INCREASING SOCIAL BEHAVIORS IN YOUNG CHILDREN WITH SOCIAL- COMMUNICATION DELAYS IN A GROUP ARRANGEMENT IN PRESCHOOL by JUSTIN DEREK LANE (Under the Direction of David L. Gast) ABSTRACT Young children with disabilities are less likely to display age-appropriate social behaviors than same-age peers with typical social development, often requiring systematic instruction to increase pro-social behaviors. In this study, a progressive time delay (PTD) procedure was used to teach young children to expressively identify their peer’s preferences (e.g., snacks, toys, books) during dyad instruction in a preschool classroom. In addition, a PTD procedure was used to teach young children to share one of two tokens they earned during instruction. A multiple probe design across behaviors (social information) and a multiple baseline design across dyads (sharing) were used to evaluate the effects of the PTD procedures. PTD was effective for teaching social information, as well as teaching sharing in a preschool classroom. All participants generalized 50 to 100% of social information targets to typical classroom activities (e.g., selecting their peer’s preferred snack before mealtime), with mixed results regarding sharing during an art activity. INDEX WORDS: Progressive time delay, Preschool, Small group, Instruction, Social- communication, Young children
Transcript
INCREASING SOCIAL BEHAVIORS IN YOUNG CHILDREN WITH SOCIAL-
COMMUNICATION DELAYS IN A GROUP ARRANGEMENT IN PRESCHOOL
by
JUSTIN DEREK LANE
(Under the Direction of David L. Gast)
ABSTRACT
Young children with disabilities are less likely to display age-appropriate social
behaviors than same-age peers with typical social development, often requiring systematic
instruction to increase pro-social behaviors. In this study, a progressive time delay (PTD)
procedure was used to teach young children to expressively identify their peer’s preferences
(e.g., snacks, toys, books) during dyad instruction in a preschool classroom. In addition, a PTD
procedure was used to teach young children to share one of two tokens they earned during
instruction. A multiple probe design across behaviors (social information) and a multiple
baseline design across dyads (sharing) were used to evaluate the effects of the PTD procedures.
PTD was effective for teaching social information, as well as teaching sharing in a preschool
classroom. All participants generalized 50 to 100% of social information targets to typical
classroom activities (e.g., selecting their peer’s preferred snack before mealtime), with mixed
results regarding sharing during an art activity.
INDEX WORDS: Progressive time delay, Preschool, Small group, Instruction, Social-
communication, Young children
INCREASING SOCIAL BEHAVIORS IN YOUNG CHILDREN WITH SOCIAL-
COMMUNICATION DELAYS IN A GROUP ARRANGEMENT IN PRESCHOOL
by
JUSTIN DEREK LANE
B.S., Middle Tennessee State University
M.Ed., Vanderbilt University
A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The University of Georgia in Partial
Table 2: Social Information Targets……………………………………………………………..28
Table 3: Materials, Target Behaviors, and Response Definitions by Condition………………...29 Table 4: Efficiency of Social Information Instruction…………………………………………...39
Table 5: Efficiency of Sharing Instruction…………………………………………………….....40
x
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1: Instructional trial for social information and sharing……………………………….....31
Figure 2: Visual representation of daily session during “work time” in preschool classrooms…32
Figure 3: Unprompted correct responding (closed circles) during social information instruction
for Chad and Ellis………………………………………………………………………………..41
Figure 4: Unprompted correct responding (closed circles) during social information instruction
for Jared and Michael…………………………………………………………………………….42
Figure 5: Unprompted correct responding (closed circles) during social information instruction
for Jessica and Levi………………………………………………………………………………43
Figure 6: Generalization of social information prior to instruction and following mastery of each
tier of instruction..………………………………………………………………………………..44
Figure 7: Unprompted correct responding (closed circles) during sharing instruction……….....45
Figure 8: Generalization of sharing during art activity collected during daily probes prior to
responding, (d) prompted incorrect responding, and (e) no response (see Table 3). Each session
was videotaped with trial-by-trial data collection used to record responses. See Appendix C for
the corresponding data sheet.
Procedures. Immediately before the first trial for each participant, the investigator
reminded the non-target peer to “Wait quietly until it’s your turn” to decrease the likelihood the
non-target peer provided the correct response during a trial. This reminder was repeated to the
non-target peer if they modeled a correct response during the session. At the beginning of each
trial, the investigator provided a general attending cue to the target participant (e.g., “Okay”,
“Ready”) and waited 4 s for a response from the participant (i.e., orient his/her gaze toward the
investigator). If the participant did not respond the attending cue the investigator gently guided
the participant’s chin so s/he was oriented toward the investigator.
Following the target participant’s response to the attending cue, the investigator asked a
question about a peer’s preferred item (i.e., “What does peer’s name like to action?” or “What
target does peer’s name like to action?”). During 0 s delay sessions, the investigator asked the
question and immediately provided the controlling prompt (i.e., verbal model plus a picture or
photograph of the target item). Pictures and photographs were provided as a referent to provide
participants with additional support when presenting the target question and response. During
delay sessions, the investigator asked the question and, following the specified delay, provided
the controlling prompt. Following presentation of the controlling prompt, the participant had 4 s
to provide the correct response. If the participant did not provide the correct response during the
delay interval, the investigator removed materials and waited 4 s (inter-trial interval) before
18
beginning the next trial. The investigator provided descriptive praise and two tokens for each
prompted and unprompted correct response.
The investigator used 0 s trials for the first two instructional sessions or until the final
session was at 100% prompted correct for each participant. Following 0 s sessions, the
investigator increased the delay to 1 s with a maximum delay of 4 seconds. The criterion for
increasing the delay was one session at 100% prompted or unprompted correct until a 4 s delay
was achieved for both participants. The criterion for mastery was 83% (5 of 6 trials) unprompted
correct responding for three consecutive sessions when reinforced on a continuous reinforcement
(CRF) schedule for both participants. The schedule of reinforcement was not thinned to a VR-3
schedule of reinforcement during social information instruction since sharing instruction was
dependent on access to tokens. If a participant had 33% or more non-wait errors during a single
session, the instructor said, “Wait if you don’t know and I will help you” during all subsequent
sessions for that condition. During social information instruction, trial order was randomly
determined with each participant receiving six trials per session (three per target) with no more
than two consecutive trials per participant per session for a total of 12 instructional trials per
session.
Review sessions. Review sessions were conducted following completion of social
information instruction and the final generalization and maintenance probe session. The
instructor continued to provide instruction on all targets in the same format as social information
instructional sessions, presenting each target per participant one time each (6 trials per
participant for a total of 12 trials) using a 4 s delay. The primary purpose of review sessions was
to allow sharing instruction to continue for all dyads. Once sharing instruction was complete, a
final maintenance probe session was conducted for all participants.
19
Sharing instruction. The purpose of sharing instruction was to teach participants to
share tokens in a small group arrangement.
Materials, target behaviors, and response definitions. Materials were identical to social
information instructional sessions. Sharing during sessions was measured using event recording
with three types of responses possible during sharing instruction: (a) unprompted correct
responding, (b) prompted correct responding, or (d) prompted incorrect responding (see Table 3).
Each session was videotaped and trial-by-trial data collection was used to record responding. See
Appendix D for the corresponding data sheet.
Procedures. Following prompted or unprompted correct responses during social
information trials (see Figure 1), the investigator provided descriptive verbal praise and two
tokens. During baseline sessions participants had 4 s to share tokens independently. If
participants did not share tokens within the specified delay then the investigator continued to the
next trial. If participants shared tokens during baseline (or intervention) sessions, the investigator
provided descriptive praise and a high-five, pat on the shoulder, or tickle. Sharing data were
collected for three consecutive sessions or until data were stable. Following completion of
baseline sessions, the investigator began 0 s delay sessions for sharing.
