Social Skills Instruction for Students with High-Incidence Disabilities: a School-Based

Study Title: Social skills instruction for students with high-incidence disabilities: A school-based intervention to address acquisition deficits

Study Author: Miller, M., Lane, K. & Wehby, J.

Publication Details: Preventing School Failure, vol. 49, no. 2, 2005, pp. 27-40.

Summary:

What did the research aim to do?

This study aimed to examine the outcomes of a highly structured, classroom-based social skills intervention program for seven students with high incidence disabilities (e.g., emotional disturbance, learning disabilities, and other health impairments).

How was the study designed?

The problem driving this study is located in previous research that suggests antisocial behaviour at school can negatively impact interpersonal development, academic achievement and future employment possibilities. This quasi-experimental study focused on seven children (five males, two females) aged between 6 and 10 years who were diagnosed as having ‘significant behavioural difficulties’. Students were allocated to one of two groups, with students matched as far as possible for gender and grade level (no explanation for the use of two groups was provided in the article). Data collection occurred in three phases: pre-intervention, intervention, and post-intervention.

Data collection tools included the following:

· A semi-structured interview with the regular classroom teacher (who had 28 years’ teaching experience).

· Four behaviour assessment tools: Social Skill Rating System—Teacher Version, which collects data about the teacher’s assessment of students’ social skills, behaviour and academic competence; Critical Events Index and the Combined Frequency Index, both of which are nationally normed (USA) instruments for identifying children at risk of behavioural and learning difficulties; and a School Archive Record Search.

· A computer-assisted observation system known as Multi-Option Observational System for Experimental Studies, which is used to collect rate and duration data on researcher-specified events. In this case, observations were conducted at 15-minute intervals and focused on ‘academic engagement time’ and ‘inappropriate classroom behaviours’.

· A points-based behaviour management system already in place in the special needs classroom. This points system required students to evaluate their classroom behaviour 11 times each school day with respect to four different goals: body control, treating others with kindness, following directions, and a behavioural goal specific to each student.

The intervention program comprised direct instruction in specific social skills 3-4 days a week for 30 minutes per day over a 6-week period (i.e. 24 training sessions over 12 hours). The behaviour ’deficits’ identified by the Social Skill Rating System Assessment became the core content for the program in order to help the students ‘more successfully negotiate their teacher’s social and behavioural expectations’. The program therefore focused on cooperation, assertion, responsibility, empathy and self-control. Each social skills ‘training session’ was carefully structured into five stages:

1. Tell (demonstration by trainer—a graduate student enrolled in a special education Masters program)

2. Show (modelling of the target skill by the trainer)

3. Do (guided practice by students with supportive trainer feedback)

4. Follow through and practice (independent practice by students)

5. Generalisation (student practice of target skills in settings outside the classroom).

Data were analysed using: visual inspection of behaviour assessment scores at each phase of the intervention program; mean score comparisons; and effect size calculations.

What were the limitations?

The authors explicitly listed a number of limitations associated with their study:

· The setting for the study, a self-contained special education classroom, meant that the study could not be generalised to ‘mainstream’ classrooms.

· The two groups of students were too internally diverse; authors recommended matching group members along academic performance levels instead of gender and grade level.

· Collecting classroom observation data at 15-minute intervals did not provide sufficient depth of data to explore the complexity of participants’ interaction and behaviour patterns.

· The two focus areas (academic engagement time and inappropriate classroom behaviours) proved to be too grossly drawn and blurred important complexities in participants’ behaviours.

In addition, the implementation of the intervention program itself was extremely labour intensive and would be difficult for a teacher in a ‘mainstream’ classroom to replicate. One oversight in the study was the absence of data pertaining to participant demonstration of appropriate classroom behaviours; the authors’ focus on deficit behaviours risks promoting perceptions of students with high-incidence disabilities as ‘trouble makers’ or as ‘difficult to manage’ students.

What were the findings?

The researchers found that inappropriate classroom behaviour decreased for both groups, with four children demonstrating substantial decreases in inappropriate behaviour (although only two of these students maintained this change or continued to improve). One student demonstrated an increase in inappropriate behaviour, while one student demonstrated no change at all. Students in Group 1 demonstrated moderate to strong positive changes in academic engagement times when baseline and intervention phase data were compared. Improvement in academic engagement time was not sustained for students in Group 2. Two children in Group 2 demonstrated worse academic engagement times at the close of the study. Behavioural point scores increased in variability across all seven students, although there was little change in mean point scores for either group.

What conclusions were drawn from the research?

Overall, the intervention was judged successful by the researchers. Inappropriate classroom behaviour decreased between baseline and intervention phases for both groups. However, findings showed that variability in student performance increased overall, and only one group of students maintained improvements or continued to improve their classroom behaviours. Positive changes were not reflected in the existing points-based behavioural management system implemented by the classroom teacher.

What are the implications of the study?

The implications of this study are that relatively fine-grained observations or analyses of student classroom behaviour are needed when evaluating behaviour-oriented intervention programs. The results of the study also imply that direct teaching, modelling, and supportive feedback and opportunities to practise new social skills can be beneficial to some students, but not necessarily all students.

Generalisability and significance for Queensland

It is difficult to generalise from such a specialised area of study to everyday education contexts in Queensland. Nevertheless, for teachers working in ‘mainstream’ classrooms that include students with high-incidence disabilities, the study may provide important insights into the importance of effective social skills for all students, and a reminder that poor social skills may have far-reaching consequences for some students. It may also provide useful information on the ways in which children with high-incidence disabilities may benefit from carefully planned, tailored and sustained direct instruction in and modelling of key social skills.

Where can interested readers find out more?

Lane, K., Wehby, J., Menzies, H., Gregg, R. Doukas, G. & Munton, S. 2003, ‘Social skills instruction for students at risk for antisocial behavior: The effects of small group instruction’, Behavioral Disorders, vol. 28, pp. 229-248.

Keywords: social skills, students with disabilities