Inclusion
Unified Sports, Social Inclusion and Athlete Reported Experiences: A Systematic
Mixed Studies Review
--Manuscript Draft--
Manuscript Number: INCLUSION-M-21-00027R2
Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: intellectual disability; self-concept; Special Olympics, students, synthesis
Corresponding Author: Amy Accardo
Rowan University
Glassboro, New Jersey UNITED STATES
First Author: Amy L Accardo
Order of Authors: Amy L Accardo
Sarah L Ferguson
Hind M Alharbi
Mary K Kalliny
Casey L Woodfield
Lisa J Vernon-Dotson
Manuscript Region of Origin: UNITED STATES
Abstract: Inclusive sports have emerged as a potential tool for building social inclusion within
diverse populations. The Special Olympics Unified Sports programs are an example of
inclusion initiatives specific to students with intellectual disabilities and sports that can
be reevaluated with new understandings of inclusion. This systematic mixed studies
review aimed to capture athlete Unified Sports experiences and identify what athletes
reported about their participation. The systematic review identified nine original studies
conducted by six unrelated research groups. Results across the studies are
synthesized and suggestions for future research are presented. Athletes in all nine
studies reviewed reported positive experiences with Unified Sports leading to
increased social inclusion and/or self-concepts.
Powered by Editorial Manager® and ProduXion Manager® from Aries Systems Corporation
UNIFIED SPORTS, INCLUSION & ATHLETE EXPERIENCES
Unified Sports, Social Inclusion and Athlete Reported Experiences:
A Systematic Mixed Studies Review
Acknowledgments: This manuscript was made possible by funding received through New Jersey
Department of Education Grant PTE 500-20200022
Blinded Title Page Click here to access/download;Blinded Title Page;Blinded Title
Page.docx
UNIFIED SPORTS, INCLUSION & ATHLETE EXPERIENCES 1
Unified Sports, Social Inclusion and Athlete Reported Experiences:
A Systematic Mixed Studies Review
Abstract
Inclusive sports have emerged as a potential tool for building social inclusion within diverse populations.
The Special Olympics Unified Sports programs are an example of inclusion initiatives specific to students
with intellectual disabilities and sports that can be reevaluated with new understandings of inclusion.
This systematic mixed studies review aimed to capture athlete Unified Sports experiences and identify
what athletes reported about their participation. The systematic review identified nine original studies
conducted by six unrelated research groups. Results across the studies are synthesized and suggestions
for future research are presented. Athletes in all nine studies reviewed reported positive experiences
with Unified Sports leading to increased social inclusion and/or self-concepts.
Keywords: intellectual disability, self-concept, Special Olympics, students, synthesis
Edited Manuscript Click here to access/download;Edited Manuscript;1. Unified
Sports, Social Inclusion REVISED II.docx
UNIFIED SPORTS, INCLUSION & ATHLETE EXPERIENCES 2
Unified Sports, Social Inclusion and Athlete Reported Experiences:
A Systematic Mixed Studies Review
In a post pandemic world as we face the effects of Covid-19 and systemic racism, schools
worldwide are focusing on the importance of social inclusion for students with various intersecting
socio-economic, religious, cultural, and linguistic backgrounds, sexual orientations, gender identities,
and even immigrant status (Schwab et al., 2018). As we broaden the lens of inclusion initiatives to
center disability, students become comfortable understanding disability as diversity. Meeting the social
needs of students is a crucial aspect of inclusion initiatives (Siperstein et al., 2017). The Special Olympics
Unified Sports programs (Baran et al., 2009) are an example of inclusion initiatives specific to students
with intellectual disabilities and sports that can be reevaluated with new understandings of inclusion.
Social Inclusion
Inclusion is recognized as a dynamic process that involves navigating interpersonal relationships,
environmental opportunities, as well as socio-political factors that change across various social contexts
of life for each individual (McConkey et al., 2019). Social inclusion can be defined as an interaction
between interpersonal relationships and community involvement, two major life domains (Simplican et
al., 2015). Community-wide social inclusion is a significant priority for people with disabilities, their
families, policymakers, and service providers (Simplican et al., 2015) as inclusion reduces the stigma
associated with disability and provides opportunities for social development (Lopes, 2015). Social
inclusion enables all members of the community to acquire vital skills, develop a sense of belonging, and
build independence (Kiuppis, 2018). In terms of social inclusion, centering disabled
1
students’ voices and
1
We use the terms “with a disability” and “disabled” interchangeably throughout this paper to show
acceptance of both professional use of person-first language and the preference of many members of
the disability community for identity-first language.
UNIFIED SPORTS, INCLUSION & ATHLETE EXPERIENCES 3
perspectives in the conversation about what works for them is essential to capture their needs and
priorities (Connor et al., 2008).
Inclusive sports have emerged as a potential tool for building social inclusion within diverse
populations. Sports are considered important within society. Involvement in sports may help eliminate
social exclusion within the community (Haudenhuyse, 2017) and promote marginalized groups' social
inclusion (Grandisson et al., 2019). Sports have been found to empower disabled people by helping
them realize their full potential and their ability to advocate for societal changes (Kiuppis, 2018). Social
inclusion through sports is regarded internationally as a means for people with disabilities to increase
their social networks (McConkey & Menke, 2020). Through the involvement of school-age students with
intellectual disabilities in sports, stigma and discrimination associated with their status may be reduced.
A good example of an approach that centers social inclusion through sports is Special Olympic Unified
Sports, which has exemplified the popularity of inclusive sports on an international scale.
Special Olympics Unified Sports
The Special Olympic Unified Sports program is built on the premise that active involvement as
part of a sports team provides natural opportunities for friendship formation (Baran et al., 2009).
Unified Sports teams are formed of individuals with and without disabilities of similar sporting ability
and age who train and play together (Siperstein & Hardman, 2001; Baran et al., 2009). While the
program was founded on the principle of promoting friendship and understanding, it has shown to have
many other benefits such as providing young people with disabilities the opportunity to play sports, and
to interact with other kids and have fun (Unified Sports, n.d.). Unified Sports provides a selection of
indoor and outdoor sports such as basketball, bowling, golf, softball, and volleyball. Through
participation in Unified Sports, individuals with intellectual disabilities are provided opportunities to
enhance their sports skills and to encounter new experiences and challenges which have been found to
UNIFIED SPORTS, INCLUSION & ATHLETE EXPERIENCES 4
lead to improved self-esteem and the development of friendships (Baran et al., 2009; Castagno, 2001;
Roswal, 2007; Siperstein & Hardman, 2001).
The Special Olympics organization launched Unified Sports in 1989, and today Unified Sports has
an international presence (Special Olympics Unified Sports, 2012, p. 1). According to the Special
Olympics website, Unified Sports are played in more than 4500 elementary, middle, and high schools in
the United States and the program has also expanded to universities. Moreover, a large number of
influential organizations such as Lions Club international have become strong global supporters in
expanding Unified Sports by partnering with Special Olympics. Major sports organizations and leagues
such as the National Basketball Association (NBA), Major League Soccer (MLS), Union of European
Football Associations (UEFA), National Collegiate Athletic Association, D-III, ESPN's X Games Aspen,
National Federation of High Schools (NFHS), and National Intramural-Recreational Sports Association
(NIRSA) are also supporting the program by presenting it as a mean to show the power of Unified Sports
(Unified Sports, n.d.). In addition, several major corporations and foundations such as The Coca-Cola
Company and the Samuel Family Foundation are partners in these efforts (Special Olympics, n.d.).
Unified Sports Perspectives
Much of what is known about athletes’ experiences in sports comes from the perspectives of
nondisabled athletes (Harada & Siperstein, 2009). Within the literature focused on sports experiences of
athletes with disabilities, research focuses on parasports (e.g., Allan et al., 2018), traditional Special
Olympics programming as opposed to Unified Sports initiatives (e.g., Hamandi et al., 2019) and/or the
perspectives of adult participants (e.g., Dailey, 2020). Even within literature specifically focused on the
experiences of participants in Unified Sports, studies focus on attitudes of students without disabilities
(e.g., Siperstein et al., 2017; Townsend & Hassell, 2007). Other research has reported on the impacts of
Unified Sports programs across a variety of stakeholders, including athletes and partners (Castagno et
al., 2001; McConkey et al., 2019; McConkey & Menke, 2020; Ozer et al., 2012; Wilski et al. 2012), as well
UNIFIED SPORTS, INCLUSION & ATHLETE EXPERIENCES 5
as coaches and parents (Baran et al., 2009; Hassan et al., 2012; McConkey et al., 2013). This literature
offers a broad perspective on the impacts of Unified Sports across stakeholder groups, and highlights
the reciprocal benefits of these inclusive sports activities.
Student Reported Experiences
As a team of researchers newly connected to Unified Sports through a University-state
partnership, we set out to understand the comprehensive published research literature on Unified
Sports and social inclusion with a focus on prioritizing the existing research eliciting athlete reported
Unified Sports experiences in response to the dearth of research centering their perspectives. The
decision was made to focus on student athletes participating in school-age Unified Sports programs as
we aimed to gain an understanding of the impact of Unified Sports Experiences within K-21 education
communities, specifically the experiences of children and young adults with disabilities. Gathering
students’ perspectives results in a “more holistic evaluation of the inclusion in school” (Schwab et al.,
2018, p. 38). In terms of social inclusion, centering disabled students in the conversation about what
works for disabled students is essential, so we felt it important to prioritize the research literature in
which student athletes themselves share their perceptions of Unified Sports participation. Throughout
this paper we use the term “athlete” to refer to students with intellectual disabilities participating in
Unified Sports programs, which is consistent with the language used in Special Olympics Unified Sports
programs.
No identified review has systematically analyzed student athlete reported experiences in
connection to Unified Sports involvement. The purpose of this review was to consider the extant data
reported by school-age students with intellectual disability participating in Unified Sports. Specifically,
we aim to explore the focus of the research capturing athlete Unified Sports experiences and to identify
what athletes report about participation in Unified Sports through the following broad questions:
1. What is the focus of the research capturing athlete experiences with Unified Sports? (stated
UNIFIED SPORTS, INCLUSION & ATHLETE EXPERIENCES 6
research objective; research questions)
2. What methods have been used to gather athlete experiences? (research and data collection
methods)
3. What do the researchers report about athletes’ experiences participating in Unified Sports?
Methods
To answer these research questions, a convergent systematic mixed studies review was
conducted to synthesize the research on student athlete voice. A mixed methods approach to synthesis
was deemed essential to our aim of uncovering both the focus of existing research studies on student
athlete experiences as well as the various tools and methods that have been used to capture student
experience data. Twelve steps in conducting a systematic mixed studies review (Ferguson et al., 2020)
were followed, with data collected in both quantitative and qualitative forms and analyzed in a
qualitative content and thematic analysis to synthesize the data and answer the research questions
(Clarke, et al., 2019; Stemler, 2000).
Literature Search Procedure
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses Protocols (PRISMA-P)
guided the search procedures and reporting within this review (Moher et al., 2015). First, a search of
academic journals was conducted across nine databases: Academic Search Complete, Academic Search
Premier, CINAHL, ERIC, PsychInfo, PubMed, SAGE, SPORTDiscus and Web of Science Core Collection in
March 2021 using the key terms (“Special Olympics” OR “Unified Champion” OR “Unified Sport”) AND
(athlete OR students OR disability). Second, a hand search was conducted of the reference section of
select recent reviews focused on inclusive sports (Grandisson et al., 2019; Scifo et al., 2019). Figure 1
presents a flow chart of the study search process.
<< INSERT FIGURE 1 APPROXIMATELY HERE >>
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
UNIFIED SPORTS, INCLUSION & ATHLETE EXPERIENCES 7
For inclusion in this review, articles were required to: (a) be an original study using qualitative,
mixed methods, and/or quantitative methods; (b) focus on Unified Sports defined as an inclusive sports
program in which people with and without intellectual disabilities join together on the same team
(SpecialOlympics.org); (c) include school-age athletes with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities;
and (d) include data reported by athletes participating in Unified Sports that can be parsed out of the
larger sample (if other participants are included such as coaches, parents, typical peers, etc.). To
maintain a focus on student experiences, studies including data not reported by athletes were excluded
(e.g. physical health measurement data). Articles that did not conduct an original study, such as
practitioner pieces, research briefs and articles in which authors mention athletes participating in
Unified Sports but do not elicit original student voice data were also excluded.
Data Extraction and Analysis
A data extraction table was developed with consideration of the study research questions and
Cooper’s (2010) recommended categories for systematic review. Data was extracted from each article in
the eight categories of report characteristics, focus of the study, program details, participants, data
collection, study features, results, and quality appraisal. Three authors read each study and completed
the data extraction independently. The full group of authors then met with discrepancies reviewed and
discussed to 100% agreement.
Analysis of the data from the systematic review used two forms of qualitative analysis: content
analysis and thematic analysis. Qualitative content analysis was used to describe the key study features,
summarizing information on the study samples, data collection methods, and quality indicators
(Stemler, 2000). Then, thematic analysis was used to synthesize the findings across the included studies
related to the study focus and the athlete experiences (Clarke, et al., 2019). Findings sections of the
original articles were extracted, including provided themes and representative athlete quotes, and
analyzed using a thematic analysis process to create initial codes that were then collapsed into themes
UNIFIED SPORTS, INCLUSION & ATHLETE EXPERIENCES 8
in a collaborative and iterative process. These two qualitative analysis approaches addressed the
systematic review research questions in the present study and allowed for integration across both types
of data and across all the included studies.
Quality Appraisal
The methodological quality of each included study was assessed by three authors using the
systematic review tool QualSyst (Kmet et al., 2004). Qualitative studies were scored using a 10-item
checklist and quantitative studies were scored using a 14-item checklist resulting in a percentage range
of 80% or above indicating strong quality and less than 50% as limited quality (see Table 1). The full
group of authors then met and quality appraisal discrepancies were reviewed and discussed to 100%
agreement.
Results
Database searches resulted in 60 studies after duplicates were removed. After inclusion and
exclusion criteria were applied, 11 articles were identified to include student athlete reported data. Two
additional articles were eliminated during full article coding as data was found to not be specific to
school age athletes (McConkey & Menke, 2020; Pan & Davis, 2019). Nine articles remained for
systematic review, including five qualitative studies: Briere and Siegle (2008); Hassan et al. (2012),
McConkey et al. (2013), McConkey et al. (2019), Wilski et al. (2012), and four quantitative studies: Baran
et al. (2009), Castagno (2011), Elsissy (2013), and Ozer et al. (2012).