The investigator used 0 s delay trials for at least the first two sharing instructions, and
until both participants engaged in100% prompted correct for at least one session. Delay sessions
immediately followed 0 s sessions, beginning with a 1 s delay, with a criterion of one session at
100% prompted plus unprompted correct responding before moving to a 2 s, 3 s, and 4 s delay
(maximum delay). The group criterion for mastery was 83% unprompted correct responses (i.e.,
no more than one prompted correct response or error per participant) for three consecutive
sessions when reinforced on a CRF schedule for both participants. During the final week of
20
instruction, adult praise occurred on a VR-3 schedule of reinforcement. During instructional
trials, the investigator provided two tokens and immediately provided the controlling prompt
(i.e., physical prompt) to share with a peer (0 s delay trials) or provided the controlling prompt
following the specified delay (delay trials). If the participant physically resisted the adult prompt,
the investigator ceased providing the controlling prompt and moved on to the next social
information trial following the inter-trial interval. Each participant had up to six opportunities to
share tokens per session for a total of 12 trials each session. Trial order was contingent on
randomly determined trial order for social information instruction and errors resulted in the
absence of a planned trial.
Discrimination and generalization during instruction. During each instructional
session, each participant received one token for appropriate attending behaviors (e.g., sitting
appropriately, looking at target materials). The purpose of providing one token for appropriate
attending behaviors was to assess discrimination between the discriminative stimulus for sharing
(i.e., child has one and peer has none) and retaining an item (i.e., child one has one item).
Measuring discrimination allowed for assessment of participants’ “over-generalizing” sharing
during instructional sessions. Event recording was used to record if the participant retained the
token or shared the token with a peer. The participant had the option to retain the token or share
the token with his/her peer and no differential consequences were provided
Generalization of sharing in the instructional context was measured for each participant
one time per session. The investigator provided one participant with two stickers they could
place on their token board until the end of the session, at which time they could use the stickers
as they preferred (e.g., place on shirt or arm). To assess generalization across materials in the
instructional context, the investigator randomly provided a participant with two stickers for
21
appropriate attending behaviors. No prompts were provided for within session assessment of
generalization. Event recording was used to record if the participant retained both stickers or
shared one or both stickers with a peer. Data on discrimination and generalization during
sessions were collected via videotape (see Appendix E).
Generalization Sessions: Social Information
The purpose of measuring generalization of social information was to assess whether
participants would select a peer’s preferred item immediately before the corresponding
classroom activity (snack, dramatic play center, block center, book center, and other related play
activities that occurred during the school day).
Materials, target behaviors, and response definitions. Materials included the
following: 5.08 cm X 5.08 cm pictures or photographs of participants preferred items and a 20.32
cm X 60.96 cm board with two rows of clear pockets (present pictures or photographs of target
items and distracters during generalization of social information sessions). The target behavior
during a trial was selecting the peer’s preferred item by picking up, pointing to, or reaching for
the corresponding picture or photograph. Also, if correct, the participant was directed to give the
item to their peer (e.g., “Give Bill the apple slice.”). It should be noted that selecting the correct
item was the focus of these trials. Three types of responses were possible during trials assessing
generalization of social information: (a) unprompted correct responding, (b) unprompted
incorrect responding, and (c) no response (see Table 3). Live event recording was used to record
responses during social information generalization probe sessions. See Appendix E for the
corresponding data sheet.
Procedures. Prior to beginning social information instruction, an initial measure (each
target one time for a total of six trials) of generalization was conducted. Three additional
22
measures were conducted following mastery of each tier of instruction. The investigator
presented a field of 10 pictures or photographs (i.e., one target item and nine distracters) and an
attending cue (e.g., “Look at these [pictures or photographs].”) and waited for the participant to
orient his/her gaze to the toys. Following the response to the attending cue, the investigator
provided the target question and waited 4 s for an independent response. If the participant
selected the correct target, the investigator provided descriptive praise and directed the
participant to give the corresponding item to their peer or place the item near the peer so it was
accessible. If the participant selected an incorrect item or did not respond, the investigator
removed the materials and ended the trial. A set of six trials, distributed across a single day,
occurred prior to instruction and following mastery of each tier of instruction on social
information (four sets of six trials for a total of 24 trials per participant across the study).
Generalization Sessions: Sharing
The purpose of measuring generalization of sharing was to assess whether participants
would independently share items unrelated to sharing instruction (e.g., markers, glitter glue)
during an art activity. Art is a common activity during centers in preschool classrooms and was
selected because participants would continue art activities following completion of the study and
in early elementary school classrooms.
Materials, target behaviors, and response definitions. Materials were various art
supplies, such as crayons and coloring pages or construction paper. Novel art materials included
items such as glitter pens, markers, and stamps and ink pads. The target behaviors during
sessions assessing generalization of sharing were (a) initiating sharing (when presented with
novel art materials at the beginning of the session), (b) responding to a peer’s request to share,
and (c) other spontaneous sharing (any other sharing that occurred for either participant outside
23
of the structured opportunity to initiate sharing at the beginning of the session). In addition, if
sharing occurred during the session, the investigator assessed the number of materials a
participant had when sharing an item (see Appendix F). All sessions were videotaped using a
digital camcorder with target behaviors measured using ProcoderDV (Tapp & Walden, 1993).
Procedures. Immediately before each PTD instructional session, both participants were
seated at a table in the classroom. The investigator presented an art activity to both participants
(i.e., identical or similar materials, including low-quality writing utensils) and also provided a
single set of art materials (e.g., glitter pens) to one participant to set up an opportunity for the
participant to share. Each session was 3 min with each participant receiving two structured
opportunities (i.e., receiving novel art materials) per week to independently share an item. Like
other conditions in this study, only non-vocal redirects (i.e., to address any challenging behaviors
that arose during sessions) were provided as needed by the investigator during sharing
generalization probe sessions. On occasion, one or both participants would ask a question (e.g.,
“Who [or What] is this?” in reference to a character or item on a coloring sheet) or request
additional materials. When this occurred the investigator briefly answered the question or
informed the participants, “That’s all I have for today” (in response to requests for additional
materials). Following completion of the art activity, the investigator informed participants “It is
time to work on some questions” or a similar phrase.
Sharing Training
If a participant was at mastery criterion for sharing during sharing instruction, but
displayed no change in independent sharing in the art activity (following three structured
opportunities after reaching the mastery criterion), the investigator conducted sharing training
during art activities and discontinued measuring generalization in this context. It should be
24
stressed that when this occurred then generalization for sharing did not occur, and, as such,
instruction was considered necessary for the behavior to occur outside of instructional sessions.
Following presentation of novel items, a participant was allowed 4 s to share an item
independently. If the participant did not share an item then the instructor provided a physical
prompt to share an item. Prompted sharing referred to sharing an item within 4 s of a physical
prompt to share an item.
Experimental Design
A combination design was used to evaluate the effectiveness of the PTD procedures: the
multiple probe (days) design (Gast, Lloyd, & Ledford, 2014) across behaviors was used to
evaluate the effectiveness of a PTD procedure for teaching social information about peers and
the multiple baseline design (Gast et al., 2014) across dyads was used to evaluate the
effectiveness of a PTD procedure for teaching sharing initiations. Time-lagged introduction of
sharing instruction occurred across groups with initial baseline sessions for Dyad 1 occurring
during 0 s sessions for social information instruction. Each single case experimental design
concurrently operated, but operated independently, with the criterion for moving to subsequent
tiers in one design not affected by data from the other design. Generalization of social
information was measured four times during the course of the study. Due to participants’ daily
classroom schedule, generalization of social information was limited to a four sets of six trials
for each participant. Generalization of sharing behaviors was collected within the context of the
multiple probe design across dyads (daily sessions immediately before dyad instruction), but
condition change decisions were made based on changes in sharing during instructional sessions
only.
25
Social Validity
Social validity was assessed by three professionals (two special education teachers and
one speech-language pathologist) who worked with each participant in the classroom and related
settings within the school (see Appendix G). The social validity instrument was a series of six
statements using a Likert-type rating scale of 1 to 5, where 1 indicated Strongly Disagree and 5
indicated Strongly Agree. The first three statements assessed the importance of targeting social
information and sharing in preschool children with social-communication delays, while the final
three statements assessed professionals’ preference for teaching these behaviors (small group,
play-based, or a combination of settings). Social validity was not assessed directly with
participants since multiple participants displayed difficulty with advanced conversation skills
(e.g., sufficiently describing social preferences). Participants were not observed displaying
distress directly related to the intervention (e.g., crying in response to the target questions or
response prompts).
