Increasing Social Behaviors in Young Children with Social-Communication Delays in a Group Arrangement in Preschool
Lane, Justin D.; Gast, David L.; Ledford, Jennifer R.; Shepley, Collin (2017). Education and Treatment of Children, v40 n2 p115-144. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1145191
-
examining6Students, gradePK
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: March 2026
- Practice Guide (findings for Progressive time delay (PTD) to teach sharing behaviors - Lane et al. (2017))
- 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: 17%
Male: 83% -
Rural
-
- 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 sessions occurred in a self-contained preschool classroom located in a public primary school in a rural Southeastern U.S. school district. Sessions occurred during centers when students were seated at tables, as part of the typical schedule.
Study sample
The study included six preschool students (ages 4-5) with Significant Developmental Delay as well as noted delays in social-communication skills. Four of the students were considered "at-risk" for Autism Spectrum Disorder and the other two students received services for delayed social-emotional development and severe aggressive behaviors. The sample included five boys and one girl. No other demographic information was reported.
Intervention Group
The study examines a progressive time-delay (PTD) procedure used to teach sharing behaviors. The intervention occurred during the same sessions as peer preference instruction (which was evaluated in separate single case designs), following each correct response for a peer preference trial. The purpose of the sharing instruction was to teach participants to share tokens with the other student in their assigned dyad. Specifically, the investigator provided verbal praise and two tokens following correct responses during peer preference trials. During the PTD instructional sharing sessions, after providing the two tokens, the investigator immediately provided a controlling prompt (i.e., physical prompt) to share the token with a peer (0-second delay) or provided the controlling prompt following the specified delay (1-, 2, 3-, and 4-second time delay). Starting at 0 seconds, the criterion for increasing the delay was 83% unprompted correct responses for three consecutive sessions when reinforced with behavior-specific praise on a continuous reinforcement (CRF) schedule for both participants of a dyad. During the final week of instruction, adult praise was thinned to a Variable Ratio 3 (VR-3) schedule of reinforcement in which a response is reinforced after an average of three instances of the behavior, but the exact number varies unpredictably (for example, reinforcement might occur after two responses, then four, then three, and so on, averaging out to three over time). Each participant had up to six opportunities to share tokens per session (12 trials each session). If the participant physically resisted the adult prompt, the investigator ceased providing the controlling prompt and moved on to the next trial. If no tokens were shared, the investigator moved on to the next trial. If tokens were shared, the investigator provided descriptive praise. Because social praise did not function well for one child, his reinforcement was modified to include a preferred item. Sessions lasted 8-13 minutes and occurred once a day, four days per week.
Comparison Group
There is no comparison group in single-case designs. Baseline (and intervention) sharing sessions occurred during the same sessions as the peer preference instruction following each correct response for a peer preference trial. The investigator provided verbal praise and two tokens following correct responses during peer preference trials. During baseline sharing sessions, participants had 4 seconds to share tokens independently with the other participant in their dyad. If no tokens were shared, the investigator moved on to the next trial. If tokens were shared, the investigator provided descriptive praise. Sharing data during baseline sessions were collected for three consecutive sessions or until data were stable. Sessions lasted 8-13 minutes and occurred once a day, four days per week.
Support for implementation
No support for implementation was noted.
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).