Descriptions of Included Studies
Study Quality
Overall study quality was found to be adequate to strong (see Kmet, 2004) with only one study
receiving a limited score likely due to the aim of publication in a practitioner journal (Briere & Siegle,
2008). The quality of the four remaining qualitative studies ranged from 60% (adequate) to 85% (strong)
with researchers consistently reporting research objectives, context/setting, systematic data collection
UNIFIED SPORTS, INCLUSION & ATHLETE EXPERIENCES 9
procedures, and conclusions supported by results. Partial reporting of study design and theoretical
framework, and absent reporting of potential influence of researcher bias, emerged as patterns across
studies. The quality of the four quantitative studies ranged from 75% (good) to 96% (strong) with all
studies reporting subject selection strategy, analytic methods, some estimate of variance, and details of
outcomes. A noted pattern detracting from quality scores was a lack of reported control for confounding
variables. A frequent partial reporting of participant characteristics emerged along with a need to collect
and report data beyond athlete age (e.g., participant gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, etc.) as
well as a need to include replicable questionnaire/interview content and response options in published
studies.
Study and Sample Characteristics
The reviewed studies were published between 2001 and 2019 and reflected research conducted
across Germany (n=4), Hungary (n=3), Poland (n=3), Serbia (n=3), Ukraine (n=3), USA (n=3), Turkey
(n=2), Egypt (n=1), and India (n=1) with four of the nine studies spanning multiple countries. Three
studies were found to use the same data set (Hassan et al., 2012; McConkey et al., 2013; Wilski et al.,
2012). Overall 289 athletes participating in Special Olympics Unified Sports basketball, football and
soccer were represented across studies. Sample size varied and ranged from 4 to 156 athletes (M=41).
In terms of demographics, 86% of the sample (where reported) was male and athletes were most
commonly reported as high school aged. Only the author groups using the same data set (Hassan et al.,
2012; McConkey et al., 2013; Wilski et al., 2012) provided athlete socioeconomic status, reported as low
when compared to partners. While beyond the scope of this systematic review focused on athlete
experiences, 7/9 studies reported on other participants including a total of 240 partners (players
without intellectual disability) and 65 coaches.
Focus of the Research
UNIFIED SPORTS, INCLUSION & ATHLETE EXPERIENCES 10
All included studies focused on program evaluation. Studies aimed to identify the impact of
Unified Sports participation on student athletes and to understand related factors. In terms of a
theoretical foundation provided within studies, a literature review of social inclusion and the history of
Special Olympics and Unified Sports emerged as the foundation for research aims (e.g., Castagno, 2001;
Hassan et al., 2012; McConkey et al., 2013; McConkey et al., 2019; Ozer et al., 2012) as well as a review
of foundational research on self-concept (Briere & Siegle 19067; Elsissy, 2013). In relation to social
inclusion, contact theory (Allport, 1958) was identified as undergirding the research of Baran et al.
(2009).
The focus of stated research objectives and/or research questions of each original study specific
to capturing athlete experiences were reviewed and found to group into two overlapping categories: (1)
the impact of Unified Sports on social inclusion, and (2) the impact of Unified Sports on athlete self-
perceptions and personal development. See Table 1.
<< INSERT TABLE 1 APPROXIMATELY HERE>>
Social Inclusion
A primary focus of three qualitative studies reviewed was the impact of Unified Sports to further
athlete social inclusion, for example, to assess the perception of Unified Sports participation to increase
social inclusion opportunities for athletes with intellectual disability. Two articles authored by related
research teams using the same data set focused on Unified Sports organizational factors and how they
were perceived (Hassan et al., 2012; McConkey et al., 2013). The third study (McConkey et al., 2019)
aimed to understand the meaning of social inclusion to Unified Sports participants as well as benefits to
participation and perceived feelings related to inclusion. An overarching goal was to use findings to
inform coaching and Unified Sports policies and procedures.
Athlete Self-Perceptions/ Personal Development
UNIFIED SPORTS, INCLUSION & ATHLETE EXPERIENCES 11
The second primary focus of studies reviewed was athlete self-perceptions and personal
development. Specific areas explored include self-esteem, physical, social, and global self-concept. In
the article authored by Wilski et al. (2012) reporting on the same qualitative data set used in the Hassan
et al. (2012) and McConkey et al. (2013) studies, the team focused on the impact of Unified Sports
participation on athlete physical, mental and social development. Similarly, Briere and Siegle (2008)
focused on understanding the impact of Unified Sports on athlete physical, social and global self-
concept.
All four quantitative studies reviewed also focused on the impact of Unified Sports on athlete
self-concepts and personal development. For example, Elsissy (2013) compared the impact of Unified
Sports and segregated sports participation on athlete sense of self, and Castagno (2001) considered
changes in self-esteem occurring in athletes with and without intellectual disability participating in
Unified Sports (p. 195). Most commonly, researchers explored athlete social self-concept (Baran et al.,
2009; Briere & Siegle, 2008; Castagno, 2001; Ozer et al., 2012; Wilski et al., 2012), physical self-concept
(Baran et al., 2009; Briere & Siegle, 2008; Elsissy, 2013; Wilski et al., 2012) and global self-concept
(Elsissy, 2013; Ozer et al., 2012).
Data Collection Methods
Two primary data collection methods were identified and used to gather student athlete
experiences: interviews and questionnaires.
Interviews
Athlete interviews were the main method of all five qualitative studies. The data set collected by
Hassan et al. (2012), McConkey et al. (2013) and Wilski et al. (2012) captured athlete experiences
through both one-on-one and group interviews. The research group conducted interviews that were
semi-structured and followed a topic guide with suggested trigger questions. An average of four team
interviews were conducted in each of five countries (N=125 athletes) in addition to 5 individual athlete
UNIFIED SPORTS, INCLUSION & ATHLETE EXPERIENCES 12
interviews per country (N=25). Interviews were conducted using an informal style with care taken to
elaborate upon the shared responses of each participant (McConkey, 2013). Coding methodology was
reported as interpretative phenomenological analysis (McConkey et al., 2013).
McConkey et al. (2019) conducted eight group interviews with athletes (N=49) using a
structured interview schedule with pictures. First athletes were shown pictures of youth taking part in
activities together (e.g. gathering in a café) and asked structured questions around if a person was being
included or excluded. Next, athletes were shown pictures of Unified Sports participants and asked
similar structured questions. Findings were coded using Braun and Clarke’s (2006) framework for
thematic content analysis. Moreover, Briere and Siegle (2008) conducted one-on-one interviews with
athletes (N=4). No information was provided regarding coding procedures.
Questionnaires
Five questionnaires/ inventories were identified as data collection methods to elicit the self-
perceptions and personal development of athletes: the Friendship Activity Scale (Siperstein, 1980); the
Adjective Checklist (Siperstein, 1980); the Katz-Zigler Self-Esteem Questionnaire (Zigler, 1994); the Piers-
Harris Self-Concept Scale II (Piers, 1969); and the Special Olympics Unified Sports Questionnaire
(Siperstein et al., 2001).