Inter-observer Agreement and Procedural Fidelity
Inter-observer agreement (IOA) and procedural fidelity (PF) were collected at least 20%
of sessions of each condition for each participant (see Appendix H and I for PF data collection
sheets). Percent IOA for probe and baseline sessions, instructional sessions, and measures of
generalization was calculated by dividing the number of agreements by number of agreements
plus disagreements and multiplying by 100. For sharing in a generalization context, point-by-
point agreement, using time stamps with ProcoderDV (Tapp & Walden, 1993), was used to
calculate percent IOA (Ayres & Ledford, 2014). The formula for calculating percent IOA was
identical to the above formula for other sessions. Specific investigator behaviors and
environmental variables related to baseline, probe, and instructional, and generalization sessions
26
were monitored and percent PF was calculated. Percent PF was calculated as follows: number of
observed behaviors divided by number of planned behaviors multiplied by 100 (Billingsley,
White, & Munson, 1980).
IOA. IOA for social information probe sessions was 94.17% (66.67 – 100%) for Dyad 1
(Chad, Ellis) and 100% for Dyads 2 (Jared, Michael) and 3 (Jessica, Levi). For social
information instruction IOA was (a) 92.75% (66.67 – 100%) for Dyad 1, (b) 100% for Dyad 2,
and (c) 98.61% for Dyad 3 (83.33 – 100%). IOA for generalization of social information sessions
was 100% for all dyads and IOA for generalization of sharing sessions was 100% for Dyads 1
and 2 and 99.30% (88.89 – 100%) for Dyad 3. IOA for sharing tokens during baseline was 100%
for all dyads. For sharing instruction IOA was 100% for Dyads 1 and 3 and 96.67% (83.33 –
100%) for Dyad 2.
PF. Fidelity of implementation of social information probe sessions was (a) 99.46% for
Dyad 1, (b) 100% for Dyad 2, and (c) 99.82% for Dyad 3. For social information instruction PF
was (a) 99.85% for Dyad 1, (b) 99.60% for Dyad 2, and (c) 100% for Dyad 3. PF for
generalization of social information and sharing procedures was 100% for all dyads. PF for
sharing tokens during baseline was 100% for Dyads 1 and 2 and 98.26% for Dyad 3. For sharing
instruction PF was 100% for Dyads 1 and 3 and 99.17% for Dyad 2.
27
Table 1 Demographic Information
Developmental Domain Scoring
Standard Score T-Score
Participant
Chronological Age
(Months) CARS-2
Score
Developmental Assessment
Age (Months) Cognitive
Social-Emotionalc Communication
Emotional-Behavioralh
Chad 67 32.5 35 72a 64 73d -- Ellis 55 26 53 107b 68 110e 89 Jared 56 28 35 58a 72 75f -- Jessica 51 32.5 36 78a 55 66g 37 Levi 55 26.5 46 66a 69 77g -- Michael 61 31.5 35 74a 93 78e -- Notes. The school psychologist noted difficulties testing Jared and Jessica and specifically noted that Jared’s “low” cognitive standard score was primarily related to expressive and receptive language deficits. CARS-2 classifications for participants in this study were minimal to no symptoms of ASD (27.5 and below) or mild to moderate symptoms of ASD (28 – 33.5). aDevelopmental Profile 3: Cognitive. bDifferential Ability Scales-II: General Conceptual Ability. cDevelopmental Profile 3: Social-Emotional. dDevelopmental Profile 3: Communication. eVineland Adaptive Behavior Scales-Second Edition: Communication. fPreschool Language Scale, Fourth Edition. gPreschool Language Scales, Fifth Edition: Total Language Scale. hBehavior Assessment Systems for Children, Second Edition: Behavior Symptoms Index.
28
Table 2 Social Information Targets
Dyad 1
Dyad 2
Dyad 3
Chad Ellis Jared Michael Jessica Levi
Tier 1
Apples (Snack)
YouTube (Website) Peacock
(Animal) Kitten
(Animal) Rabbit (Animal)
Zebra
(Animal)
Giraffe (Animal)
Peanut Butter
(Snack) M&Ms
(Candy) Bubble Gum
(Candy) Dirt Bike
(Toy) Baby Doll
(Toy)
Tier
2 Boats (Toy)
Smoothie (Drink)
Graham Crackers (Snack)
Bob the Builder (Show)
Water (Drink)
Fire Truck (Song)
Dinosaurs (Book)
Magnet
Letters (Toy)
Very
Hungry Caterpillar
(Book)
Hot Dogs (Snack)
Chicken Nuggets (Snack)
Pete the Cat
(Book)
Tier
3 Toy Story
(Show) Marshmallow
(Candy) Zoo (Place)
Beach (Place) Spongebob
(Show) Cupcakes (Candy)
Bear Hunt (Song)
Scooby Doo
(Show)
Slinky (Toy)
Lego Train
(Toy)
Candy Canes
(Candy)
Monsters Inc.
(Show) Note. Categories of social information targets are noted within parentheses.
29
Table 3 Materials, Target Behaviors, and Response Definitions by Condition Condition Materialsa Target Behaviorsa Response Definitionsa
Social information probe sessions
1. Tokens: 3.81 cm foam shapes that represent 25 s of free play or break time 2. Token board: 21.59 cm X 27.94 cm laminated paper with the phrase “I am working for” with a space to place a picture of a child selected reinforcer 3. Reinforcer menu: 10.16 cm X 15.24 cm laminated sheet with up to four pictures or photographs of reinforcers (5.08 cm X 5.08 cm)
Vocally responding to a “Wh” question about a peer (i.e., “What does peer’s name like to action?” or “What target does peer’s name like to action?”)
1. Unprompted correct responding refers to independently providing the correct vocal response within 4 s of the question. 2. Unprompted incorrect responding refers to providing any other vocal response other than the correct response within 4 s of the instructor’s question. 3. No response refers to absence of a vocal response within 4 s of the instructor’s question.
PTD Social information Instruction
1. Tokens 2. Token board 3. Reinforcer menu 4. Pictures or photographs of participants preferred items (10.16 cm X 10.16 cm) 5. A visual timer (i.e., indicate time to play with a preferred material at the end of instructional sessions).
Vocally responding to a “Wh” question about a peer (i.e., “What does peer’s name like to action?” or “What target does peer’s name like to action?”)
1. Unprompted correct responding 2. Unprompted incorrect responding 3. No response 4. Prompted correct responding is defined as providing the correct vocal response within 4 s of the instructor’s vocal model of the target response. 5. Prompted incorrect responding is defined as any vocal response other than the target response within 4 s of the instructor’s verbal model of the target response.
PTD Sharing Instruction
Tokens Initiate sharing (tokens) 1. Unprompted correct responding is defined as independently sharing a token with a peer within 4 s after receiving tokens. 2. Prompted correct responding is defined as sharing a token with a peer within 4 s following a physical prompt from the instructor. 3. Prompted incorrect responding is defined not sharing a token within 4 s following a physical prompt from the instructor (e.g., resists prompt).
30
Generalization: Social information
1. Pictures or photographs of classroom items (5.08 cm X 5.08 cm; 9 distracters and 1 target item) 2. 20.32 cm X 60.96 cm board with two rows for presenting pictures or photographs
Selecting the peer’s preferred item by picking up or indicating a selection by pointing or reaching for the item from the container.
1. Unprompted correct responding refers to independently selecting the correct item within 4 s of the instructor’s question. 2. Unprompted incorrect responding refers to selecting an incorrect item within 4 s of the instructor’s question. 3. No response refers to not selecting an item within 4 s of the instructor’s question.
