Guglielmo, Hindi M.; Tryon, Georgiana (2001). School Psychology Quarterly, v16 n2 p158-75. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ632105
Reviewed: February 2013
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.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Social Skills Training.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Frequency of "sharing" behaviors |
Social Skills Training vs. Unknown |
Posttest |
Preschoolers;
|
5.69 |
2.79 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Frequency of "being in a group" behaviors |
Social Skills Training vs. Unknown |
Posttest |
Preschoolers;
|
10.65 |
9.58 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 8% | |
| Black | 21% | |
| Other or unknown | 8% | |
| White | 34% |
| Hispanic | 29% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 71% |
The study was conducted in a publicly-funded, privately-operated preschool in New York state.
A total of nine integrated classrooms containing 58 children with developmental delays who qualified for special education participated in this study. Three intact classrooms were randomly assigned to each of three arms in this study (and the analysis was conducted on the eligible sample of students with developmental delays). Group A (n = 19 eligible children) received social skills training supplemented by classroom reinforcement of target behaviors. Group B (n = 19 eligible children) did not receive social skills training but did receive classroom reinforcement of target behaviors. Group C (n = 20 eligible children) did not receive either social skills training or classroom reinforcement of target behaviors. For the purpose of this WWC report, the evidence of the social skills training program is identified by comparing the children in the social skills training supplemented by classroom reinforcement group (Group A) against the children who did not receive social skills training but did receive classroom reinforcement of target behaviors (Group B). Additional contrasts for Group A against Group C are presented in Appendix D.3.
Children in the three classrooms in Group A received social skills training using the “Taking Part: Introducing Social Skills to Children” program, coupled with classroom reinforcement of the behaviors targeted by the training: “sharing” and “being in a group.” During social skills training, children with developmental delays were instructed on how to join a group and to share with peers. Instructors modeled the activities for the children using puppets and a short skit. Following this activity, children practiced the sharing skills with their peers. Children were given specific instructions on behaviors in which to engage, including establishing eye contact, tapping children on the shoulder as a means to gain attention, and asking to play with others. Children in Groups A and B received classroom reinforcement of target behaviors, which included continuous verbal acknowledgment of positive behaviors and tangible rewards. The intervention lasted for approximately 20 to 30 minutes each day for a total of eight days.
Children in the comparison group (C) did not receive any social skills training but did receive classroom reinforcement of target behaviors.
There were two primary outcomes in this study in the social-emotional development and behavior domain. The frequency of each of the two “sharing” and “being in a group” behaviors was assessed through direct observations of children. For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendix B.
A scripted example lesson plan for social skills training was presented as an appendix in the study. The first author taught two one-hour training sessions on modeling and role-playing for classroom reinforcement of target behaviors to the teachers and teacher assistants.
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, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, 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).
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube