Journal of Early Intervention, 1999 Vol . 22, No . I, 70–86 Copyright 1999 by the Division of Early Childhood . Council for Exceptional Children The Nature and Meaning of Social Integration for Young Children With Mild Developmental Delays in Inclusive Settings MICHAEL J. GURALNICK University of Washington This paper examines fundamental conceptual, methodological, and outcome issues with respect to the social integration of preschool-age children with mild developmental delays in inclusive early childhood settings. Cast within a developmental-ecological framework, social integration is evaluated in terms of three constructs: (1) the connectedness of peer interactions; (2) the quality of interpersonal relationships ; and (3) the nature of adjustments that occur during social exchanges. A general model of factors that influence social integration and their interrelationships is presented as a means of organizing future intervention activities to promote social integration. One expectation of inclusive practices is that goal of social integration has been achieved in meaningful social relationships will form be- inclusive preschool settings is examined in this tween children with and without special needs paper. To do so, a conceptual and methodolog- as they become familiar with one another in ear- ical framework is established first to character- ly childhood settings. This expectation that so- ize the nature and meaning of social integration cial integration will occur with respect to chil- in inclusive settings. This is followed by a sec- dren's peer relationships and friendships seems tion in which the available data on social inte- reasonable because inclusive practices empha- gration are organized and evaluated within this size principles and values that seek to maximize framework. Finally, two general approaches de- respect for individual differences in develop- signed to promote social integration are consid- It, ensure equal access, and foster a sense of ered, and a general model relating factors influ- .,belonging to a common community (Guralnick, encing social integration is presented. 1978, 1990). Ideally, we would hope that inclu- It is important to note that this discussion sive early childhood programs would be char- will be limited to preschool-age children with acterized by children's willingness to under- mild developmental (cognitive) delays .' This stand, go beyond, accept, and even overlook de- velopmental differences, unusual behavior pat- ' The population of children with mild developmental (cognitive) terns, or certain physical characteristics of their delays described in this paper was carefully defined using well- accepted criteria based on intelligence test scores and measures of peers, and establish productive social relation- adaptive behavior. Specific exclusionary criteria also were estab- ships. To support the development of these pos- lished with respect to children's behavior problems, sensory def- icits, motor impairments, and communication disorders . Etiology itive relationships between children with and of the delay (when known) was not considered, as the categorical without special needs, the programmatic design definition was applied uniformly. Of note, within this relatively homogenous and well-defined population, only weak associations of quality early childhood settings should ex- are obtained between peer-related social competence and intelli- emplify inclusive principles and values by pro- gence or language measures, although behavior problems are more strongly correlated (Guralnick, Connor. Hammond, Gottman, & moting full participation of all children in social Kinnish . I996a; Guralnick & Groom 1985) . Individual differences and nonsocial activities, and by adapting and in peer interactions and social integration appear to he related to more process-type factors (see text) . Other well-defined popula- accommodating to children's special needs. tions, such as children with communication disorders, are likely In view of the importance of what is certainly to exhibit patterns different from those found for children with mild developmental delays (e .g ., Guralnick, Connor, Hammond, a core issue in our field, the degree to which the Gottman, & Kinnish, 1996h). 70 JEI, 1999, 22:1 is a relatively high incidence group even at development, however, that are more difficult the preschool level ; one that generally is in- to conceptualize or to assess than the domain cluded in typical preschool or daycare set- of peer-related social development (Howes, tings. Moreover, by focusing on children with 1988). The complexity of this issue becomes mild developmental delays, a framework for apparent when we realize what must be con- examining critical developmental and context sidered: (a) the various manifestations of so- issues can be established ; something not cial integration (e.g., active acceptance, pas- readily accomplished for heterogeneous sive integration, exclusion, rejection), (b) the groups of children . In fact, it will be argued varying strengths of a relationship (e .g., ac- that both developmental and ecological per- quaintanceship, intimate friendship), (c) the spectives are essential for a complete under- different types of data (e .g., observational, standing of social integration in inclusive set- phenomenological), (d) the specific character- tings for this group of children . Such a per- istics of playmates (e .g., chronological age, spective may encourage similar approaches gender), and (e) the context in which peer in- for other well-defined groups of children. teractions take place (e .g., free-play or struc- tured activities ; dramatic play or motor-ori- THE MEANING OF SOCIAL ented activities) . Thus, the first challenge for INTEGRATION an outcomes approach is to define (with ex- pectations) and measure the dimensions of so- Unfortunately, no generally accepted criteria cial integration as represented in inclusive set- exist that can inform us about the extent to tings. Then, we must examine the available which social integration has been achieved. data in relation to this set of expectations and Consequently, a framework that carefully dimensions. specifies expectations for specific patterns of social integration outcomes is needed . These EVALUATING SOCIAL expectations can then be evaluated to deter- INTEGRATION OUTCOMES mine if specified outcomes have been realized. Of importance, establishing expectations is To establish an outcomes framework, three so- somewhat arbitrary and will vary with the cial integration constructs and corresponding purpose or value framework developed to measures are defined and examined: (a) the guide the analysis. A reasonable approach connectedness (or extent) of peer interactions; (though perhaps idealized) is to expect full in- (b) the quality of interpersonal relationships; tegration to be found across all specified so- and (c) the nature of adjustments that occur cial interaction dimensions . Other approaches during social exchanges . Data relevant to each may establish lower expectations or may an- of these three social integration constructs in ticipate differences in social integration for relation to interactions occurring between different dimensions of social interaction or children with and without developmental de- differences depending upon whether assess- lays are presented. ments are obtained from the perspective of It is important to point out that the social children with or without developmental de- integration of children with mild developmen- lays. The important point is that expectations tal delays will be evaluated in relation to typ- are made explicit. ically developing chronological age mates. Conceptually, an outcomes-based frame- Despite the fact that children with mild de- work assumes that identified patterns of social velopmental delays are less developmentally integration meaningfully represent variations advanced than typically developing children in children's social experiences . Correspond- of the same age, parents view typically de- ingly, it assumes that a methodology is avail- veloping age mates as the appropriate refer- able or can be constructed in which measures ence group for their child (Guralnick, Connor, can be derived to index identified social in- & Hammond, 1995). In addition, social inte- tegration patterns . There are few domains in gration as evaluated within the framework of Guralnick 71 the three social integration constructs will pri- of participants found in the studies of social marily take place from the perspective of the integration has not allowed analyses of spe- typically developing children. Moreover, in cific subgroups of children, such as children this analysis, the expectation (hypothesis) is with mild developmental delays who are the that complete social integration is achieved focus of this paper. The value of "specificity," when typically developing children are con- i.e., selecting well-defined and more homo- nected to and maintain the same quality of geneous subgroups of children, has been em- interpersonal relationships with children with phasized for the domain of social integration mild developmental delays as they do with (Buysse & Bailey, 1993 ; Guralnick, 1981b) children without delays. This analysis further and for the general field of early intervention assumes that for complete social integration to (Guralnick, 1997b, 1998). In addition, existing occur, typically developing children must groups of children with and without disabili- make appropriate adjustments