Generalization: Sharing
Art materials (e.g., crayons, construction paper, coloring sheets, glitter pens, markers, stickers, stamps)
1. Initiating Sharing 2. Responding to a peer’s request to share 3. Number of materials 4. Spontaneous sharing
1. Initiating sharing is defined as a participant independently placing an item in front of or near a peer, attempting to place an item in a peer’s hand, offering an item (e.g., extending an item toward a peer), and/or verbally offering an item to a peer (e.g., “You can have one.”). 2. Responding to a peer’s request to share is defined as: following a request to share an item, the participant will independently allow the peer to take an item, offer the item to the peer by extending their arm towards the peer, place an item in front of or near a peer, attempt to place an item in a peer’s hand, and/or verbally indicate the peer can take the item (e.g., “You can have it.”).
a. Refusal to share an item following a request will be recorded if the participant vocally (e.g., Says, “no”) or non-vocally (e.g., Participant shakes head to indicate “no”, turns away) indicates the peer cannot have the item or does not respond to the peer within 4 seconds. b. Multiple requests from the peer will be counted as a single request if the peer’s requests occur within a 4 s interval and the participant does not vocally or non-vocally respond during the interval. If the participant responds to the request from the peer and the peer provides another request it will be counted as a novel opportunity to share.
3. Number of materials: For each instance of initiating sharing or sharing following a request, number of materials will be recorded for participants. 4. Spontaneous sharing: Any additional sharing initiations (following a sharing initiation during a structured opportunity) or sharing initiations that occur when a participant, who did not receive the highly-preferred materials that day, shares with their peer.
aCorresponding descriptions for terms are reported once per column (e.g., description of tokens as “plastic shapes” is provided once, but all other references to tokens correspond to this description).
31
Figure 1. Instructional trial for social information and sharing
32
Figure 2. Visual representation of daily session during “work time” in preschool classrooms
33
CHAPTER 3
RESULTS
Social Information Instruction
All participants learned to identify their peer’s preferred items using a PTD procedure
during dyad instruction (see Figures 3 – 5). With the exception of Jessica, who responded
correctly to a Tier 3 instructional target during initial probe sessions, all participants displayed a
stable, zero-celerating trend during baseline. Across all dyads the number of sessions, trials, and
minutes through criterion decreased across each tier of instruction. Initially, Jared and Michael
displayed problem behaviors (property disruption, inappropriate vocalizations, aggression toward
adults and peers) during Tier 1 instruction, requiring a total of 200.5 minutes of instructional
time. Total minutes of instruction decreased across subsequent tiers, paralleling total time of
instruction for other dyads. In addition, the percentage of trials with errors decreased across all
tiers of instruction, with the exception of Jared who displayed an increase in errors during the
second tier of instruction, but no errors during the final tier of instruction (see Table 4). Although
non-wait and prompted error data were collapsed, errors were typically related to a participant
not waiting for a prompt.
Four participants (Chad, Ellis, Levi, Michael) displayed non-wait errors (33% or more of
trials) in a session during Tier 1 (Levi, Michael) or Tier 2 instruction (Ellis), while one
participant displayed non-wait errors during Tier 1 and Tier 2 instruction (Chad). For 3 of 4
participants, non-wait errors were reduced to 16.67% or less (maximum of 1 error per session)
when the instructor introduced “Wait if you don’t know and I will help you” following an error.
34
During instruction on Tier 1 targets, Michael exhibited multiple unprompted incorrect responses
(twice per session for 3 of 6 consecutive sessions) and then would immediately state the correct
response (e.g., “No. No. It’s kittens!”). The investigator conferred with the classroom teacher
and a researcher specializing in small group instruction with preschool age children. It was
determined that Michael’s errors were related to difficulties waiting to respond to target
questions since he responded correctly to all other trials during instructional sessions. To address
this issue, the investigator conducted a 1:1 session with Michael, presenting six trials of known
stimuli (colors) and asking, “What color?” then immediately stating “Wait” paired with an open
palm facing Michael for 1 second. The investigator then replicated the procedure in the dyad
before continuing instruction. Michael displayed 100% unprompted correct responding following
the investigator’s prompt to wait before responding.
Maintenance data were variable across participants, with the exception of Jessica who
displayed 100% correct responding across all maintenance sessions and Michael who displayed
100% correct responding during the last two maintenance sessions. Due to continued sharing
instruction in a dyad arrangement, review sessions were conducted for all social information
targets (each target one time each for a total of 6 trials). Following completion of sharing
instruction, a final maintenance probe session was conducted and all participants displayed 100%
correct responding across all targets, with the exception of Chad whose responding ranged from
25 to 75% unprompted correct responses. Chad displayed the most difficulty maintaining
responses outside of instruction, inconsistently providing correct responses across all
instructional targets.
Sharing Instruction
35
All participants learned to share tokens during dyad instruction using a PTD procedure
(see Figure 6). With the exception of Jessica, who shared a token once during baseline (session
26), none of the participants shared independently prior to instruction. Dyads 2 (Jared, Michael)
and 3 (Jessica, Levi) met the group mastery criterion within 9 sessions. Dyad 1 (Chad, Ellis)
required a total of 19 sessions to reach the mastery criterion. Subsequently, Dyad 1 required the
most number of sessions and time to reach criterion (221 total trials and 139 min of instruction),
while Dyad 2 required 108 trials and 74.5 min of instruction and Dyad 3 107 trials and 64.5
minutes. Errors were minimal across dyads since all participants typically retained tokens,
requiring an adult prompt, or independently shared tokens during instruction (see Table 5).
Chad displayed highly variable responding during sharing instruction, (0% - 66.67%
unprompted correct responding for 16 sessions). Sharing items stabilized for two consecutive
sessions at 66.67%, but decelerated across subsequent sessions. It was determined that social
praise did not function as a reinforcer for Chad and, as such, differential reinforcement was
introduced where Chad received adult praise and a preferred material (e.g., miniature Thomas the
Tank Engine™) for unprompted correct responses and adult praise for prompted correct
responses. Differential reinforcement continued for the remainder of the study. Once differential
reinforcement was introduced sharing increased from 16.67% to 100% unprompted correct
responding and remained between 80% and 100% for all remaining sessions.
Additionally, Jessica displayed difficulty sharing tokens during two instructional
sessions. During session 43, Jessica began to tantrum (yelling, crying) when she could not
complete a pattern with her tokens on her token board (A-B-A-B pattern of yellow and blue
tokens; blue tokens were no longer available). During session 47, she engaged in similar problem
behaviors when she began requesting that the investigator provide trials in a particular order
36
(e.g., “Say you’re doing a nice job sitting. Give a token now.”). A VR-3 schedule of
reinforcement was introduced during the final session of sharing instruction for all dyads. Dyads
1 and 2 maintained independent sharing at levels similar to intervention (83.33% to 100%), while
sharing decreased for Dyad 3.
Discrimination and generalization during instruction. During discrimination trials
during baseline sessions for sharing instruction, two participants gave one token to their partner
in the dyad (Jared=4.55% of 22 opportunities; Levi=3.85% of 26 opportunities). Following
introduction of the sharing intervention, four participants gave one token to their peer
(Ellis=2.86% of 35 opportunities; Jared=6.25% of 16 opportunities; Levi=10% of 10
opportunities; Michael=6.25% of 16 opportunities) while one participant retained the token
throughout the study (Jessica). Chad displayed difficulty discriminating when to retain and when
to share a token, sharing his token with Ellis on five occasions (14.29% of 35 opportunities)
during the intervention condition. In contrast, when Ellis gave his token to Chad, Ellis stated he
was “helping” Chad “get all his tokens”.
During baseline sessions, Levi was the only participant to share a sticker with his peer
(3.85% of 26 opportunities). Following introduction of the intervention, three participants shared
a sticker with their peer on one occasion (Chad=2.86% of 35 opportunities; Ellis=2.86% of
opportunities; Michael=6.25% of opportunities). Michael indicated multiple times he did not like
stickers, verbally refusing to accept the stickers or placing them on the edge of the table. Jared
and Jessica were not observed sharing stickers during baseline or intervention conditions.
