Case study

EJ8055591

At this point in the class, you should know the proper way to set up a title page, headings, etc. Correct APA format for the title page and body of the study with headings, page numbers, and content where it belongs is worth 4 points Any error in format will cost this pts Introduction 1) State what is known about your topic clearly -2pts 2) State what is unknown (the question which your study addresses – 2pts 3) State your hypothesis in a simple single sentence- 2pts Methods Using full sentences explain the following What type of study is this (prospective, retrospective, correlational, experimental, survey, etc. – 2pts Describe the subjects in this study (Demographics- tell me age, gender or other important characteristics (e.g If you are working with dementia patients you may want to say at what stage of dementia and what type (there are different types). Also, state from where you recruited them and HOW (e.g. advertisement, clinic sample, etc.) -3pts What was the procedure (how were the subjects tested or measured? What instruments, tests, or other methods were used to measure them? If you are doing a true experiment (and perhaps a quasi-experiment you should have a control group. A single-subject design 3pts What kind of data does the study show (nominal, ordinal, interval, or ratio)?-2pts What kind of analysis was used (t-Test, Chi-Square, ANOVA, correlation, etc.)-2 pts 

JEIBI VOLUME 4 – NUMBER 3

532

Social skills interventions for preschoolers with Autism Spectrum
Disorder: A description of single-

subject design studies

Jennifer M. Gillis, Ph.D., BCBA1 & Robert C. Butler, B.S.

Abstract
Social skill development is one of the primary areas of intervention for young children with Autism
Spectrum Disorders (ASD). The purpose of this article was to conduct a retrospective review of social
skills intervention research for preschool children with ASD. A review of 17 single-subject design studies
from twelve journals (1999-2006) was conducted. We assessed information concerning the features of
social skills interventions, the elements of single subject designs utilized across studies, and the overall
success of interventions for social behaviors. A comparison with a review conducted by Vaughn et al.
(2003) revealed some important common elements of interventions such as reinforcement, modeling and
prompting, providing converging evidence from group design studies and single subject studies.
Keywords: Autism Spectrum Disorders, Social Skills, Intervention, Preschool

The term, Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), is commonly used to identify a family of disorders,
including, Autistic Disorder, Asperger’s Disorder, or Pervasive Developmental Disorder Not Otherwise
Specified, in the Diagnostic Statistical Manual–IV, Text Revision (DSM-IV TR; American Psychiatric
Association, 2000). An individual with ASD exhibits deficits in core areas including social development
and social skills, language and communication skills, and repetitive, ritualistic, stereotyped behaviors.
Across the ASD spectrum, the expression of these deficits ranges from mild to severe.

Social Skills Deficits in ASD

The primary deficit of ASD is social impairment (Romanczyk, White, & Gillis, 2005; Weiss,
2001; Weiss & Harris, 2001a). We use the term, social impairment to refer to any deficit or limitation or
delay in social awareness, social competence, and social development. We define social skills as
behaviors each person learns to facilitate awareness of his/her social environment and social
contingencies, to be able to solve social problems (i.e., demonstrate social competence), and other
behaviors that are developmentally appropriate.

Social skills deficits are common to all individuals with an ASD, are pervasive, and typically

manifest at a very young age. The DSM-IV-TR (APA, 2000) lists the impairments in social interaction as:
1) deficits in nonverbal behaviors (e.g., eye-to-eye gaze, recognition of facial expressions, use of gestures
to regulate social interaction), 2) failure to develop peer relationships appropriate to the child’s
developmental level, 3) lack of spontaneous seeking to share enjoyment and interests (e.g., failure to
show, bring, or point out objects of interest), and 4) lack of social or emotional reciprocity (e.g., unable to
or does not respond to emotions or social interactions from others).

ASD is a heterogeneous disorder, meaning that one individual with ASD will have differing areas

of social impairment with differing levels of severity from another individual with ASD.

1 Author Notes-The authors would like to thank Trina L. Butler for her assistance in data collection for
this literature review. The authors wish to acknowledge the helpful feedback and comments of the two
anonymous reviewers.

JEIBI VOLUME 4 – NUMBER 3

533

Additional examples of social impairment observed in children with ASD include difficulties
initiating social interactions, responding to the social initiations of others, initiating or responding to joint
attention, and recognizing emotions in self. Areas of social impairment frequently observed in preschool
age children with ASD include social play, dramatic play, friendship-seeking behavior, and cooperative
play. Poor motivation to learn social behaviors or to engage in social activities is also commonly observed
in children with ASD. These comprise only a fraction of social skills observed in individuals with ASD.