Both the Friendship Activity Scale (Siperstein, 1980), a 10 question Likert inventory of behavior
intention regarding friendship with people with intellectual disability, and the Adjective Checklist
(Siperstein, 1980), a validated inventory with 34 adjectives across four dimensions (affective feelings,
physical appearance, academic appearance and social behavior) were used in two reviewed studies
(Castagno, 2001; Ozer et al., 2012). Reliability estimates for the Friendship Activity Scale were not
provided for the original validity study, but for the Turkish version validation they were reported as
Cronbach’s alpha = 0.86 (Ozer, et al, 2012). For the Adjective Checklist, reliability estimates were
provided as Cronbach’s alpha = 0.81 from the original validation study (Siperstein, 1980) and 0.62 in the
UNIFIED SPORTS, INCLUSION & ATHLETE EXPERIENCES 13
validation of the Turkish version of the scale (Ozer, et al., 2012). Neither study using these measures
reported reliability estimates for the data they collected. A third validated inventory, the Katz-Zigler Self-
Esteem Questionnaire (Zigler, 1994), was used by Castagno (2001) to measure self-esteem via 12 items
with a yes/no response format. Reliability estimates were provided from the original validation study as
test-retest correlations of 0.75-0.79 and split-half reliability estimates of 0.81-0.85. No reliability
estimates were provided for the data collected using this measure in Castagno (2001).
A measure of self-concept was used in Elsissy (2013) across groups to elicit athlete self-
perception data. The Piers-Harris Self-Concept Scale II (Piers, 1969) is a scale assessing six Domains:
behavioral adjustment, intellectual and school status, physical appearance and attributes, freedom from
anxiety, popularity, and happiness and satisfaction, and was given to both athletes participating in
Unified Sports as well as athletes participating in segregated sports as a comparison. No reliability
estimates were provided for this scale from prior studies or from Elsissy (2013) data collection. Finally,
the Special Olympics Unified Sports Questionnaire (Siperstein et al., 2001) was used by Baran et al.
(2009) to gather information on athlete relationships and self-perceptions. Baran et al. (2009) include a
statement in their Methods that “no reliability or validity estimations have been calculated” (p. 37), and
they do not report estimates in their own results either. Collected data was assessed with
nonparametric measures and included a pre and post Unified Sports participation comparison.
Athlete Reported Experiences
A primary aim of this systematic mixed studies review was to synthesize what student athletes
report as their experiences participating in Unified Sports. Athlete experiences are reported in alignment
with two areas identified as the focus of reviewed studies: (1) social inclusion, and (2) athlete self-
perceptions and personal development.
Athlete Reported Experiences and Social Inclusion
Considering social inclusion as the interaction between the two major life domains of
UNIFIED SPORTS, INCLUSION & ATHLETE EXPERIENCES 14
community involvement and interpersonal relationships (Simplican, 2015), the research teams of Briere
and Siegel (2008), Hassan et al. (2012), McConkey et al. (2013), McConkey et al. (2019) and Wilski et al.
(2012) report athletes experiencing strengthened social inclusion through Unified Sports participation.
Community Involvement. The reviewed studies indicate that developing an identity as part of a
group or sports team provides meaningful access for athletes to community involvement. Researchers in
multiple studies report athletes valuing the opportunity to join a group within the community, with
themes including ideas of identity and group membership, forming inclusive bonds, recognition in the
community, and benefits of competition and group travel (Briere & Siegel, 2008; Hassan et al., 2012;
McConkey et al., 2013; McConkey et al., 2019; Wilski et al, 2012). Reflecting a desire for community
sports involvement, Hassan et al. (2012) report an athlete as saying, “I like playing sports and I wanted
to be a member of group sports and this is the best way I knew how” (p.9). Suggesting the ability of
Unified Sports to expand community social networks, McConkey et al. (2013) report another athlete as
stating, “When I walk around town ... people say hello to me, people that I did not know before but now
I do because I met them through this team or have played against them in some other competitions” (p.
931).
Through community involvement, researchers report athletes experiencing new found pride in
not only themselves but in their teammates along with a growing feeling of positivity and connectedness
(Hassan et al., 2012; McConkey et al., 2013; McConkey et al., 2019). McConkey et al. (2013), reporting a
theme of Inclusive and Equal Bonds, quote an athlete who shared feelings of connection to their
teammates, “We are all needed on the team, there are no star players, we are a great team and the
team is the star” (p.929). Similarly, McConkey et al. (2019) share an athletes’ strong connection to their
team to represent a theme of Inclusion=Togetherness, “I like being in the group of peers, it’s my life, and
these guys are like my family…” (p.237). The theme of community involvement emerging from the
reviewed studies reflects a common experience shared by athletes. The experience of developing a
UNIFIED SPORTS, INCLUSION & ATHLETE EXPERIENCES 15
positive identity as a member of a team leading to increased community involvement and feelings of
togetherness.
Interpersonal Relationships. Researchers report athletes’ positive experiences in relation to
community/team involvement result in improved interpersonal relationships and social connections.
Interpersonal relationships were reported by research teams as equality and friendship, sharing
interests, increasing communication with peers, and learning from each other (Briere & Siegel, 2008;
Hassan et al., 2012; McConkey et al., 2013; McConkey et al., 2019; Wilski et al, 2012). Throughout the
literature, researchers spotlight athletes sharing their experiences forming relationships with Unified
Sports partners. Hassan et al. (2012) report growing relationships between athletes and partners over a
Shared Interest in Sports, McConkey et al. (2019) note a theme of Equality emerging among players, and
researchers consistently spotlight increased communication and friendship among players (Briere &
Siegel, 2008; Hassan et al., 2012; McConkey et al., 2013; McConkey et al., 2019; Wilski et al, 2012).
With an emphasis on building interpersonal relationships, McConkey et al. (2013) report upon a
theme of Personal Development of the Athletes and Partners, sharing an athlete quote, “I am not shy to
talk to people. I will hold my head up and speak out loud. I got more used to people in playing on my
team and I am not afraid...” (p. 928), McConkey et al. (2013) provide another example of how
interpersonal relationships among athletes and partners become strengthened over time through a
theme of Inclusive and Equal Bonds,
We all like sport and we ask each other have you seen the game last night, and do you know the
latest results and things like that. Sometimes there is a girl that one of us likes and we talk to
each other about the best way that one of us can ask her out, we share some of that type of
information, personal information with each other. It wasn’t like that from the beginning, but it
is now because we have been playing together for more than a year and we have become good
friends. (p. 929)
UNIFIED SPORTS, INCLUSION & ATHLETE EXPERIENCES 16
The emergent theme of strengthened interpersonal relationships across studies reflects a
common athlete experience reported by researchers as well as an important finding in relation to social
inclusion. Building on the initial theme of community involvement, it appears the opportunity to engage
in community involvement as part of a Unified Sports team leads to a common athlete experience of
developing strengthened interpersonal relationships.
Barriers to Inclusion. In addition to shared positive social inclusion experiences, researchers
report obstacles to social inclusion, specifically noting program costs (Hassan et al., 2012), as well as
time, location and travel (McConkey et al., 2013; Wilski et al., 2012) as barriers to social inclusion.
Hassan et al. (2012) report a theme of Individual and Programme Financial Costs and suggest finances
needed for participation and related travel emerge as problematic for many athletes. McConkey et al.
(2013) report athletes having limited time as a result of other responsibilities, such as helping their
family after school, as a barrier to social inclusion. An athlete quote shared by McConkey et al. (2013),
“...lots of us live on a different side of the city and it is not so easy for us to hang out after training – we
have to catch a bus or train...that is what makes it difficult” (p. 930), illustrates the location of athletes
as a potential barrier to building social relationships. Of note, while resources of money, time, location
and travel were identified as barriers to inclusion, social obstacles such as attitudes, biases and stigma
within the community were beyond the analyses of included research studies.
