Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities - Division on ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

TABLE 2 Evidence-Based Social Skills Interventions: Results, Effects, Treatment Integrity Ma<strong>in</strong>tenance/Follow up/ Generalization Treatment Integrity Social Validity Measures Study Results Social Stories (n 6) Follow-up data were collected two Two participants data were reported, weeks after the treatment 88% & 92% FPND50% 3 Ma<strong>in</strong>tenance results not reported rd Yes child’s family failed to provide needed <strong>in</strong>fo Intervention was gradually faded Mean93% (78%-100%) Yes (2 phases) 2 participants demonstrated ga<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> their general ed classroom sett<strong>in</strong>gs MPND81.57% 2 boys generalized to untra<strong>in</strong>ed Not reported Yes. social behaviors; 1 generalized 7 gen ed teachers <strong>and</strong> 6 SLP with<strong>in</strong> classroom graduate students who are MPND37.97% bl<strong>in</strong>d to the study rated participants’ performance pre-<strong>and</strong> post-treatment via 2-m<strong>in</strong> video vignettes. Generalization effects were Not reported Not reported reported via anecdotal evidence—the girl transitioned to a general ed classroom due to the significant ga<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> her social skills None 100% for 2 students, 86% for 1 IRP-15 scores all <strong>in</strong> the student acceptable range Increased target behavior (2/3) PND59.57% Sansosti & Powell-Smith (2006) Delano & Snell (2006) Improved performance on all target behaviors across all three participants (3/3) PND90% 3/4 target behaviors were obta<strong>in</strong>ed by 3 boys; 2/4 target behaviors were obta<strong>in</strong>ed by 2 boys PND47% Thiemann & Goldste<strong>in</strong> (2001) Barry & Burlew (2004) Both participants made ga<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> mak<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>dependent choices <strong>and</strong> play appropriately dur<strong>in</strong>g free play time <strong>in</strong> the selfconta<strong>in</strong>ed sett<strong>in</strong>g 328 / <strong>Education</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Developmental</strong> <strong>Disabilities</strong>-September 2009 PND100% Increase <strong>in</strong> appropriate social <strong>in</strong>teractions for 2/3 participants PND46.7% Increased target behaviors for both boys PND60% (zero basel<strong>in</strong>e) Scattone, T<strong>in</strong>gstrom, & Wilczynski (2006) Yes Participant 1100%; Participant 2 97.1% Reported for only 1 subject MPND100% Dodd, Hupp, Jewell, & Krohn (2008) (cont<strong>in</strong>ued)
TABLE 2 Cont<strong>in</strong>ued Ma<strong>in</strong>tenance/Follow up/ Generalization Treatment Integrity Social Validity Measures Study Results Peer Mediated (n 9) Only 1 participant reported Yes Focus group was used to follow up data <strong>in</strong> general ed validate the DV & IV classroom <strong>and</strong> he ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong>ed the ga<strong>in</strong>s FPND100% (1 child only) Both participants generalized Not reported Not reported their ga<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong>to other sett<strong>in</strong>gs with novel people as well MPND66.67% FPND71.05% Generalization of eye contact <strong>and</strong> Yes Yes motor imitation were found across new sett<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> different partner; jo<strong>in</strong>t attention rarely generalized Not reported 81% (range 56%-92%) for the Yes K-PALS; 91% (range 86-96%) for common stimuli activities Significant improvement <strong>in</strong> social skills for both children PND100% Laushey & Hefl<strong>in</strong> (2000) Both participants made significant