The extant literature suggests that early social impairments greatly impact future relationships,

employment, independent living, and other mental health issues (e.g., anxiety, depression) (Bellini, 2004;
Strain & Scwartz, 2001; Tantam, 2000). Thus, there should be an emphasis for intervention to occur early
and to focus on the development of social skills in order to build social interactions and relationships.
Unfortunately, it remains unclear as to which social skills are important to teach that will lead to better
outcomes in areas related to social impairment for children with ASD. An issue that remains elusive and
is of equal importance is to determine the specific types of interventions that effectively teach social
skills.

Normal Social Skills Development in Preschoolers

Typical social development in preschool age children (i.e., ages two through five) involves the
development of social interactions with peers and development of play behaviors. For all children, play
begins with nonsocial or solitary play, when a child is content to play alone with toys/objects with or
without the engagement of others in the same play activity. Children then develop parallel play, which is
when a child plays with the same toys as another child, but does not necessarily interact with the other
child (Rubin, Fein, & Vandenberg, 1983).

Children begin to form their first friendships between three and four years of age. At this age,

children begin to increase cooperative and interactive play with peers and develop increased self-
regulation (a necessary skill in order to play well with others). Children begin to understand turn-taking
and simple rules to games in small groups. By the age of five, a child’s social communication skills are
more complex, for example, children will tell jokes, share a variety of experiences with others, and take
turns in conversations (American Academy of Pediatrics, 1999).

Social skills interventions for children in the preschool age range focus on the improvement of

behaviors related to social interactions with peers, including play skills (e.g., engaging in pretend play,
sharing, turn-taking, etc). Other examples include, social communication skills (e.g., initiating and
responding to others verbally or nonverbally), socio-emotional skills (e.g., affect recognition, empathy),
and friendship skills. For children with ASD, focusing on age-appropriate skill development is important,
but becomes difficult given the limited skill repertoires and difficulty in learning for children with ASD.

Recent Review of Literature

In a review of social interventions by Strain and Schwartz (2001), conclusions are made
suggesting that there is plentiful research demonstrating the efficacy of teaching children with ASD
specific social behaviors, including initiating and responding to social interactions. These authors identify
the need to examine issues related to generalization and maintenance of social behaviors. In addition, the
authors propose the use of eco-behavioral assessments (i.e., examining the behavior in applied contexts
such as the classroom). Strain and Schwartz also emphasize the importance of social validity, in terms of
evaluating the acceptability of an intervention by family members/caregivers and teachers and whether
these interventions would be sustainable outside of the research setting.

JEIBI VOLUME 4 – NUMBER 3

534

There is a literature base to provide potential targets for social skills interventions (Terpstra,
Higgins, & Pierce, 2002; Weiss & Harris, 2001a; Koegel & Koegel, 1995). However, the specific
interventions that are successful for preschool children with ASD have not been fully confirmed nor
endorsed by the majority of professionals across disciplines.

In an effort to examine key features of social skills interventions for preschool children with

developmental disabilities, including ASD, Vaughn, Kim, Morris Sloan, Hughes, Elbaum, and Sridhar
(2003) reviewed 23 group design studies from 1975 to 1999. Vaughn et al. (2003) found 10 categories or
features important in social skills interventions. These included prompting (i.e., verbal or physical
prompting of a social skill), rehearsal/practice, play-related activities (to elicit social skills), free-play
generalization, reinforcement of appropriate social skills, modeling of social skills, social skills-related
storytelling, direct instruction of social skills, imitation, and time-out (to decrease inappropriate
behaviors).

Vaughn et al. (2003) calculated effect sizes for the studies reviewed and found that the studies

with the greatest effect sizes included the following four features in the interventions: modeling, play-
related activities, rehearsal/practice and/or, prompting procedures. It should be noted that the other
categories listed in the previous paragraph were not necessarily associated with negative outcomes. For
the 23 studies reviewed, there was an average of 3.4 categories of interventions included in each study.
The authors stated that incorporating a free-play generalization phase is helpful in determining whether
the above categories of intervention facilitated the generalization of the targeted social skills to new
settings, peers, and social-related activities.

