2 behavior, and increased internalizing and externalizing prob- lem behavior). The mixed and inconclusive results from the reviewed studies were suggested to be due, in part, to the var- ied methods, measures, tools, informants, and control-con- trast groups used across the studies [10, 17, 18]. Beyer [19] reviewed the literature related to siblings’ relationships when one sibling has an ASD. Beyer reported that researchers found both positive and negative factors in these siblings’ relationships. Siblings claimed that they had minimal conﬂicts and warm relationships with their siblings with ASDs [20]. They also stated that they had fun with their siblings with ASDs (e.g., [9]) and were proud of teaching their siblings with ASDs [21]. In contrast, some siblings of children with ASDs reported that their relationships with their brothers or sisters with ASDs were less close and warm compared to relationships with other siblings [22]. In addition, a few siblings reported greater feelings of embar- rassment than siblings of typically developing children or children with other disabilities [16]. Similar to Meadan et al. [17], Beyer suggested that diﬀerent research methods and comparison groups, in addition to variations in other factors (e.g., family environment or severity of the ASD) could ex- plain the mixed results related to the siblings’ relationships. Due to the potentially negative eﬀects of having a sibling with an ASD, it is important to continue the research on this topic and to identify supports and strategies that could facili- tate the development of positive relationships between the siblings with and without an ASD and promote positive out- comes and adjustment for typically developing siblings. Beyer [19] and Meadan et al. [17] also highlighted the need to further investigate the experience of siblings of children with ASDs, using diﬀerent research methods (e.g., qualitative methodology) and exploring diﬀerent factors (e.g., ages of siblings with and without ASDs). Mascha and Boucher [16] conducted a pilot study and interviewed 14 typically deve- loping siblings of individuals with ASDs. The authors em- phasized that their ﬁndings could “be considered preliminary only” (page 27). Petalas et al. [23] called for more reports of siblings’ accounts of their experiences growing up in families with siblings with ASDs, ﬁlling the gap in the literature focu- sed on the viewpoints and voices of siblings of children with ASDs in middle childhood and preadolescence. The purpose of the current study was to investigate the experiences of siblings of individuals with ASDs and identify their self-reported support needs. The research questions that guided this inquiry were: (a) What is the experience and impact of having a sibling with an ASD from the perspective of a typically developing child? and (b) What type of support do siblings of individuals with ASDs perceive they need? 2. Method 2.1. Research Design. The research team consisted of three faculty members from the Department of Special Education in a Midwestern university. All faculty members have worked directly with individuals on the autism spectrum, conducted research on the relations of families with children with ASDs, and have been trained extensively in qualitative research Autism Research and Treatment methods. We believe strongly that we have a responsibility to provide a venue and a “voice” for our participants who entrust us with their perspectives. For this study we employed qualitative research methodology to explore siblings’ percep- tions and experiences. The framework for the study was a grounded theory approach, in which the researcher identiﬁes categories and concepts that emerge from the data and links these concepts into theories [24]. Speciﬁcally, we conducted a collective case study as described by Stake [25] to address this study’s research questions. Collective case study involves the study of more than one case in order to “investigate a phenomenon, population, or general condition” (page 437). Brantlinger et al. [26] contended that investigating multiple cases will lead to better comprehension and better theorizing. Miles and Huberman [27] also asserted that studying mul- tiple cases gives the researcher reassurance that the events in only one case are not “wholly idiosyncratic” (page 172). Furthermore, studying multiple cases allowed us to examine siblings’ perspectives across all cases and enabled us to better understand these perspectives through more powerful descriptions and explanations. We used cross-case analysis as described by Miles and Huberman [27] to study each sibling (i.e., case) as a whole entity. All three researchers independently line-by-line coded each sibling’s interview responses to increase the rigor of our coding. We then met as a group to conduct a comparative analysis of all 12 cases. We used a constant comparative method [28, 29] to compare cases and to reﬁne, expand, or delete categories as needed. This type of coding procedure helped us stay in tune with the siblings’ perspectives as we continually studied our interview data [28] and contribu- ted to the rigor of our methods [26]. As we discussed any dis- agreements we had about emergent categories, we returned to the interview data to again ascertain the siblings’ view- points, and continued this process until we agreed on all cate- gories. This process of cross-checking our coding of the major categories provided “thoroughness for interrogating the data” [30, page 1116] and aﬀorded us opportunities to enhance our insights into our coding. 2.2. Participants. We recruited participants in this study by distributing information about the study to local support groups (i.e., parent support groups, a support group for ado- lescents with ASDs) and centers that provided services to children with ASDs. Parents contacted us directly if they were willing to allow their children to participate. The only eligi- bility requirement was to have a sibling with an ASD and all siblings in the home were invited to participate. Participants included 12 typically developing siblings (6 boys and 6 girls) of children with ASDs. For the purpose of this paper, we will refer to the typically developing siblings as participant siblings and to the siblings with ASDs as siblings with ASDs. Partici- pant siblings’ ages ranged from 7 to 15 years. The ages of the siblings with ASDs (10 boys and 1 girl) ranged from 6 to 15 years. Two of the participant siblings (RaeEllen and Ruby) were sisters who had a brother, Pete, with an ASD. Two sib- lings, Mitch and Cloe, were twins with brothers with ASDs. The siblings with ASDs were not considered study partici- pants since they were not interviewed, but we have included