ga<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> their social skills PND71.01% Pierce & Schreibman (1997) 3/3 participants <strong>in</strong>creased target behavior; PND72.22% Hwang & Hughes (2000) No effects of peer tutor<strong>in</strong>g alone on social <strong>in</strong>teractions. Add<strong>in</strong>g play-related common stimuli to the peer-tutor<strong>in</strong>g activity <strong>in</strong>creased social <strong>in</strong>teractions dur<strong>in</strong>g free play. PND36.17% All dependent variables improved across all subjects PND56.72% Petursdottir, McComas, McMaster, & Horner (2007) Not reported 98% (80%-100%) Not reported Loncola & Craig- Unkefer (2005) (cont<strong>in</strong>ued) Evidence-Based Social Skills Interventions / 329
Page 1 and 2: Education
Page 7 and 8: Best Practices in
Page 9 and 10: plication facts to middle school st
Page 11 and 12: Multiculturalism, Religion, <strong
Page 13 and 14: disability that are conveyed throug
Page 15 and 16: the rest of society until acted upo
Page 17 and 18: abilities as an opportunity for spi
Page 19 and 20: ability and qualit
Page 21 and 22: TABLE 1 Dolly Gray Children’s Lit
Page 23 and 24: who did not clearly have a developm
Page 25 and 26: TABLE 3 Juvenile Literature with Ma
Page 27 and 28: TABLE 5 Characterizations i
Page 29 and 30: drome in The Duche
Page 31 and 32: Special Olympics). Most of the recr
Page 33 and 34: “add depth and m
Page 35 and 36: Gresham, Kern, Barreras, Thornton,
Page 37 and 38: number of cases of sin</str
Page 39 and 40: TABLE 1 Continued
Page 43: TABLE 1 Continued
Page 53 and 54: Target Behaviors A number of social
Page 55 and 56: to promote social skills in
Page 57 and 58: *Hine, J. F., & Wo
Page 59 and 60: Learn by Doing: A
Page 61 and 62: implemented is consistent across pe
Page 63 and 64: concludes the program with an empha
Page 65 and 66: TABLE 2 Scholar Pretest Directions:
Page 67 and 68: dren with autism. If, through these
Page 69 and 70: classroom. This program not only ga
Page 71 and 72: tism and Other <st
Page 73 and 74: Typically students with low IQs, <s
Page 75 and 76: applied the vocabulary word to a gi
Page 77 and 78: Jacob, Carl, and R
Page 79 and 80: ting them apart. J
Page 81 and 82: cannot provide this type of <strong
Page 83 and 84: Pentop Computers as Tools for Teach
Page 85 and 86: Okolo, & Courtad, 2007). Smart toys
Page 87 and 88: computer for all multiplication pro
Page 89 and 90: software immediately repeated the n
Page 91 and 92: tool. Prior to the in</stro
Page 93 and 94: was first introduc
Page 95 and 96:
ecause all of the students would be
Page 97 and 98:
Effectiveness of Parent and
Page 99 and 100:
is well known that when parents lea
Page 101 and 102:
tion Program (PTCP) for teach<stron
Page 103 and 104:
(reinforcers, prom
Page 105 and 106:
Figure 2. Percentage of correct res
Page 107 and 108:
Figure 4. Percentage of correct res
Page 109 and 110:
is not progressing
Page 111 and 112:
care and domestic
Page 113 and 114:
enced based on IEP goals, whereas r
Page 115 and 116:
TABLE 1 Definition
Page 117 and 118:
to the criteria in
Page 119 and 120:
Figure 2. Percentage of occurrence
Page 121 and 122:
intervention was s
Page 123 and 124:
goal setting on ta
Page 125 and 126:
Increasing Compreh
Page 127 and 128:
plied systematic promptin</
Page 129 and 130:
TABLE 2 Book Adaptations Book Dirty
Page 131 and 132:
Intervention. Like baselin<
Page 133 and 134:
Figure 2. Number of correct respons
Page 135 and 136:
mined is that this
Page 137 and 138:
Evaluating the Acc
Page 139 and 140:
TABLE 1 Characteristics of children
Page 141 and 142:
educators. These educators were enr
Page 143 and 144:
TABLE 3 Mean ratin
Page 145 and 146:
could help a teacher better underst
show all

Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities - Division on ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?