Single Subject Research

Behavioral science not only aims to understand the nature of the determinants of behavior, but
also how to apply these principles in order to change dysfunctional behavior through intervention.
Interventions derived from empirical findings traditionally have been evaluated using two types of
research designs. The two major types of research designs that meet the standards of scientific research
methodology are single subject and group designs.

Single-subject and group designs provide valuable information. Both designs examine functional

or causal relationships between an independent variable (e.g., an intervention) and a dependent variable
(e.g., behavior) and to control for threats to internal and external validity. Operational definitions of the
intervention and the targeted behavior(s) are also fundamental aspects of both designs.

Despite some methodological similarities, single-subject and group designs posses several

important differences. First, group design studies measure dependent variables (DVs) before and after the
intervention, whereas single subject design studies measure the DV(s), continuously and over time,
including before (i.e., baseline) during, and after the intervention. This is especially helpful when a timely
assessment of the effects of an intervention is warranted (e.g., determining the precise dosage of a
medication).

Second, group designs require random or quasi-random assignment of participants to

experimental and control conditions (to help control for threats to internal validity). Single subject
designs, however, do not require the random assignment of participants. In other words, there are no
“participant requirements”, per se, in single subject design studies. Single subject designs typically
include between three to eight participants, on average, with each participant serving as his/her own
control. This latter characteristic of single-subject designs eliminates the need for experimental and
control groups. This is a major advantage when a social skills training intervention occurs in a classroom

JEIBI VOLUME 4 – NUMBER 3

535

of preschool children with ASD. As these children present with a heterogeneous skill set and, most likely,
varying levels of functioning, it is difficult to obtain an adequate control sample.

Third, group design studies allow for statistical analyses that yield estimates of the causal effects

of the intervention (e.g., Analysis of Variance). These analyses are not possible with single subject design
studies. Rather, visual inspection of the data is utilized, which also permits inferences to be drawn about
causal relationships between the independent IV(s) and DV(s). There are specific criteria established to
guide the visual inspection process.

Single-subject designs can be particularly useful when conducting research in applied settings,

which is often the case in the evaluation of interventions for individuals with ASD. As mentioned above,
single-subject research provides for the examination of the effects of an intervention at the individual
level. Important aspects of single subject research designs include: a) the demonstration of a functional
relationship between treatment and behavior change; b) DVs are operationally defined; c) repeated
measurement of the DVs over time; d) the illustration of social validity of the intervention; e) the use of
methods for evaluating procedural fidelity and external validity; f) a description of the baseline phase
with sufficient data collected to evaluate effect of the IV; and g) a thorough description of the participants
and setting, to allow for replication (Horner, Carr, Halle, McGee, Odom, & Wolery, 2005). For a more
comprehensive description of single subject research designs used in special education research, please
see Horner et al., (2005).

Current Review

In this paper, we utilized the categories identified by Vaughn et al. (2003) in their review of
group design studies to determine whether these categories were also included in single subject design
studies. Vaughn identified modeling, play-related activities, rehearsal/practice and prompting as the
features associated with the largest effect sizes and, thus positive results. Effect sizes were not calculated
for this review, as this statistic is not typically utilized in single subject research studies due to the low
number of participants.

The primary purpose of this review was to examine the state of the single subject research over
the past five years for social skills interventions for preschool age children with ASD. A second purpose
of this review was to assess whether the features of social skills intervention packages were similar in
Vaughn et al’s (2003) review of group design studies. A synthesis of the single subject research at this
time is helpful in order to examine the status of interventions for social skills interventions and to identify
areas that warrant attention for future research.

Method

We selected journal articles from PsychInfo and the search engine on the website for the Journal

of Applied Behavior Analysis. Studies included in this publication were published between June 1999 and
December 2006. Keywords utilized for this search included autism, ASD, Asperger’s, handicapped,
special education, language impairment, communication impairment, developmental
delay, mentally retarded, social skills, joint attention, social referencing, imitation, friendship, and
approach. Terms were entered alone and in conjunction with other terms, truncating the keywords when
appropriate, i.e., autis* and dev*. We reviewed each article to determine if it met the inclusion criterion
for this review, resulting in 17 studies. Articles came from many different journals (i.e., Behavioral
Interventions, Early Education and Development, Education and Treatment of Children, Educational
Psychology in Practice, Development and Education, Focus on Autism and Other Developmental
Disabilities, International Journal of Disability, Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, Journal of Autism

JEIBI VOLUME 4 – NUMBER 3

536

and Developmental Disorders, Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, Topics in Early Childhood
Special Education, and Topics in Language Disorders).