Generalization: Social Information
During the first generalization sessions, participants’ typically selected their preferred
items (Figure 7). During the initial probe session, two participants correctly identified 1 to 2
37
targets (Jared=16.67% of targets; Levi=33.33% of targets) and the other participants identified
none of the correct targets. Due to the receptive nature of the task, there was a 10% chance of
correct responding. During the final generalization session, four participants identified 100% of
targets during the final probe session (Ellis, Jared, Jessica, Michael) and one participant
identified 83.33% of targets (Levi). Chad identified one target from each tier of instruction
during the final probe session (50% of targets). The percent increase from the first to final
generalization session was 50% (Chad, Levi), 83.33% (Jared), and 100% (Ellis, Jessica,
Michael).
Generalization: Sharing
Sharing during an art activity was assessed within the context of a multiple baseline
design across dyads (see Figure 8), but condition changes were based on responding during
instruction. An increase in sharing behaviors was observed for Dyad 2, but not Dyads 1 and 3.
Ellis shared an art material once (Session16) following introduction of the intervention and, as
such, in-vivo sharing instruction was introduced during session 34. Dyad 3 was observed sharing
materials during 4 of 26 baseline sessions, with Jessica sharing 25% of structured opportunities
and Levi 7.14%. Following introduction of the intervention, sharing (following a structured
opportunity) did not increase for Dyad 3, but spontaneous sharing was observed on 3 occasions
across 2 sessions. Additional sessions were not conducted due to the end of the school year. On
occasion, Jessica and Levi would attempt to take the materials from one another, requiring the
investigator to interrupt negative interactions and redirect them to the art activity.
Sharing training. Ellis was prompted to share art materials during 3 of 5 structured
sharing opportunities, while Chad required prompts for all structured sharing opportunities
during in-vivo instructional sessions. After beginning in-vivo sharing instruction, the total
38
number of spontaneous sharing behaviors increased for both Chad and Ellis. Eight prompts were
provided across 10 sessions, with 7 spontaneous sharing behaviors occurring within those
sessions.
Social Validity
Three professionals in the participants’ classroom rated all statements as Agree or
Strongly Agree. The mean score for items1 – 2 and 4 – 6 was 5 (Strongly Agree), while the mean
rating of item 3 was 4.33 (“I would use or recommend this procedure to teachers of young
children with social-communication delays in preschool.”). Two of three professionals noted
they had a limited knowledge of PTD and had not personally used the procedure when teaching
students. Additional comments indicated that professionals would prefer to first teach the target
behaviors during small group instruction and then target the skill during play and less structured
activities. In addition, one professional noted they would use the procedures with students who
use vocalizations to communicate, indicating he or she would not use the procedures with
students who are non-verbal. These comments were based on observations of the response
requirement during dyad instruction.
39
Table 4 Efficiency of Social Information Instruction Sessions Through
Criterion (#) Trials Through
Criterion (#) Minutes Through
Criterion (#) Trials with Errors (%)
Participants
Chad
T1: 19 T2: 10 T3: 6
T1: 114 T2: 60 T3: 36 --
T1: 6.14 T2: 5.26 T3: 2.78
Ellis
T1: 18 T2: 10 T3: 6
T1: 108 T2: 60 T3: 36 --
T1: 7.02 T2: 6.32 T3: 5.56
Total for Group
T1: 19 T2: 10 T3: 6
T1: 228 T2: 190 T3: 72
T1: 139 T2: 57a T3: 47.5
--
Jessica
T1: 7 T2: 6 T3: 7
T1: 42 T2: 36 T3: 42 --
T1: 5.56 T2: 2.38 T3: 2.38
Levi
T1: 9 T2: 7 T3: 7
T1: 54 T2: 42 T3: 42 --
T1: 18.52 T2: 4.76 T3: 2.38
Total for Group
T1: 9 T2: 7 T3: 7
T1: 108 T2: 84 T3: 84
T1: 61 T2: 43 T3: 40
--
Jared
T1: 5 T2: 9 T3: 5
T1: 30 T2: 54 T3: 30 --
T1: 1.28 T2: 9.26 T3: 0
Michael
T1: 13 T2: 8 T3: 6
T1: 78 T2: 48 T3: 36 --
T1: 7.96 T2: 1.85 T3: 0
Total for Group
T1: 13 T2: 9 T3: 6
T1: 156 T2: 108 T3: 72
T1: 200.5 T2: 52b T3: 48.5
--
aTwo video records of sessions were incomplete due to technical errors and were not included in the final calculation. bOne video record of a session was incomplete due to technical errors and were not included in the final calculation.
40
Table 5 Efficiency of Sharing Instruction Sessions Through
Criterion (#) Trials Through
Criterion (#) Minutes Through
Criterion (#) Trials with Errors (%)
Participants
Chad 19 111 -- 0
Ellis 12 68 -- 0
Total for Group 19 221 139a --
Jessica 9 54 -- 1.85%
Levi 5 29 -- 0
Total for Group 9 107 64.5 --
Jared 5 30 -- 0
Michael 9 54 -- 0
Total for Group 9 108 74.5 -- aTwo video records of sessions were incomplete due to technical errors and were not included in the final calculation.
41
Figure 3. Unprompted correct responding (closed circles) during social information instruction for Chad and Ellis
Chad Ellis
42
Figure 4. Unprompted correct responding (closed circles) during social information instruction for Jared and Michael
Jared Michael
43
Figure 5. Unprompted correct responding (closed circles) during social information instruction for Jessica and Levi
Jessica Levi
44
Figure 6. Generalization of social information prior to instruction and following mastery of each
tier of instruction: Open squares indicate an incorrect or no response and shaded squares indicate
a correct response. T1 – T3 refers to each tier of instruction and S1 – S4 refers to each
generalization session. Data before the dark line represents responding before instruction began
for those targets.
45
Figure 7. Unprompted correct responding (closed circles) during sharing instruction.
Sessions
Levi-Dyad 3
Jessica-Dyad 3
Jared-Dyad 2
Michael-Dyad 2
Ellis-Dyad 1
Chad-Dyad 1
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
0
20
40
60
80
100
Group Mastery
VR-3
0
20
40
60
80
100
0
20
40
60
80
100
Group Mastery VR-3
0
20
40
60
80
100
Differential Reinforcement
0
20
40
60
80
100 Baseline PTD
Group Mastery
VR-3
46
Figure 8. Generalization of sharing during art activity collected during daily probes prior to
instructional sessions. Open and closed circles represent independent sharing following a
structured opportunity to share. Open and closed triangles represent prompted sharing following
a structured opportunity to share.
Sessions
47
CHAPTER 4
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of using a PTD procedure to teach
young children with social-communication delays to identify their peer’s preferred items during
dyad instruction, as well as assess generalization of this information to typical classroom
activities. In addition, this study evaluated the effects of using a second PTD procedure to teach
participants to share tokens they received during dyad instruction. Generalization of sharing
materials was assessed during brief, daily art activities. Results indicate that PTD is an effective
procedure for teaching young children with social-communication delays to expressively identify
their peer’s preferred materials and share tokens during dyad instruction during the same
instructional sessions, with variable but positive effects observed in generalization contexts.
Implications
The results of this study have multiple implications for early childhood teachers,
practitioners, and researchers. The following sections address implications related to social
information instruction, sharing instruction, and small group instruction separately, with
limitations and future research across topics in later sections.
Social information. PTD is an effective procedure for teaching social information to
young children with social-communication delays in a dyad arrangement, adding to the current
literature on using response-prompting procedures to target social behaviors during small group
instruction (for a review see Ledford et al., 2012; Ledford & Wolery, in press). In addition,
participants generalized at least 50% of social information about peers to related activities
48
(selecting a peer’s preferred toy prior to a play activity in the classroom). During the final
generalization probe session, 5 of 6 participants selected their peers preferred items 83.33% to
100% of opportunities immediately before related activities. Although chance responding was
increased over expressive identification tasks, participants’ expressive identification of
instructional targets during social information probe sessions increased confidence that correct
responses during generalization sessions were related to instruction.