Athlete Experiences, Self-Perceptions and Personal Development
In addition to a focus on social inclusion, original studies reviewed focused on athlete
self-perceptions and personal development. Athlete perceptions of personal development from Unified
Sports participation were elicited through quantitative approaches with multiple inventories in relation
to social self-concept, self-esteem, and global self-concept as well as through qualitative interviews (see
Table 1).
Social Self-Concept. Athlete responses to the Friendship Activity Scale (Siperstein, 1980),
UNIFIED SPORTS, INCLUSION & ATHLETE EXPERIENCES 17
showed increased perceptions of friendship across two different studies. Results of both a pretest-
posttest design study and an experimental-control group comparison suggest significant increases in
athlete perceptions of friendships. Athlete friendship scores significantly increased after participation in
Unified Sports, t(23) = 4.38, p < .01 (Castagno, 2001). Similarly, athletes scores were significantly higher
than peers in a nonparticipating athlete control group (Ozer et al., 2012).
Athlete scores on the Adjective Checklist (Siperstein, 1980), also increased across multiple
studies, representing an increased use of positive adjectives toward people labeled with intellectual
disability. Results of both a pretest-posttest design study and an experimental-control group comparison
suggest increases in athlete perceptions of disability. Athlete scores significantly increased after
participation in Unified Sports, 1(23) = 5.22, p < .01 (Castagno, 2001) in one study. However, an increase
in athlete positive and total adjective scores posttest was not found to be significant (p > .05) in a
second study (Ozer et al., 2012).
Finally, in relation to social self-concept, the Special Olympics Unified Sports Questionnaire
(Siperstein et al., 2001) was used to gather information on athlete relationships and self-perceptions.
Results of a pre and post Unified Sports participation comparison show a significant increase only in
athletes’ willingness to recommend Unified Sports to a friend (p<.05). Of note, however, there was no
significant change in athletes’ reporting of time spent with peers outside of Unified Sports participation
(Baran et al., 2009). In alignment with the inventory results, Briere and Siegle (2008) conclude that
athletes’ reported social self-concept increased through participation in Unified Sports (Briere & Siegle,
2008; Wilsi et al., 2012). However, Wilski et al. (2012) report athletes' increased awareness of social
dynamics may not result in increased social time outside of structured Unified Sports activities. For
example, Wilski et al. (2012) report an athlete’s perception of Unified Sports partners having so much to
do that they have little free time to spend together with peer athletes outside of the program.
Self-Esteem. In addition to increased social confidence, athlete self-esteem was captured as an
UNIFIED SPORTS, INCLUSION & ATHLETE EXPERIENCES 18
indicator of personal development. Athlete responses to the Katz-Zigler Self-Esteem Questionnaire
(Zigler, 1994) resulted in significant results in a study using a pretest-posttest design. Athletes reported
significantly higher self-esteem after participation in Unified Sports, 1(23) = 4.94, p < .01 (Castagno,
2001). In alignment with the inventory results of Castagno (2001), Wilski et al. (2012) shared athlete
reported perceptions of increased self-esteem elicited through interviews. For example, Wilski et al.
(2012) shared an athlete quote, “I believe in myself, I worked hard to be part of this team, and now I
believe that if I work hard I can achieve many things” to represent the positive impact of Unified Sports
participations on athlete Mental Aspect or growth in positive feelings of self (p. 275).
Global Self-Concept. In terms of global self-concept, a comparison of three groups, Unified
Sports athletes, non-athletes, and athletes participating in segregated sports, Unified Sports athletes
reported significantly higher self-concept. Athlete responses to the Piers-Harris Self-Concept Scale II
(Piers, 1969) show a significant increase in self-concept of Unified Sports athletes across all six domains:
behavioral adjustment, intellectual and school status, physical appearance and attributes, freedom from
anxiety, popularity, and happiness and satisfaction, when compared to a control group not participating
in sports (Elsissy, 2013). Moreover, athlete responses showed a significant increase in self-concept of
Unified Sports athletes in one domain, happiness and satisfaction, when compared to peers
participating in segregated sports (Elsissy, 2013). In contrast to the positive findings reported by Elsissy
(2013), however, Wilski et al. (2012) and Briere and Siegle (2008) shared inconsistent findings in relation
to athlete reported perceptions of global self-concept. Briere and Siegle (2008) identified inconsistent
patterns of athlete physical self-concept as well as inconsistent increases in athlete global self-concept,
with self-concept remaining unchanged for many athletes pre and post Unified Sports participation.
Wilski et al. (2012) reported perceived increases in global self-concept including physical ability across
some athletes but not others, for example in physical skills related to ball play.
Discussion
UNIFIED SPORTS, INCLUSION & ATHLETE EXPERIENCES 19
This systematic mixed studies review aimed to identify the focus of existing research capturing
athlete experiences in Unified Sports as well as the methods used to collect student experiences, and to
identify what athletes report about their participation in Unified Sports. Unified Sports’ success should
rely heavily on capturing athletes' experiences to better serve them and increase their involvement and
participation, yet throughout our search across nine databases for studies with data reported by school-
age athletes participating in Unified Sports, we found only nine original studies, three of which used the
same dataset, conducted by only six unrelated research groups. Despite the research spanning nine
countries, this reveals an overall dearth of research capturing Unified Sports athletes’ voices which is
surprising as Unified Sports was initiated in 1989. This suggests access to Unified Sports programming
may be limited and/or the experiences of athletes may not be prioritized by researchers. This also
suggests researchers may be relying on other methodologies and participants when studying community
and inclusive sporting.
The focus of the synthesized research was the impact of Unified Sports on social inclusion and
athlete self-perceptions and personal development. This focus supports the wider research on disability
and inclusion and aligns with social justice initiatives to center disability as diversity in inclusion
initiatives across the lifespan (e.g., Shea et al., 2020). While studies synthesized were overall of
appropriate methodological quality, several patterns of need emerged to increase our understanding of
student athletes, specifically the need for research teams to value and capture participant
characteristics beyond age, such as gender, ethnicity and socioeconomic status. It appears that Unified
Sports athletes are primarily male, yet that conclusion stems from only seven of the nine studies
reporting on gender. Beyond a concern as to why more females are not involved in Unified Sports,
provided participant data did not allow for a clear understanding of Unified Sport athlete demographics.
In terms of data collection methods, both qualitative and quantitative methods were used to elicit
athlete experiences with a reliance on quantitative interviews and validated inventories developed
UNIFIED SPORTS, INCLUSION & ATHLETE EXPERIENCES 20
between 1969 and 1994.
Regarding the impact of Unified Sports participation on social inclusion, athlete experiences
identified via the present review align with previous research reporting that participation in community
sports brings enjoyment of sports to individuals with disabilities (Shogren et al., 2015) previously
without access to team sports. Creating awareness of disability as diversity through sports builds social
inclusion among nations and international groups as was the case in London 2012 where the
Paralympics had a great influence on the attitudes and perspective of non-disabled people to change the
way they think about peers with disabilities (Ferrara et al., 2015). In the studies reviewed, athletes
highly valued the chance of joining a community group and stated it was a positive and proud
experience that enabled them to nurture friendships and build healthier relationships (Hassan et al.,
2012; McConkey et al., 2013; McConkey et al., 2019). Athletes expressed benefits of Unified Sports
participation on community involvement, with multiple athletes sharing positive experiences resulting
from being a member of a team, traveling with a team, and being supported by the larger community in
the role of athlete (Hassan et al., 2012). Athletes also reported developing relationships with
teammates, developing confidence and overcoming shyness (McConkey et al., 2013). In this regard,
sporting activities provide an opportunity to celebrate diversity.
