Facilitating Commenting and Requesting Skills in 3-Year-Old Children With Disabilities
Stanton-Chapman, Tina L., & Brown, Tiara S. (2015). Journal of Early Intervention, 37(2), 103-118.
-
examining6Students, gradePK
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: March 2026
- Practice Guide (findings for Shared storybook social communication intervention - Stanton-Chapman & Brown (2015))
- 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: 50%
Male: 50% -
Rural
-
Race Black 33% White 67% -
Ethnicity Other or unknown 100% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in a self-contained special education preschool classroom in a rural elementary school. The study sessions took place during free play time in the children's classroom in a dramatic play center that was developed specifically for the study. The authors did not report the geographic location of the preschool center.
Study sample
Participants included six students from one preschool classroom, all of whom were receiving special education services. Five students were diagnosed with developmental delays and one student was diagnosed with a specific language impairment. All six students were 3 years old. Half were male; half were female, 67 percent were White and 33 percent were Black. The study did not report other demographic information.
Intervention Group
The intervention was a shared storybook social communication intervention that involved dramatic play and communication skills such as initiations and responses. The goal of the intervention was to teach social communication and play skills to children with disabilities. Intervention sessions were conducted 4 to 5 times per week, lasted approximately 20 to 25 minutes each, and were administered to the three dyads on separate days. Each session featured one of five different dramatic play themes (grocery store, doctor, construction, animal doctor, or hair salon/barber), which were repeated once each theme was presented. The intervention sessions were used to teach the following social communication skills: verbally initiating conversation, listening and responding, playing within close proximity to the peer, using the peer's name, and taking turns. Each intervention session consisted of three parts: the advanced play organizer, the play session, and the review session. The advanced play organizer component lasted approximately 10 minutes and had four parts: instructing target vocabulary words, teaching roles for each play theme, reading the story book and teaching the social communication strategies, and planning play. During the play session, which was approximately 10 minutes, students had the opportunity to play with the thematic materials. During this time, the outcome data were collected. During the review session, which was approximately 5 minutes, the students reviewed their play performance with the interventionist.
Comparison Group
There is no comparison group in single-case designs. Baseline sessions were conducted 2 to 3 times per week and were approximately 10 minutes in duration. During baseline sessions, children played in the dramatic play center but were not prompted to interact with the toys or with their peer. Baseline sessions occurred on separate days for each dyad.
Support for implementation
Two project staff with education degrees in early intervention and early childhood special education, and a minimum of five years of experience teaching children at risk and children with disabilities administered the intervention.
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).