Teachers and practitioners in early childhood settings should consider teaching children
with social-communication delays about their peers and provide opportunities for children to
identify and share preferred materials during typical classroom activities. Prior to beginning
social information instruction, participants typically selected their preferred items, indicating that
teaching young children with social-communication delays about their peers may provide
context for early social interactions during typical classroom activities. For example, Jared
identified and gave Michael his preferred toy immediately before a play activity, offering an
opportunity to share a material with a peer. Following this exchange, Jared and Michael
continued to engage in play with the same materials for a few minutes. It is also worth noting
that visuals were included as part of the controlling prompt during instruction to strengthen the
connection between the target questions and responses, capitalizing on the visual strengths of
children with social-communication delays, such as ASD (Zager et al., 2012). Based on the
results of this study and anecdotal observations, targeting social information in preschool
classrooms may set the occasion for additional interactions with peers.
An additional consideration is some young children with social-communication delays
may initially require fewer social information targets or additional opportunities to become fluent
with identifying a peer’s preferred items. For some children, teachers and practitioners should
49
select 1to 2 social information targets, initially teaching social information about a peer with
whom a child expresses interest (proximal play, observing another child play) or encounters most
frequently (“peer buddy” during centers). For example, Chad learned social information targets
within the context of dyad instruction, but displayed difficulty maintaining target behaviors.
Social information probe sessions did not include a referent, unlike PTD instruction in a dyad
arrangement, potentially influencing Chad’s inconsistent responding. In addition, the classroom
teacher noted that Chad commonly displayed challenges using instructional targets across
contexts, typically requiring multiple structured opportunities to promote fluency of responding.
Also, social attention was not reinforcing for Chad and the wait for reinforcement associated
with token use may have resulted in inconsistent responding. Even with inconsistent responding
in maintenance sessions, Chad generalized social information immediately after mastery of each
tier of instruction, with the exception of Tier 3 targets (generalizing 1 of 2 targets), indicating
that young children with social-communication delays may generalize social information targets
when instruction and opportunities to assess generalization occur within a relatively short
temporal period.
Sharing. PTD is an effective procedure for teaching young children with social-
communication delays to share tokens in a dyad arrangement, replicating and extending the
findings of Ledford and Wolery (in press), who used PTD to teach children with typical
development to share tokens during small group instruction. As stated previously, sharing
requires young children to attend to “complex discriminative stimuli” that may or may not be
“reinforced by peers” during unstructured activities (Ledford & Wolery, 2013, p. 440). Before
instruction none of the participants shared items with peers during typical classroom activities,
but following implementation of the PTD procedure, independent sharing increased to 83.33% to
50
100% of opportunities during dyad instruction. Teachers and practitioners may need to teach pro-
social behaviors, like sharing materials, during structured sessions with same-age peers to
increase the saliency of the discriminative stimuli that set the occasion for sharing items, initially
teaching sharing as a routine behavior (each time the child receives two tokens they share one
token with their peer), providing multiple opportunities to “practice” the behavior in a systematic
manner. For example, during initial intervention sessions, Chad attempted to share tokens with
the investigator, requiring redirects to the peer. After multiple structured opportunities, Chad
began exclusively sharing items with Ellis during instruction.
Second, descriptive praise may not function as a reinforcer for sharing items with peers,
requiring additional reinforcement. Chad displayed low, variable responding during the initial
intervention sessions, but following introduction of a differential reinforcement procedure,
sharing increased to 80% - 100% and maintained across sessions. Teachers and practitioners
should consider, at least initially when beginning sharing instruction, to differentially reinforce
sharing items with peers.
Third, young children with social-communication delays may require additional
opportunities to become fluent with sharing items with peers. For example, Jessica and Levi’s
sharing behaviors decreased when the schedule of reinforcement was thinned from a CRF to a
VR-3 schedule of reinforcement. It is possible sharing decreased during the final session due to
Jessica’s tantrum, but sharing may have decreased because Dyad 3 had the fewest number
opportunities to “practice” sharing after reaching the mastery criterion (Dyad 1=15 additional
sessions, Dyad 2=7 additional sessions). Thus, young children with social-communication delays
may require additional opportunities on a CRF schedule of reinforcement, followed by
51
transitioning to a fixed-ratio 2 (FR-2) schedule of reinforcement, before thinning the schedule to
a VR-3 schedule of reinforcement to increase the likelihood of maintaining sharing behaviors.
Finally, generalization of sharing items during an art activity was variable with one dyad
increasing sharing behaviors and two dyads displaying limited or no change in sharing behaviors.
Increases in sharing behaviors during the art activity did not occur until Jared and Michael had
reached the mastery criterion during dyad instruction. When assessing sharing outside of
instruction, young children may require multiple opportunities to practice sharing before changes
are displayed in generalization contexts. Also, teachers and practitioners should be aware that
young children could develop a pattern of aberrant behaviors associated with sharing. For
example, Jessica and Levi were randomized to Tier 3 for sharing instruction and, as such, sharing
instruction did occur until session 38, potentially reinforcing a long-standing pattern of negative
behaviors related to access novel art materials. If young children display negative interactions
related to sharing, teachers and practitioners may need to address aberrant behaviors plus along
with prompts and reinforcement for sharing.
For young children who do not generalize sharing behaviors, teachers and practitioners
may need to teach sharing in an additional context outside of instruction, while continuing to
measure sharing behaviors in other contexts. Following presentation of adult prompts at the
beginning of the art activity, Chad and Ellis began displaying independent sharing behaviors.
Thus, providing a prompt at the beginning of sessions may set the occasion for additional
spontaneous sharing of items. In addition, the classroom teacher and investigator observed Ellis
sharing with Chad during play activities in the classroom. It is possible providing sharing
instruction in one context may promote sharing behaviors in other contexts, but additional
research is needed to assess this proposal. A final consideration regarding generalization of
52
sharing is that teachers and practitioners should consider initially targeting sharing during
preferred activities. For example, Chad typically did not engage in the art activity and instead
looked at the materials or paper or engaged in self-stimulatory behavior, which may have
influenced sharing in this context.
Small group instruction. All dyads decreased the number of sessions, trials, and
instructional time through criterion, with a substantial decreases following Tier 1 instruction. In
addition, the percentage of trials with errors decreased from a range of 1.28% - 18.52% during
Tier 1 instruction to 0 - 5.56% during Tier 3 instruction. The results of this study replicate
previous findings of studies that taught young children in a 1:1 (Reichow & Wolery, 2011) or
small group arrangement (Lane et al., 2013; Ledford & Wolery, 2013; Ledford & Wolery, in
press) in regards to participants “learning-to-learn” during intervention, especially during Tier 1
instruction. In an attempt to potentially remediate this issue observed in previous studies, the
investigator conducted history training with 2 of 3 dyads who had limited experience with small
group instruction. Even with history training, Jared and Michael required approximately 200 min
of instruction during Tier 1 due to disruptive behaviors. For students with limited or no
experience with small group instruction, teachers and practitioners should plan to provide
“practice” participating in small group instructional arrangements to decrease disruptive
behaviors in future educational settings (Wolery et al., 1992).
Limitations
Limitations of this study warrant attention when reviewing and interpreting results.
Regarding social information instruction, four participants required modifications to ensure they
learned their peer’s preferred items, which limits conclusions that can be made about the
effectiveness of PTD procedures for young children. A second limitation is that participants’
53
ability to wait for adult assistance (i.e., 4 s) was not directly assessed, indicating that anecdotal
assessment may be insufficient for determining if children can wait for an adult prompt. A third
limitation is that review trials were necessary to ensure 3 of 6 participants’ maintained social
information targets similar to levels observed during intervention, with 1 of 3 participants’
displaying variable or no increase in maintenance of target behaviors following review trials. The
criterion in this study was more lenient than traditionally used and is likely the reason for issues
related to maintenance. A fourth limitation is that generalization of social information probe
sessions narrowed choices to a field of 10 items, increasing the likelihood of chance responding.
Regarding sharing instruction, modifications to the procedure were necessary to ensure Chad
learned to share tokens during dyad instruction. Since preferred toys were not available in the
generalization context, the number of characteristics that differed between instruction and the art
activity may have impeded recognition of the discriminative stimulus that set the occasion for
sharing during the art activity. Finally, additional sessions for Jessica and Levi were not possible
due to the end of the school year.