In terms of self-perceptions and personal development, athletes reported increased
perceptions of friendships (Ozer et al., 2012) and self-esteem (Castagno, 2012). These findings align with
previous research reports that participation in Unified Sports may increase athlete self-esteem and
competence through interactions among athletes, coaches and nondisabled partners (Grandisson et al.,
2019). Overall, however, inconsistent results emerged in relation to athlete self-perceptions and
personal development. Multiple research teams reported increased athlete social self-concept
(Castagno, 2001; Ozer et al., 2012) and self-esteem (Castagno, 2001; Wilski et al., 2012). However, Baran
et al. (2009) report no significant increase in athlete reporting of actual time spent with peers outside of
UNIFIED SPORTS, INCLUSION & ATHLETE EXPERIENCES 21
Unified Sports events and both research teams of Briere and Siegel (2008) and Wilski et al. (2012) report
inconsistent results in athlete global self-concept post Unified Sports participation. This indicates that
additional research is needed to uncover the lasting impact of Unifies Sports participation on athletes’
personal development.
Despite inconsistencies, the findings of multiple researchers support the notion that Unified
Sports increase the self-confidence of the athletes and their social networks (see McConkey et al., 2019).
Participants of Unified Sports showed increased levels of happiness and satisfaction compared to those
who have been playing segregated sports along with better physical abilities (Elsissy, 2013). Unified
Sports also improved people’s perception of intellectual disabilities with study participants using more
positive adjectives to describe people with disabilities after program participation (Castagno, 2001). On
the other hand, we have deduced from the review of the research several obstacles along with the
positive outcomes for athletes to social inclusion. The program's time commitment and costs are two of
the hurdles faced by participants, including the cost of travel. Along with this, athletes also faced a
hurdle due to their residential location as it limited their social interaction with larger groups of Unified
Sports peers. Also emerging for consideration, time spent with peers outside of Unified Sports was not
identified as increasing in any of the related studies (e.g., see Baran et al., 2009). This finding holds
important implications for true community inclusion initiatives.
Recommendations for Social Inclusion
Practical efforts to increase social inclusion outside of Unified Sports participation seem an
important next step for Unified Sports athletes. Further exploration and development of strategies to
promote community inclusion along with Unified Sports include initiatives to increase sports
participation and access and to remove barriers through proactive outreach to targeted groups (Waring
& Mason, 2010). First, existing Unified Sports athlete/ partner sporting opportunities can be expanded
beyond competitive programming. For example, participants of all ability levels can be regularly invited
UNIFIED SPORTS, INCLUSION & ATHLETE EXPERIENCES 22
to participate in recreational activity groups. Second, participation in mainstream sporting activities with
people of all ability levels interacting together as athletes or fans can be facilitated (Grandisson et al.,
2019). Mainstream participation can be encouraged through outreach to local recreational group
leaders in the community. Third, the importance of social inclusion among local communities, nations
and international groups can be strengthened through continuous collaboration with the disability
community. Inclusive interactions with individuals with intellectual disability leads to increased
understanding of differences and positive attitudes of non-disabled peers.
Limitations
While this systematic mixed studies review provides insight into the extant research literature
on Unified Sports and athlete experiences, it has several limitations. The decision to focus on studies
which reported school-age athlete experiences excluded the voices of older athletes as well as the first-
hand experiences of coaches, peer partners and family members of athletes. These groups may have
meaningful insights to add to the Unified Sports experiences reported by athletes in the present review.
In terms of search methodology, nine databases were used to search for studies to include in the
synthesis. Unpublished studies and theses were not identified and studies that were not in English were
not identified. Given the international scale of Unified Sports, international databases and related
studies may be available that were not captured through our systematic search procedures. Finally, this
review was limited due to the reporting by authors in the original included studies. Participant selection
bias inherent in the original studies, as well as researcher bias due to varied affiliations of original
research groups with Special Olympics Unified Sports, may have impacted the findings of this review.
Recommendations for Research
Special Olympics Unified Sports is a program focused on building the social inclusion of people
with intellectual disability through sports and team participation. Athletes in all studies reviewed
reported positive experiences with Unified Sports leading to increased social inclusion and/or self-
UNIFIED SPORTS, INCLUSION & ATHLETE EXPERIENCES 23
concepts. The present review identified next steps for research across areas including athlete
characteristics, generalization and maintenance of Unified Sports impact, social barriers to community
inclusion, expanding community sporting opportunities using the Unified Sports model, and expanding
future studies to include measures of athlete self-perceptions beyond inventories used in existing
studies. Specific research questions for exploration stemming from the present findings include: How do
athlete and partner characteristics, including gender, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status, impact
Unified Sports experiences, community inclusion experiences and participant outcomes and needs?
What is the maintenance of athlete personal development gains post Unified Sports participation and do
athletes generalize skills and experiences to other community interactions? How can the Unified Sports
model be applied to community recreational activity groups, programs and events? And, what is the
perspective of external community members regarding Unified Sports athletes and partners including
attitudes of advocacy, strength and understanding as well as biases and stigma that may be pathways
and barriers to expanding community inclusion?
Partnering with the Special Olympics Unified Sports organization, athletes and the wider
disability community is a recommendation for researchers studying the interactions of sports and
community inclusion. Future research valuing Unified Sports athlete experiences, including participatory
research and research conducted by additional research teams, as well as research to facilitate
increased community inclusion of Unified Sports teammates beyond program interactions is suggested
to further social inclusion and awareness of disability as diversity.
UNIFIED SPORTS, INCLUSION & ATHLETE EXPERIENCES 24
References
References marked with an asterisk (*) indicate studies included in the systematic review.
Allan, V., Smith, B., Côté, J., Ginis, K. A. M., & Latimer-Cheung, A. E. (2018). Narratives of participation
among individuals with physical disabilities: A life-course analysis of athletes' experiences and
development in parasport. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 37, 170-178.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2017.10.004
Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
*Baran, F., Top, E., Aktop, A., Özer, D., & Nalbant, S. (2009). Evaluation of a unified football program by
special olympics athletes, partners, parents, and coaches. European Journal of Adapted Physical
Activity, 2(1), 34–45. doi: 10.5507/euj.2009.003
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology,
3(2), 77-101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
*Briere, D. E., III, & Siegle, D. (2008). The effects of the unified sports basketball program on special
education students’ self-concepts: Four students’ experiences. TEACHING Exceptional Children
Plus, 5(1).
