Effects of a Peer-Mediated Joint Attention Intervention in an Inclusive Preschool Setting
Hansen, Sarah G.; Mowbray, Megan; Raulston, Tracy; Carnett, Amarie; Tullis, Christopher (2023). Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, v38 n2 p71-79. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1377960
-
examining3Students, gradePK
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: March 2026
- Single Study Review (findings for Peer-mediated joint attention - Hansen et al. (2023))
- Single Case Design
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it is a SCD design where the independent variable is manipulated by the researcher, each outcome is measured systematically over time by multiple assessors with a sufficient number of assessment points and inter-assessor agreement, but there are an insufficient number of phases and/or assessments per phase to meet 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.
Findings
To view more detailed information about the study findings from this review, please download findings data here.
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.
-
Male: 100% -
Urban
-
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
South
-
Race Other or unknown 100% -
Ethnicity Other or unknown 100% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study occurred in two inclusive classrooms in one public charter preschool in a large city in the southeast United States. The two classrooms each had one head teacher and two or three teaching assistants.
Study sample
Participants included three preschool children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). All three students were 4-year-old males. No other demographic information was provided.
Intervention Group
This peer-mediated intervention includes both peer training and implementation with the focal child and peer. Joint attention training was used to help children develop the ability to share focus on an object or play activity with a peer from their classroom. Prior to beginning the peer-mediated joint attention intervention, each target student with ASD was paired with a classroom peer to form a dyad. Immediately prior to the implementation of the intervention, each peer participated in 5 to 10 minute training sessions to learn how to initiate joint attention with their paired target student in the subsequent peer-mediated intervention phase. During the intervention phase, the interventionist introduced three or four novel toys, such as cardboard stars, lava lamps, or plush toys. Each peer was expected to initiate joint attention with the target student using the techniques demonstrated during training. If the peer did not initiate joint attention within three minutes, the interventionist prompted the peer to elicit at least five bids for joint attention during the intervention session, which lasted 10 minutes. Once the peer made unprompted bids for three consecutive sessions and the target student responded at typical levels (defined as 70 percent of peer bids), the target student received instruction on the initiation of bids for joint attention from the peer. One of the three target children did not progress to the final stage and receive instruction on the initiation of bids from the peer. However, the interventionist did prompt that third target child for initiations to his peer. The number of intervention sessions varied by dyad/case: Dyad 1 had 11, Dyad 2 had eight, and Dyad 3 had four. All intervention training and sessions occurred in the same location in the classroom, typically at a learning station or table away from other students who were either engaged in free play or snack time during the training and intervention sessions.
Comparison Group
There is no comparison group in single-case design studies. During baseline sessions, the interventionist sat with each dyad at a learning center or table for a 10-minute session of free play during which the interventionist provided vocal prompts to ensure the dyad remained together. Prior to each baseline session, the interventionist introduced three or four novel toys, such as cardboard stars, lava lamps, or plush toys, but the participants were not given any instructions or prompts during the session. The number of baseline sessions varied by dyad/case: Dyad 1 had five, Dyad 2 had seven, and Dyad 3 had nine.
Support for implementation
Each peer participated in five to 10 minute training sessions to learn how to initiate joint attention with their paired target student in the subsequent peer-mediated intervention phase. If the peer did not initiate joint attention within three minutes of the start of each intervention session, the interventionist prompted the peer.
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, statistical significance, and sample size of the findings within a domain, the WWC assigns effectiveness ratings as one of the following: Tier 1 (strong evidence), Tier 2 (moderate evidence), Tier 3 (promising evidence), uncertain effects, and negative effects. For more detail, 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).