A Social Skills Training Program for Preschoolers with Developmental Delays: Generalization and Social Validity.
LeBlanc, Linda A.; Matson, Johnny L. (1995). Behavior Modification, v19 n2 p234-46. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ513091
-
examining32Students, gradePK
Social Skills Training Intervention Report - Early Childhood Education for Children with Disabilities
Review Details
Reviewed: February 2013
- Randomized controlled trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Social Skills Training.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Frequency of "appropriate" social behaviors |
Social Skills Training vs. Business as Usual |
Posttest |
Preschoolers;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
Frequency of "inappropriate" social behavior |
Social Skills Training vs. Business as Usual |
Posttest |
Preschoolers;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
Female: 12%
Male: 88% -
Race Black 75% White 25%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted in a preschool for children with developmental disabilities.
Study sample
Thirty-two children in six classrooms participated in this study. The children had mild to moderate developmental delays, and many also were physically handicapped. Six intact classrooms of children were randomly assigned to one of two conditions. Children in classrooms assigned to the intervention group (n = 16 children) received social skills training, while children in classrooms assigned to the comparison group (n = 16 children) received the business-as-usual classroom experience.
Intervention Group
Children in the intervention group received two one-hour sessions of social skills training each week, for a total of 12 sessions over six weeks. The activities in the training were designed to promote social skills and social play. Each session was broken into two phases. During Phase 1 (approximately 15 minutes), children were instructed on target behaviors, including greeting, asking to see a toy, initiating play, and showing a toy. Therapists modeled the target behavior using a puppet, the children modeled the behavior following this initial presentation with a puppet, and then the children modeled the behavior with another child. During Phase 2 (approximately 45 minutes), children engaged in play and received verbal and edible reinforcements for engaging in the target behavior. Children who engaged in inappropriate behaviors were prompted to perform an opposite positive behavior. For example, if a child inappropriately took a toy, the corresponding opposite positive behavior was to return the toy and to ask to see it. If the child refused to conduct the opposite positive behavior, they were placed in a one-minute time-out.
Comparison Group
Children in the comparison group participated in regular classroom activities and received a reward for participating in the data collection for the study. They did not receive any social skills training or reinforcement of target behaviors.
Outcome descriptions
The study examined two outcomes in the socio-emotional development and behavior domain. The frequency of “appropriate” and “inappropriate” behaviors was assessed through direct observations of children during a semi-structured play session at pretest and at posttest. For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendix B.
Support for implementation
The staff that implemented the intervention was comprised of therapists and assistant therapists. No information was provided about training.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).