Peer-Mediated Joint Attention Intervention in the Preschool Classroom
Hansen, Sarah G.; Raulston, Tracy J.; Machalicek, Wendy; Frantz, Rebecca; Drew, Christine; Erturk, Buket; Squires, Jane (2019). Journal of Special Education, v53 n2 p96-107 Aug 2019. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1220595
-
examining4Students, gradePK
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: April 2026
- Single Study Review (findings for Peer-mediated joint attention - Hansen et al. (2019))
- 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 or the study does not meet requirements for nonoverlap of all pairs.
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% -
- 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
West
-
Race Other or unknown 75% White 25% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 50% Other or unknown 50% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The intervention was delivered in three inclusive classrooms that were part of an unspecified number of inclusive preschools that served children with disabilities in the Pacific Northwest region of the United States. Adult mediated intervention sessions took place outside of the students' classrooms, either in the hallway or an office.
Study sample
Participants included four students in three inclusive preschool classrooms. Three of the students were identified as having autism spectrum disorder and one had a teacher reported diagnosis but scored in the non-autistic range on the Childhood Autism Rating Scale. Three students were 4 years old, and one was 5 years old. One student was white, and three did not have a specified race. Two were Hispanic or Latino, and three were male.
Intervention Group
During the intervention sessions, an adult interventionist taught joint attention skills using a least-to-most prompting hierarchy and edible reinforcements. The hierarchy followed this order of prompting: (1) the interventionist shifted their gaze to an object or event; (2) the interventionist shifted their gaze and pointed at the object or event; (3) the interventionist made a partial physical prompt by tapping the student on the shoulder and asking them to look at the object or event; and (4) the interventionist used a full physical prompt by physically moving the student's body in the direction of the object or event. The interventionist used a 3- to 5- second delay before moving to the next level of prompt. After the child looked at the object or event (either through an eye gaze shift, head turn, or body reorientation) and returned their attention to the adult interventionist, the student received an edible reinforcement. The interventionist made joint attention bids once every 1 to 2 minutes, for a minimum of 5 bids per session. The sessions between the adult interventionist and student lasted 10 minutes each.
Comparison Group
There is no comparison group in single-case designs. During the baseline sessions, the adult interventionist intermittently attempted to direct the student's attention jointly to an object or event by pointing at it or shifting their gaze toward it (referred to as "joint attention bids"). The adult interventionist gave no systematic instruction or prompts during the baseline phase. If the child responded, the interventionist commented on the object or event but no other consequences were delivered. The adult interventionist provided small edibles when the student complied with instructions and remained seated at the table. The interventionist made joint attention bids once every 1 to 2 minutes, for a minimum of 5 bids per session. The sessions between the adult interventionist and student lasted 10 minutes each.
Support for implementation
A single adult interventionist led the baseline and intervention sessions. The interventionist was an advanced early childhood special education doctoral candidate with six years of experience implementing interventions for students with autism spectrum disorder.
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).