An Interest-Based Intervention Package to Increase Peer Social Interaction in Young Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder
Watkins, Laci; O'Reilly, Mark; Kuhn, Michelle; Ledbetter-Cho, Katherine (2019). Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, v52 n1 p132-149. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1203159
-
examining4Students, gradePK
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: April 2026
- Single Study Review (findings for Interest-based structured play intervention - Watkins et al. (2019))
- Single Case Design
- 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.
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.
-
Female: 25%
Male: 75% -
Race Asian 50% White 50% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 25% Not Hispanic or Latino 75% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place within one inclusive preschool classroom in a private community school for students with disabilities. No information was available about the city, region, or state in which the school was located.
Study sample
Participants included four preschool students diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) who received special education services and had individual educational programs with goals related to social and communication skills. Students ranged in age from four to six years old. Three of the students were males. Two of the students were White, two were Asian, and one was Hispanic. The study did not report other demographic information.
Intervention Group
The intervention included interest-based structured play activities with adult instruction, modeling, and response to questions. Prior to the study, each focal student was paired with a typically developing peer. The researchers worked with teachers and parents to develop a play-based activity for each student based on their interests, and then selected the activities that would also appeal to peers, such as coloring, drawing, or playing with toy cars or blocks. During each intervention session, the study facilitator directed each focal student-peer dyad to the play area of the classroom and introduced the play activity. Other toys were present during these sessions, but the children were instructed to engage in the specific activity. After 2-3 minutes of modeling and verbal explanation of the activity, the facilitator observed participants and peers in a 10-minute play session. Facilitators did not provide additional modeling or explanation of the activities, but they did answer questions and respond to requests for help. Each session lasted 10 minutes. The intervention phases also included generalization sessions in which each focal student was paired with a novel peer.
Comparison Group
There is no comparison group in single-case designs. During the 10-minute baseline sessions, the study facilitator directed the focal student-peer dyad to the play area of the classroom and told them that it was time to play, which was typical for how teachers introduced free play time in the classroom. The participant and peer were allowed to select any of the toys that were available in the play area or to select other items within the classroom and bring them to the play area rug. Toys related to focal students' interests were available but the facilitator did not direct them to these items or any structured play activity involving peers. The children were given no social skills instruction and no prompting or reinforcement. The baseline phases also included generalization sessions in which each focal student was paired with a novel peer.
Support for implementation
The intervention was implemented by members of the research team who served as facilitators. There was no mention of support for implementation.
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).