability of child interaction. Nevertheless, it should
be acknowledged that it is also possible that skilled teacher intervention, such as
prompting children to play together, could have a facilitative effect. In either case,
the effects of adult interaction have the potential to be confounding. Each of the
children was absent at some point during the research, primarily due to illness. In
particular, it should be noted that Harry was absent for 5 days, so his data needs to
be viewed with caution. These absences were unfortunate but difficult to avoid when
dealing with young children over extended periods.

Conclusion

The current study raises questions whether the effects of social and isolate toys on
social interaction are as great in a typical inclusive preschool environment as in more
artificial settings. The results of the current study indicated modest effects, with
evidence of variation of effectiveness across children with disabilities. This was
confirmed across a broad range of variables in the current study, directly measuring
the frequency and quality of social interaction, as well as social and cognitive levels
of play. Despite being possibly less acceptable to regular preschool staff, more
intrusive interventions may be needed for some children.
298 J Dev Phys Disabil (2009) 21:279–300

References
Alberto, P. A., & Troutman, A. C. (2003). Applied behavior analysis for teachers (6th ed.). New Jersey:
Merrill Prentice-Hall.
Alpern, G., Boll, T., & Shearer, M. A. (1985). Developmental Profile II. Los Angeles: Western
Psychological Services.
Baer, D. M. (1977). Perhaps it would be better not to know everything. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 10, 167–172.
Bakeman, R., & Brownlee, J. R. (1980). The strategic use of parallel play: a sequential analysis. Child
Development, 51, 873–878.
Barlow, D. H., & Hayes, S. C. (1979). Alternating treatment design: one strategy for comparing the effects
of two treatments in a single subject. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 12, 199–210.
Beckman, P. J., & Kohl, F. L. (1984). The effects of social and isolate toys on the interactions and play of
integrated and nonintegrated groups of preschoolers. Education and Training of the Mentally
Retarded, 19, 169–174.
Burnstein, N. D. (1986). The effects of classroom organization on mainstreamed preschool children.
Exceptional Children, 52, 425–434.
Bzoch, K. R., & League, R. (1991). REEL-2: Receptive-Expressive Emergent Language Test (2nd ed.).
Austin: Pro-ed.
Carlson, M., Fanchiang, S., Zemke, R., & Clark, F. (1996). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of
occupational therapy for older persons. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 50, 89–98.
Carter, M., & Driscoll, C. (2007). A conceptual examination of setting events. Educational Psychology,
27, 655–673.
Carter, M., Kemp, C., & Iacono, T. (1995). The development and evaluation of a collaborative model of
support for students with severe language disorders. Unpublished manuscript, Macquarie University
Special Education Centre.
Carter, M., & O’Gorman Hughes, C. (2001). Toys and materials as setting events on the social interaction
of preschool children. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 25, 49–66.
Chandler, L. K., Fowler, S. A., & Lubeck, R. C. (1992). An analysis of the effects of multiple setting
events on the social behavior of preschool children with special needs. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 25, 249–263.
Cleary, R. J., & Casella, G. (1997). An application of Gibbs sampling to estimation in meta-analysis:
accounting for publication bias. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 22, 141–154.
Cowden, J. E., & Torrey, C. C. (1990). A comparison of isolate and social toys on play behaviors of
handicapped preschoolers. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 7, 170–182.
Davis, C. A., & Fox, J. J. (1999). Evaluating environmental arrangement as setting events: review and
implications for measurement. Journal of Behavioral Education, 9, 77–96.
DeKlyen, M., & Odom, S. L. (1989). Activity structure and social interactions with peers in
developmentally integrated play groups. Journal of Early Intervention, 13, 342–352.
Diamond, K. E. (2001). Relationships among young children’s ideas, emotional understanding, and social
contact with classmates with disabilities. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 21, 104–113.
Driscoll, C., & Carter, M. (2004). Spatial density as a setting event for the social interaction of preschool
children. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 51, 7–37.
Dunn, L. (1993). The effects of toy and group composition on the social play of young children with and without
handicaps. (Master's thesis, University of Calgary, 1991). Masters Abstracts International, 31(02), 552.
Ghuman, J. K., Peebles, C. D., & Ghuman, H. S. (1998). Review of social interaction measures in infants
and preschool children. Infants and Young Children, 11(2), 21–44.
Goldstein, H., English, K., Shafer, K., & Kaczmarek, L. (1997). Interaction among preschoolers with and
without disabilities: effects of across-the-day peer intervention. Journal of Speech, Language and
Hearing Research, 40, 33–48.
Gresham, F. M., & Elliott, S. N. (1990). Social skills rating system. Circle Pines: American Guidance
Service Inc.
Grubbs, P. R., & Niemeyer, J. A. (1999). Promoting reciprocal social interactions in inclusive classrooms
for young children. Infants and Young Children, 11(3), 9–18.
Guralnick, M. J., & Hammond, M. (1999). Sequential analysis of the social play of young children with
mild developmental delays. Journal of Early Intervention, 22, 243–256.
Guralnick, M. J., Connor, R. T., & Hammond, M. (1995). Parent perspectives of peer relationships and
friendships in integrated and specialized programs. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 99,
457–476.
J Dev Phys Disabil (2009) 21:279–300 299