Conclusions and Future Research
The findings of this study indicate that young children with social-communication delays
can learn social information about their peers, as well as learn to share within the same
instructional session in a preschool classroom, with potential concomitant changes in target
behaviors across contexts. It should be stressed that during a single instructional opportunity the
investigator provided instruction for two behaviors within a 10 – 15 s period for each
instructional trial, maximizing the efficiency of instruction on social behaviors in a preschool
classroom. While the findings of this study are promising, additional research is needed to
expand the results and address limitations, including teaching in dyads that include peers with
54
and without disabilities, which was not possible since the study was conducted in a self-
contained setting:
1. Social information: Researchers should consider measuring social behaviors and
conversation immediately following a child selecting and sharing a peer’s preferred
items. In addition, future studies should assess if a child can learn social information
about multiple peers, as well as assess generalization of this information and potentially
related increases in social behaviors and conversation. Finally, researchers should
consider potential modifications to the PTD procedure to determine if young children
who are non-verbal would display similar patterns of behavior during instruction on
social information about peers.
2. Sharing: Future studies should consider replicating the results of this study by teaching a
one young child with social-communication delays to share items using a PTD procedure,
as well as extend the findings of Ledford and Wolery’s work (2013; in press) by
assessing observational learning of sharing in a dyad or triad arrangement. In addition,
future studies should consider measuring sharing across multiple contexts to more
adequately assess generalization of sharing for participants’ who require additional
sharing training.
3. Small group instruction: Researchers should evaluate methods of history training for
teaching “learning-to-learn” behaviors prior to an intervention study to ensure all children
benefit from small group instruction. Within this context, researchers should consider
providing instruction on unknown stimuli using a PTD procedure so that history training
more closely parallels systematic instruction used in response-prompting intervention
studies in small group arrangements.
55
REFERENCES
Ault, M. J., Wolery, M., Gast, D. L., Doyle, P. M., & Martin, C. P. (1990). Comparison of
predictable and unpredictable trial sequences during small-group instruction. Learning
Disability Quarterly, 13, 12 – 29.
Ayres, K., & Ledford, J. R. (2014). Dependent measures and measurement systems. In D. L.
Gast & J. R. Ledford (Eds.), Single case research design in behavioral sciences (2nd ed.,
pp. 124 – 153). New York, NY: Routledge.
Babcock, F., Hartle, L., Lamme, L. L. (1995). Prosocial behaviors of five-year old children in
sixteen learning/activity centers. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 9, 113 –
127.
Billingsley, F., White, O. R., & Munson, R. (1980). Procedural reliability: A rationale and
example. Behavioral Assessment, 2, 229-241.
Bregman, J. D. & Higdon, C. (2012). Definitions and clinical characteristics of autism spectrum
disorder. In D. Zager, Wehmeyer, M. L., & Simpson, R. L. (Eds.), Educating students
with autism spectrum disorders: Research-based principles and practices (pp. 13 – 45).
New York, NY: Routledge.
Charlop, M. H., Schreibman, L., & Thibodeau, M. G. (1985). Increasing spontaneous verbal
responding in autistic children using a time delay procedure. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 18, 155 – 166.
56
Garfinkle, A. N. (2004). Assessing play skills. In M. McLean, M. Wolery, & Bailey, Jr., D. B.
(Eds.), Assessing infants and preschoolers with special needs (3rd ed., pp. 451 – 486).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Gast, D. L. (2014). General factors in measurement and evaluation. In D. L. Gast & J. R. Ledford
(Eds.), Single case research methodology in behavioral sciences (2nd ed., pp. 85 – 104).
New York, NY: Routledge.
Gast, D. L., Lloyd, B. P., & Ledford, J. R. (2014). Multiple baseline and multiple probe designs.
In D. L. Gast & J. R. Ledford (Eds.), Single case research methodology in behavioral
sciences (2nd ed., pp. 251 - 296). New York, NY: Routledge.
Godby, S., Gast, D. L., & Wolery, M. (1987). A comparison of time delay and the system of
least prompts in teaching object identification. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 8,
283 – 306.
Grisham-Brown, J., Hemmeter, M. L., & Pretti-Frontczak, K. (2005). Blended practices for
teaching young children in inclusive settings. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes
Publishing Co.
Guralnick, M. J. (1999). The nature and meaning of social integration for young children with
mild developmental delays in inclusive settings. Journal of Early Intervention, 22, 70 –
86.
Jamison, K. R., Forston, L. D., & Stanton-Chapman, T. L. (2012). Encouraging social skill
development through play in early childhood special education classrooms. Young
Exceptional Children, 15(2), 3 – 19.
King, S., & Saxton, M. (2010). Opportunities for language development: Small group
conversations in the nursery class. Educational & Child Psychology, 27, 31 – 44.
57
Koegel, L. K., Koegel, R. L., Hurley, C., & Frea, W. D. (1992). Improving social skills and
disruptive behavior in children with autism through self-management. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 25, 341 – 353.
Koegel, R. L., Werner, G. A., Vismara, L. A., & Koegel, L. K. (2005). The effectiveness of
contextually supported play date interactions between children with autism and typically
developing peers. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 30, 93 –
102.
Ladd, G. W. (2008). Social competence and peer relations: Significance for young children and
their service-providers. Early Childhood Services, 2, 129 – 148.
Lane, J. D., Gast, D. L., Ledford, J. R., & Shepley, C. (2013). Including instructive feedback and
sharing opportunities during small group academic instruction with preschool students
with disabilities. Manuscript submitted for review.
Lane, J. D., & Ledford, J. R. (2013). A review of interventions designed to increase sharing
behaviors for children with disabilities. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Lane, K. L., Stanton-Chapman, T., Jamison, K. R., & Phillips, A. (2007). Teacher and parent
expectations of preschoolers’ behavior: Social skills necessary for success. Topics in
Early Childhood Special Education, 27, 86 – 97.
Ledford, J. R., Lane, J. D., Elam, K., & Wolery (2012). Using response prompting procedures
during small group instruction: Outcomes and procedural variations. American Journal
on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 117, 413 – 434.
Ledford, J. R., & Wolery, M. (2013). Peer modeling of academic and social behaviors during
small-group direct instruction. Exceptional Children, 79, 439 – 458.
58
Ledford, J. R., & Wolery, M. (in press). Observational learning of academic and social behaviors
during small group instruction. Exceptional Children.
Matson, J. L., Manikam, R., Coe, D., Raymond, K., Taras, M., & Long, N. (1988). Training
social skills to severely mentally retarded multiply handicapped adolescents. Research in
Developmental Disabilities, 9, 195 – 208.
McCurdy, B. L., Cundari, L., & Lentz, F. E. (1990). Enhancing instructional efficiency: An
examination of time delay and the opportunity to observe instruction. Education and
Treatment of Children, 13, 226 – 238.
Mehnert, J., Akhrif, A., Telkemeyer, S., Rossi, S., Schmitz, C. H., Steinbrink, J.,…Neufang, S.
(2013). Developmental changes in brain activation and functional connectivity during
response inhibition in the early childhood brain. Brain & Development, 35, 894 – 904.
Millward, C., Powell, S., Messer, D., & Jordan, R. (2000). Recall for self and other in autism:
Children’s memory for events experienced by themselves and their peers. Journal of
Autism and Developmental Disorders, 30, 15 – 28.
Mundy, P., & Thorp, D. (2006). The neural basis of early joint-attention behavior. In T. Charman
& W. Stone (Eds.), Social and Communication Development in Autism Spectrum
Disorders: Early Identification, Diagnosis, and Intervention (pp. 296 – 336). New York,
NY: The Guilford Press.
National Association for The Education of Young Children (2009). Early childhood inclusion.
Retrieved from http://www.naeyc.org/files/naeyc/file/positions/DEC_NAEYC
_EC_updatedKS.pdf.