*Castagno KS. (2001). Special Olympics Unified Sports: changes in male athletes during a basketball
season. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 18(2), 193–206.
https://doi.org/10.1123/apaq.18.2.193
Clarke, V., Braun, V., Terry, G & Hayfield N. (2019). Thematic analysis. In Liamputtong, P. (Ed.),
Handbook of research methods in health and social sciences (pp. 843-860). Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5251-4_103
Connor, D. J., Gabel, S. L., Gallagher, D. J., & Morton, M. (2008). Disability studies and inclusive
education implications for theory, research, and practice. International Journal of Inclusive
Education, 12(5-6), 441–457. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603110802377482
UNIFIED SPORTS, INCLUSION & ATHLETE EXPERIENCES 25
Dailey, S. L., Alabere, R. O., Michalski, J. E., & Brown, C. I. (2020). Sports experiences as anticipatory
socialization: How does communication in sports help individuals with intellectual disabilities
learn about and adapt to work? Communication Quarterly, 68(5), 499-519.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01463373.2020.1821737
*Elsissy, A. (2013). Effects of unified sports program on athlete self- concept. Ovidius University Annals,
Series Physical Education & Sport/Science, Movement & Health, 13, 740–745.
Ferguson, S. L., Kerrigan, M. R., & Hovey, K. A. (2020). Leveraging the opportunities of mixed methods in
research synthesis: Key decisions in systematic mixed studies review methodology. Research
Synthesis Methods, 11(5), 580-593. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1436
Ferrara, K., Burns, J., & Mills, H. (2015). Public attitudes toward people with intellectual disabilities after
viewing olympic or paralympic performance. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 32(1), 19-33.
https://doi.org/10.1123/apaq.2014-0136
Grandisson, M., Marcotte, J., Niquette, B., & Milot, É. (2019). Strategies to foster inclusion through
sports: A scoping review. Inclusion, 7(4), 220-233. https://doi.org/10.1352/2326-6988-7.4.220
Hamdani, Y., Yee, T., Oake, M., & McPherson, A. C. (2019). Multi-stakeholder perspectives on perceived
wellness of Special Olympics athletes. Disability and health journal, 12(3), 422-430.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dhjo.2019.01.009
Harada, C. M., & Siperstein, G. N. (2009). The sport experience of athletes with intellectual disabilities: A
national survey of Special Olympics athletes and their families. Adapted Physical Activity
Quarterly, 26(1), 68-85.
*Hassan, D., Dowling, S., McConkey, R., & Menke, S. (2012). The inclusion of people with intellectual
disabilities in team sports: Lessons from the youth unified sports programme of special
olympics. Sport in Society, 15(9), 1275–1290. https://doi.org/10.1080/17430437.2012.695348
UNIFIED SPORTS, INCLUSION & ATHLETE EXPERIENCES 26
Haudenhuyse, R. (2017). Introduction to the issue" sport for social inclusion: Questioning policy, practice
and research". Social Inclusion, 5(2), 85-90. https://doi.org/10.17645/si.v5i2.1068
Kmet, L. M., Cook, L. S., & Lee, R. C. (2004). Standard quality assessment criteria for evaluating primary
research papers from a variety of fields. Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research, 13
https://doi.org/10.7939/R37M04F16
Kiuppis, F. (2018). Inclusion in sport: Disability and participation. Sport in Society, 21:1, 4-21,
https://doi.org/10.1080/17430437.2016.1225882
Lopes, J. T. (2015). Adapted surfing as a tool to promote inclusion and rising disability awareness in
Portugal. Journal of Sport for Development, 3(5), 4-10.
*McConkey, R., Dowling, S., Hassan, D., & Menke, S. (2013). Promoting social inclusion through Unified
Sports for youth with intellectual disabilities: a five-nation study. Journal of Intellectual
Disability Research, 57(10), 923–935. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2788.2012.01587.x
*McConkey, R., Peng, C., Merritt, M., & Shellard, A. (2019). The meaning of social inclusion to players
with and without intellectual disability in unified sports teams. Inclusion, 7(4), 234–243.
https://doi.org/10.1352/2326-6988-7.4.234
*McConkey, R., & Menke, S. (2020). The community inclusion of athletes with intellectual disability:
A transnational study of the impact of participating in Special Olympics. Sport in Society, 1-10.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17430437.2020.1807515
Moher, D., Shamseer, L., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., ... & Stewart, L. A. (2015).
Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015
statement. Systematic Reviews, 4(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-1
*Özer D, Baran F, Aktop A, Nalbant S, Aglamis E, & Hutzler Y. (2012). Effects of a special olympics unified
sports soccer program on psycho-social attributes of youth with and without intellectual
UNIFIED SPORTS, INCLUSION & ATHLETE EXPERIENCES 27
disability. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 33(1), 229–239.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2011.09.011
*Pan, C. C., & Davis, R. (2019). Exploring physical self-concept perceptions in athletes with intellectual
disabilities: The participation of Unified Sports experiences. International Journal
of Developmental Disabilities, 65(4), 293-301.
https://doi.org/10.1080/20473869.2018.1470787
Piers, E. V. (1969) Manual for the Piers-Harris Children's Self-concept Scale. Nashville, TN: Counselor
Recordings & Tescs.
Roswal, M., G. (2007). Special Olympics unified sports: Providing a transition to mainstream
sports. Sobama Journal, 12(1), 13-15.
Schwab, S., Sharma, U., & Loreman, T. (2018). Are we included? Secondary students' perception of
inclusion climate in their schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 75, 31-39.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.05.016
Scifo, L., Chicau Borrego, C., Monteiro, D., Matosic, D., Feka, K., Bianco, A., & Alesi, M. (2019). Sport
intervention programs (SIPs) to improve health and social inclusion in people with intellectual
disabilities: A systematic review. Journal of Functional Morphology and Kinesiology, 4(3), 57.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-019-1029-1
Shea, L.C., Hecker, L. & Lalor, A.R. (2020). From disability to diversity: College success for students with
learning disabilities, ADHD, and autism spectrum disorder. Columbia, SC: University of South
Carolina, National Research Center for the First-Year Experience and Students in Transition.
Shogren, K. A., Gross, J. M., Forber-Pratt, A. J., Francis, G. L., Satter, A. L., Blue-Banning, M., & Hill, C.
(2015). The perspectives of students with and without disabilities on inclusive schools.
Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 40(4), 243-260.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796915583493
UNIFIED SPORTS, INCLUSION & ATHLETE EXPERIENCES 28
Simplican, S. C., Leader, G., Kosciulek, J., & Leahy, M. (2015). Defining social inclusion of people with
intellectual and developmental disabilities: An ecological model of social networks and
community participation. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 38, 18-29.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2014.10.008
Siperstein, G.N., (1980). Instruments for measuring children’s attitudes toward the handicapped.
Unpublished manuscript, University of Massachusetts, Boston.
Siperstein, G.N., & Hardman, M.L. (2001). National evaluation of the special olympics unified sports
Program. Unpublished report. Retrieved June 19, 2021 from
https://media.specialolympics.org/soi/files/sports/unified_sports_report.pdf
Siperstein, G. N., Summerill, L. A., Jacobs, H. E., & Stokes, J. E. (2017). Promoting social inclusion in high
schools using a schoolwide approach. Inclusion, 5(3), 173-188. https://doi.org/10.1352/2326-
6988-5.3.173
Special Olympics Unified Sports (2012). Special olympics unified sports quick reference guide.
