Randomized evaluation of peer support arrangements to support the inclusion of high school students with severe disabilities
Carter, E. W., Asmus, J., Moss, C. K., Biggs, E. E., Bolt, D. M., Born, T. L., ... & Fesperman, E. (2016). Exceptional Children, 82(2), 209-233.
-
examining99Students, grades9-12
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: December 2019
- Single Study Review (findings for Peer Support Arrangements)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition.
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.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Classroom observations of academic engagement |
Peer Support Arrangements vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.69 |
0.58 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Classroom observations of the number of peers interacting with the student each class period |
Peer Support Arrangements vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
2.52 |
1.61 |
No |
-- | |
|
Classroom observations of social interactions |
Peer Support Arrangements vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
55.65 |
30.60 |
No |
-- | |
|
Social participation ratings |
Peer Support Arrangements vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
Classroom observations of student's proximity to the adult assigned to provide direct support |
Peer Support Arrangements vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.29 |
0.42 |
No |
-- | |
|
Classroom observations of social interactions initiated or responded to by focus student with severe disabilities |
Peer Support Arrangements vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
25.57 |
15.50 |
No |
-- | |
|
Social Skills Improvement System (SSIS) |
Peer Support Arrangements vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
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: 36%
Male: 64% -
Race Asian 7% Black 15% Native American 3% Other or unknown 8% White 67% -
Ethnicity Not Hispanic or Latino 100%
Study Details
Setting
This study took place in general education classrooms in 21 high schools from 12 school districts in two states.
Study sample
To be eligible for the study, students had to meet three criteria: (1) receive special education services under the categories of intellectual disability and autism spectrum disorder or qualify for the state's alternative assessment, (2) be enrolled in at least one general education class (physical education classes did not count toward meeting this criterion), and (3) receive individual support from a paraprofessional or special educator in their general education class. In the peer support group, the majority (58.8%) were male and European American (66.7%). The remaining race/ethnic categories are: 13.7 percent African American, 7.8% Asian American, 3.9% Native or Alaskan American, and 5.9% other or multiple races. Of the total sample, 27.5 percent were eligible for free or reduced-price meals. Primary or secondary disability categories included Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD; 29.4%), intellectual disability (54.9%), ASD and intellectual disability (13.7%), multiple disabilities (2.0%), and other developmental disabilities (2.0%). In the comparison group, the majority (68.8%) were male and European American (66.7%). The remaining race/ethnic categories are: 16.7 percent African American, 6.3% Asian American, 2.1% Native or Alaskan American, and 6.3% other or multiple races. Of the total sample, 37.5 percent were eligible for free or reduced-price meals. Primary or secondary disability categories included Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD; 35.4%), intellectual disability (47.9%), ASD and intellectual disability (6.3%), multiple disabilities (2.1%), and other developmental disabilities (8.3%).
Intervention Group
Paraprofessionals or special educators recruited, trained, and supported peers to provide individualized academic and social assistance to classmates with severe disabilities within the same general education classroom, as they work together on activities designed for all students by the classroom teacher. Socially, peers model age-appropriate social and communication skills, increase opportunities to contribute to discussions in the classroom, and reduce barriers. Peers can help academically by working alongside their peers with severe disabilities by increasing the amount of individualized supports received, corrective feedback, and response opportunities.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison condition received “business as usual,” which involved receiving individually assigned support from adult paraprofessionals or special educators during ongoing class activities.
Support for implementation
Peers receive an initial training ranging from 15 to 60 minutes, and a written plan that outlines the individualized supports they should provide. They receive ongoing guidance and feedback from paraprofessionals and educators as they assist their classmate. Facilitators also participate in a 2.5-hour initial training, which covers the goals of the intervention, guidance on how to recruit students to serve as peer partners, how to create peer support plans, how to orient and support the peer partners, guidance on fading direct support of the partners, and the role of the intervention coach. Coaches pay classroom visits to monitor implementation and provide suggestions, answer questions, encourage use of facilitative strategies, and problem-solve any concerns. Facilitators complete a self-monitoring checklist on a weekly basis, which contains specific strategies for the focus student, peer partners, and facilitators.
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).