59
National Association for The Education of Young Children (2002). Early learning standards:
Creating the conditions for success. Retrieved from http://www.naeyc.org/files/
naeyc/file/positions/position_statement.pdf.
Odom, S. L., McConnell, S. R., & McEvoy, M. A. (1992). Social competence of young children
with disabilities: Issues and strategies for intervention. Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes.
Odom, S. L., McConnell, S. R., McEvoy, M. A., Peterson, C., Ostrosky, M., Chandler, L.
K.,…Favazza, P. C. (1999). Relative effects of interventions supporting the social
competence of young children with disabilities. Topics in Early Childhood Special
Education, 19, 75 – 91.
Odom, S. L., Schertz, H., Munson, L. J., & Brown, W. H. (2004). Assessing social competence.
In M. McLean, M. Wolery, & Bailey, Jr., D. B. (Eds.), Assessing infants and
preschoolers with special needs (3rd ed., pp. 412 – 450). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson.
Odom, S. L., & Wolery, M. (2003). A unified theory of practice in early intervention/early
childhood special education: Evidence-based practices. The Journal of Special
Education, 37, 164 – 173.
Reichow, B. & Volkmar, F. R. (2010). Social skills interventions for individuals with autism:
Evaluation for evidence-based practices within a best evidence synthesis framework.
Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 40, 149 – 166.
Reichow, B., & Wolery, M. (2011). Comparison of progressive prompt delay with and without
instructive feedback. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44, 327-340.
Shockley, C., & Gast, D. (2012). Applied project in special education. Unpublished manuscript.
60
Stinson, D. M., Gast, D. L., Wolery, M., & Collins, B. C. (1991). Acquisition of non-targeted
information during small-group instruction. Exceptionality, 2, 65 – 80.
Tapp, J.T., & Walden, T.A. (1993). Procoder: A professional tape control, coding and analysis
system for behavioral research using videotape. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, &
Computers, 25 (1), 53-56.
Tisak, M. S., Holub, S. C., & Tisak, J. (2007). What nice things do boys and girls do?
Preschoolers’ perspectives and peers’ behaviors at school and home. Early Education and
Development, 18, 183 – 199.
White, S. W., Keonig, K., & Scahill, L. (2007). Social skills development in children with autism
spectrum disorders: A review of the intervention research. Journal of Autism and
Developmental Disorders, 37, 1858 – 1868.
Wilder, D. A., Myers, K., Fischetti, A., Leon, Y., Nicholson, K., & Allison, J. (2012). An
analysis of modifications to the three-step guided compliance procedure necessary to
achieve compliance among preschool children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 45,
121 – 130.
Wolery, M. (2005). DEC recommended practices: Child-focused practices. In S. Sandall, M. L.
Hemmeter, B. J. Smith, & M. E. McLean (Eds.), DEC Recommended Practices: A
Comprehensive Guide for Practical Application in Early Intervention/Early Childhood
Special Education (pp. 71 – 106). Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
Wolery, M., Ault, M. L., & Doyle, P. M. (1992). Teaching students with moderate to severe
disabilities: Use of response prompting strategies. New York, NY: Longman.
Wolery, M., & Hemmeter, M. L. (2011). Classroom instruction: Background, assumptions, and
challenges. Journal of Early Intervention, 33, 371-380.
61
Zager, D., Wehmeyer, M. L., & Simpson, R. (2012). Educating Students with Autism Spectrum
Disorders: Research-based principles and practices. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
62
APPENDICIES
63
Appendix A
Social Information Questionnaire
Please answer the following questions about participant’s name preferred toys, snacks, television shows, etc. If possible, please list 2 – 3 preferred items and number them in order them by preference For example, write 1 next to the most preferred item and so on. Purpose: Teaching a peer about (participant’s name) interests. Preferred Record answers below.
1. Food? What snack does child like to eat?
2. Drink? What does child like to drink?
3. Animal? What animal does child like?
4. Book? What book does child like to read?
5. Show (television or move)?
What does child like to watch?
6. Candy? What candy does child like to eat?
7. Website, iPad, iPhone, computer, or video games?
What game does child like to play?
8. Place to go? Where does child like to go?
9. Song? What song does child like to listen to?
10. Toys What toy does child like to play?
64
Appendix B
Social Information Probe and/or Maintenance Session Data Collection Sheet
Participant: __________________ Schedule of Reinforcement (attending): VR-3
Check box that corresponds with the participant’s response Student Response Section
Trial Stimulus Unprompted Correct
Unprompted Error
No Response Comments
1 2 3 4 5 6 % % %
68
Appendix F
Sharing Generalization Probe Session: Sample Image from ProcoderDV
69
Appendix G
Social Validity Form
Evaluation of Intervention for Teaching Social Information and Sharing to Young Children with Social-Communication Delays
Summary of Study Purpose. This semester I implemented a study in teacher’s name classroom. During instruction two students were seated at a table in the classroom, learning their peer’s preferred items (e.g., “Chad likes to drink smoothies”; “Jessica likes watch Monsters Inc.”). The rationale for learning a peer’s preferred items is that it may promote age-appropriate conversation and play. In addition, every time a student gave a correct response (with or without adult support) they received two tokens and were taught to share one token with their peer. Procedure. Students were taught using progressive time delay (PTD), a near-errorless teaching procedure. PTD involves adult prompts (verbal model for peer’s preferred items and physical prompt for sharing) that are systematically removed (increase in time between direction and adult prompt) as children display increases in unprompted or prompted correct responding. Directions for Form Based on your experience and observations, please circle your response to each statement using the 1 to 5 rating scale (1=strongly disagree and 5=strongly agree).
Ratings
Statement Strongly Disagree Disagree
Neither Agree or Disagree
Agree Strongly Agree
1. Teaching young children with social-communication delays to share items is an appropriate skill to teach in preschool.
1 2 3 4 5
2. Teaching young children with social-communication delays about their peer’s preferences is an appropriate skill to teach in preschool.
1 2 3 4 5
3. I would use or recommend this procedure to teachers of young children with social-communication delays in preschool.
1 2 3 4 5
4. I would teach these skills in a small group arrangement of 2 to 3 students in preschool.
1 2 3 4 5
5. I would teach these skills during play or related activities (e.g., snack) in preschool.
1 2 3 4 5
6. I would teach these skills in a small group arrangement and during play or related activities (e.g., snack) in preschool.
1 2 3 4 5
70
Appendix H
Social Information Probe and Instructional Sessions and Sharing Instruction Sessions Procedural
Place a check (√) in the corresponding box if correct and a minus (-) if incorrect Investigator Behaviors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 %
Provide attending cue Obtain student’s attention following attending cue Correct target question Wait 4 s for a response Provide an edible + praise for correct response Ignore incorrect or no response Provide praise plus edible for attending (VR-3)
Social Information Instructional Sessions Dyad: _________/_________ Date: _____________________ Session #: _________________
Delay (circle): 0s / 1s / 2s / 4s
Place a check (√) in the corresponding box if correct and a minus (-) if incorrect Investigator Behaviors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 %
Each participant selects a reinforcer Attending cue before each trial Obtain response to attending cue before target question Correct target question Correct response (based on participant’s response) Correct delay No prompts for discrimination or generalization of sharing using stickers
Place a check (√) in the corresponding box if correct and a minus (-) if incorrect Investigator Behaviors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 %
Provide two tokens following prompted or unprompted correct response
Correct response (based on participant’s response) Correct delay High-quality praise for prompted or unprompted correct sharing
71
Appendix I
Generalization of Sharing Behaviors and Social Information Procedural Fidelity Data Sharing Generalization Probe Sessions Dyad: _________/_________ Date: _____________________ Session #: _________________
Place a check (√) in the corresponding box if correct and a minus (-) if incorrect Investigator Behaviors √ or -
Provide general directive that it is time for an art activity Provide art materials Provide highly-preferred art materials to one participant No prompts other than redirects
Place a check (√) in the corresponding box if correct and a minus (-) if incorrect Investigator Behaviors 1 2 3 4 5 6 %
Provide attending cue Obtain student’s attention following attending cue Correct task direction Correct delay Correct response (based on participant’s response)