Halliday, J., McNaughton, S., & Glynn, T. (1985). Influencing children’s choice of play activities at
kindergarten through teacher participation. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 20, 48–58.
Harper, L. V., & McCluskey, K. S. (2003). Teacher-child and child-child interactions in inclusive preschool
settings: do adults inhibit peer interactions? Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 18, 163–184.
Hemmeter, M. L. (2000). Classroom-based interventions: Evaluating the past and looking toward the
future. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 20, 56–61.
Hendrickson, J. M., Strain, P. S., Tremblay, A., & Shores, R. (1981). Relationship between toy and
material use and the occurrence of social interactive behaviors by normally developing preschool
children. Psychology in the Schools, 18, 500–504.
Hendrickson, J. M., Gable, R. A., & Shores, R. E. (1987). The ecological perspective: setting events and
behavior. The Pointer, 31(3), 40–44.
Hubbard, R., & Armstrong, J. S. (1997). Publication bias against null results. Psychological Reports, 80,
337–338.
Innocenti, M. S., Stowitschek, J. J., Rule, S., Killoran, J., & Striefel, S. (1986). A naturalistic study of the
relation between preschool setting events and peer interaction in four activity contexts. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, 1, 141–153.
Ivory, J. J., & McCollum, J. A. (1999). Effects of social and isolate toys on social play in an inclusive
setting. The Journal of Special Education, 32, 238–243.
Johnson, J. E., & Ershler, J. L. (1985). Social and cognitive play forms and toy use by nonhandicapped
and handicapped preschoolers. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 5(3), 69–82.
Johnson, J. E., Christie, J. F., & Yawkey, T. D. (1987). Play and early childhood development. USA:
Harper Collins.
Kantor, J. R. (1959). Interbehavioral psychology. Granville, Ohio: The Principia.
Kim, A., Vaughn, S., Elbaum, B., Hughes, M. T., Sloan, C. V., & Sridhar, D. (2003). Effects of toys or group
composition for children with disabilities: a synthesis. Journal of Early Intervention, 25, 189–205.
Levine, M. (1986). The effects of toys on the play behavior of handicapped preschoolers. (Doctoral
dissertation, University of Illinois, 1986). Dissertation Abstracts International, 47, 863.
Mahon, K. L., Shores, R. E., & Buske, C. J. (1999). Issues of conducting research on setting events:
measurement and control of dependent and independent variables. Education and Treatment of
Children, 22, 317–332.
Martin, S. S., Brady, M. P., & Williams, R. E. (1991). Effects of toys on the social behavior of preschool
children in integrated and nonintegrated groups: Investigation of a setting event. Journal of Early
Intervention, 15, 153–161.
McCabe, J. R., Jenkins, J. R., Mills, P. E., Dale, P. S., & Cole, K. N. (1999). Effects of group composition,
materials, and developmental level on play in preschool children with disabilities. Journal of Early
Intervention, 22, 164–178.
McConnell, S. R. (2002). Interventions to facilitate social interaction for young children with autism:
Review of available research and recommendations for educational intervention and future research.
Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 32, 351–372.
Nordquist, V. M., Twardosz, S., & McEvoy, M. A. (1991). Effects of environmental reorganization in
classrooms for children with autism. Journal of Early Intervention, 15, 135–152.
O’Gorman Hughes, C., & Carter, M. (2002). Toys and materials as setting events for the social interaction
of preschool children with special needs. Educational Psychology, 22, 429–444.
Odom, S. L., McConnell, S. R., & Chandler, L. K. (1993). Acceptability and feasibility of classroom-
based social interaction interventions for young children with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 60,
226–236.
Parker, J. G., & Asher, S. R. (1987). Peer relations and later personal adjustment: are low-accepted
children at risk? Psychological Bulletin, 102, 357–389.
Parten, M. B. (1932). Social participation among pre-school children. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 27, 243–269.
Phillips, C. V. (2004). Publication bias in situ. BMC Medical Research Methodology Retrieved February
24, 2006, from http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/4/20
Puza, B. (2003). Lies, damned lies and statistical traps. The Skeptic, 23, 16–19.
Raab, M. (2003). Relationship between types of toys and young children’s social behavior. Bridges:
Practice-Based Research Syntheses, 1(8), 1–13.
Rettig, M., Kallam, M., & McCarthy-Salm, K. (1993). The effect of social and isolate toys on the social
interactions of preschool-aged children. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 28, 252–256.
Rubin, K. H. (1977). Brief report: the social and cognitive value of preschool toys and activities.
Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 9, 382–385.
300 J Dev Phys Disabil (2009) 21:279–300

Shearer, D. D., Kohler, F. W., Buchan, K. A., & McCullough, K. M. (1996). Promoting independent
interactions between preschoolers with autism and their nondisabled peers: an analysis of self-
monitoring. Early Education and Development, 7, 205–220.
Smilansky, S. (1968). The effects of sociodramatic play on disadvantaged children: Preschool children.
New York: Wiley.
Sterling, T. D., Rosenbaum, W. L., & Weinkam, J. J. (1995). Publication decisions revisited: the effect of
the outcome of statistical tests on the decision to publish and vice versa. The American Statistician,
49, 108–112.
Stern, J. M., & Simes, R. J. (1997). Publication bias: evidence of delayed publication in a cohort study of
clinical research projects. British Medical Journal, 315(7109), 640–645.
Stoneman, Z., Cantrell, M. L., & Hoover-Dempsey, K. (1983). The association between play materials and
social behavior in a mainstreamed preschool: a naturalistic investigation. Journal of Applied
Developmental Psychology, 4, 163–174.
Trembley, C. (1988). The effects of setting events on the social interactions of preschool children. (Doctoral
dissertation, University of Western Ontario, 1988). Dissertation Abstracts International, 49, 1959.