Retrieved June 21, 2021 from https://media.specialolympics.org/resources/sports-
essentials/unified-sports/Unified-Sports-Quick-Reference-
Guide.pdf?_ga=2.208898770.114594408.1547142790-79484655.1547142790
Stemler, S. (2000) An overview of content analysis, practical assessment, research, and evaluation, 7,
Article 17. https://doi.org/10.7275/z6fm-2e34
Unified Sports. (2021, April 26). Specialolympics.org. Retrieved June 21, 2021 from
https://www.specialolympics.org/our-work/sports/unified-sports
Special Olympics (n.d.). Unified sports. https://www.specialolympics.org/our-work/sports/unified-
sports
Special Olympics (2019). Annual report. https://annualreport.specialolympics.org/impact
UNIFIED SPORTS, INCLUSION & ATHLETE EXPERIENCES 29
Townsend, M., & Hassall, J. (2007). Mainstream students’ attitudes to possible inclusion in unified
sports with students who have an intellectual disability. Journal of Applied Research in
Intellectual Disabilities, 20(3), 265-273. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-3148.2006.00329.x
Waring, A., & Mason, C. (2010). Opening doors: Promoting social inclusion through increased sports
opportunities. Sport in society, 13(3), 517-529. https://doi.org/10.1080/17430431003588192
*Wilski, M., Nadolska, A., Dowling, S., McConkey, R., & Hassan, D. (2012). Personal development of
participants in special olympics unified sports teams. Human Movement, 13(3), 271–279.
https://doi.org/10.2478/v10038-012-0032-3
Zigler, E. (1994). Interim report on individual studies: Self-image, depression, and hopelessness in mildly
retarded adolescents. Unpublished manuscript, Yale University, New Haven, CT.
Records after duplicates removed
(n=60)
X
Figure 1. Study selection flow diagram
Records identified through
database searching
(n=62)
Additional records identified through
other sources (n=2)
Grandisson et al. (2019) ref. list (n=2)
Records included after abstract
and/or methods screening
(n=60)
Records excluded
(n=49)
Data not specific to
Unified Sports and/or
school-age athletes
Records included after full-text article
review
(n=11)
Records excluded
(n=2)
Data limited to health
measures
Total number of studies reviewed
(n=9)
Integration of qualitative and
quantitative studies
Studies containing
qualitative data
(n=5)
Studies containing
quantitative data
(n=4)
Figure Click here to access/download;Figure;3. Figure 1 Flowchart of
search process REVISED.docx
Table 1
Details of Reviewed Studies and Athlete Experiences
Author(s) (year)
& Country
Study
Focus
Athlete
Participants
Program
Sport
Data
Collection
Research Reported Athlete Experiences
with Unified Sports
Research
Quality
QUALITATIVE
Briere & Siegle
(2008)
USA
Athlete self-
concepts &
impact of
Unified Sports
on student
athletes
N=4
High school
students
(3 female,
1 male)
Unified
Basketball
One-on-one
interviews
● Increased social self-concept, e.g., more
popular “with sporty kids” (p.8)
● Consistent or increased global self-
concept, e.g., “you learn a lot” (p.9)
● Scattered physical self-concept, e.g., “a
little better but about the same” (p.7)
40%
Limited
Hassan et al.
(2012)*
Germany,
Hungary,
Poland,
Serbia, Ukraine
Perceptions of
Unified Sports
to further
social inclusion
N=156
12-15 years
81% male
(N=25 in
1:1
interviews)
Unified
Football
and
Basketball
One-on-one
interviews of 25
athletes (5 in each
country) on day of
tournament
● Shared sport interest, e.g., “I like playing
sports and I wanted to be a member of
group sports…” (p.9)
● Unique opportunities, e.g., “Our team is
well known… people recognised me, that
was really a great feeling” (p.10)
● Financial costs, e.g., “…it is money that
stops me” (p.11)
75%
Good
McConkey et al.
(2013)*
Germany,
Hungary,
Poland,
Serbia, Ukraine
Perceptions of
Unified Sports
to further
social inclusion
N=156
12-15 years
81% male
(N=25 in
1:1
interviews)
Unified
Football
and
Basketball
One-on-one
interviews of 25
athletes (5 in each
country) on day of
tournament
● Personal development, e.g., “I am a more
confident person now…I got more used to
people in playing on my team…” (p. 928).
● Inclusive and equal, e.g., “We are all
needed on the team” (p.929).
80%
Strong
Table Click here to access/download;Table;2. Table 1.docx
● Positive perceptions, e.g., “lots of
different people say hello to me” (p. 931).
McConkey et al.
(2019)
Germany, India,
USA
Meaning of
social inclusion
to athletes and
perceptions of
benefits of
participation
N=49
16-25 years
Focus groups (8
group interviews
structured with
photos and
questions)
● Togetherness, e.g., “People with and
without disability just being together,
playing together…” (p.237) (sub-themes:
equality, friendships, participation,
connections, and assistance).
85%
Strong
Wilski et al.
(2012)*
Germany,
Hungary,
Poland,
Serbia, Ukraine
Impact of a
Unified Sport
on participants’
personal
development
(physical,
mental, social)
N=156
12-15 years
81% male
(N=25 in
1:1
interviews)
Unified
Football
and
Basketball
One-on-one
interviews of 25
athletes (5 in each
country) on day of
tournament
● Increased personal development (physical),
e.g., “…my technique is much better, for
example in ball control” (p.273)
● Increased personal development (mental)
e.g., “now I believe that if I work hard I can
achieve many things” (p.275)
● Awareness (social), e.g., “The partners are
very busy” (p.275)
60%
Adequate
QUANTITATIVE
Baran et al.
(2009)
Turkey
Self-
perceptions
and
satisfaction
with Unified
Sports
N=23
12-15 years
100% male
Pre/post Special
Olympics Unified
Sports
questionnaire
(questions on
relationships and
self-perceptions)
● Significant increase in athlete
recommendation of Unified Sports to a
friend (p<.05).
● No significant change in seeing other
athletes when not playing; having social
contact with teammates at home or in the
community.
83%
Strong
Castagno
(2001)
USA
Impact of
Unified Sports
on self-esteem,
N=24
M 13.8
years
Unified
Basketball
Pre/post: The Katz-
Zigler Self-Esteem
Questionnaire
● Significant increase in athlete reported
self-esteem (p<.01); friendships (p<.01);
83%
Strong
attitudes &
friendship
100% male
(Zigler, 1994); The
Adjective Checklist
(Siperstein, 1980);
The Friendship
Activity Scale
(Siperstein, 1980)
and, attitude toward people with
intellectual disability (p<.01).
Elsissy (2013)
Egypt
Impact of
Unified Sports
on self-concept
N=10
M 13.3
years (and
N=15 in
segregated
sports ;
N=15 in
control)
Piers-Harris Self-
Concept Scale II
(Piers, 1952)
● Significant difference between Unified
group and Control group (no sports) in all
Piers-Harris Self-Concept Scale in favor of
Unified group.
● No Significant Difference between Unified
group and Non-Unified group (segregated
sports) in all Piers- Harris Self-Concept
Scale except factor of Happiness and
Satisfaction in favor of Unified.
75%
Good
Ozer et al.
(2012)
Turkey
Impact of
Unified Sports
on
psychosocial
attributes
(friendship,
behavior, social
competence)
N=23
M 14.5
years
100% male
(and N=15
in control
group)
Unified
Soccer
Pre/post: The
Adjective
Checklist
(Siperstein, 1980);
The Friendship
Activity Scale
(Siperstein, 1980)
● Significant increase in athlete reported
friendship activity (p=.003).
● increase in positive and total adjective
scores (attitudes) but not significant (p >
.05).
96%
Strong
Note. * = related articles from the same larger research project.