The criteria for inclusion used to select articles for review are presented below:

1. Preschool Age. At least half of the participants in each study were between the ages of

2 and 5.
1.2. Design. Only studies utilizing single subject designs were included. Group

designs were excluded.
1.3. Peer Review. We only used articles that had been peer reviewed for this study in

an attempt to include higher quality research.
1.4. Social Skills. Studies were included if they focused on increasing beneficial

social behaviors or skills (e.g., joint attention, communication, appropriate eye
contact, cooperative play, sharing, sociodramatic play, imitation, self-management,
complimenting, initiating play, expressing sympathy, showing disapproval
appropriately, showing appreciation, pretend play, group interactions, verbalizing
requests).

1.5. Diagnosis. The majority of participants were required to have a diagnosis of an
autism spectrum disorder (e.g., Autistic Disorder/Autism, Asperger’s Disorder, PDD-
NOS or pervasive developmental disorder.) Studies utilized various methods to
diagnose the participants. Further information on diagnoses is available in Table 1.

Results & Discussion

Seventeen studies met criteria for inclusion in this study. Each of these studies used single subject

research designs, however, the specific type of design used varied. The median age was 50 months. There
were 41 males and 9 females in this study. This reflects a similar ratio to that of male to females in ASD.
The total number of participants included in all of the reviewed studies was 50. Table 1 shows the
participant demographics across the studies, including diagnoses, gender, and age.

TABLE 1, NEXT PAGE

JEIBI VOLUME 4 – NUMBER 3

537

Social Skills Interventions in Single Subject Design Studies

We examined aspects of interventions included in single subject design studies and compared
them to the data obtained in Vaughn et al.’s review (2003) of group design studies. Specifically, we
examined the following aspects of social skills interventions: 1) who implemented interventions; 2) the
length of the interventions; and 3) the categories of interventions most commonly used.

Implementation of the interventions. Vaughn et al. (2003) reported that mostly teachers

implemented interventions, followed by researchers, therapists, parents, and one study with a peer who
implemented the intervention. The studies we reviewed utilized several sources to implement the
intervention as well. These include: peers (n=5), video (n=5), researcher/research assistant (n=4),
teacher/tutor (n=3), parent (n=2), and therapist (n=1). In some studies, more than one person (or source)
implemented an aspect of the intervention, hence the total number of sources that implemented the
intervention is more than 17. In the studies reviewed, the interventions were mostly implemented by peers
and with a video, which is different from Vaughn et al.’s findings. Based on our review of these studies,
there did not appear to be a relationship between the person/source that implemented the intervention and
the results of an intervention.

Length of the interventions. The length or duration of an intervention was measured differently

across the reviewed articles including: number of sessions, number of observations, and total time
commitment (i.e., hours, months). Thirteen of the 17 studies reviewed reported the length of intervention
in terms of sessions conducted. In this review we utilized the authors report on number of sessions in the
intervention phase. When the authors did not report the number of sessions in the intervention phase, we
assumed that each data point reported in the X-Y graphs of the studies correlated with one session, unless
the article indicated that this was an inappropriate interpretation. The number of sessions utilized in the
intervention phase ranged between 1 and 80 with an average of 34.19 sessions per intervention. In two of
the studies the length of intervention was reported in total number of hours required to implement the
intervention. The intervention described by Dauphin, Kinney, and Stromer (2004) required 8-10 hours.
The intervention by Symon (2005) required 25 hours. Two studies measured the length of intervention in
terms of numbers of observations recorded. Arntzen, Halstadtrø, and Halstadtrø (2003) reported 118-120
trials across fifteen days. Tarbox, Ghezzi, and Wilson (2006) measured 300 observations in a one-day
period. Across the reviewed studies, the overall length of intervention varied greatly, ranging from one
day to 7 months.

Table 1.
Participant demographics across studies.

Reported Diagnoses n

Autism 33
AspergerÕs Disorder 5
PDD-NOS 3
PDD 3
Developmental Disability/Delay 3
Comorbid Autism and PDD 2
Comorbid ASD with ADHD 1

Gender n

Male 41
Female 9

Age months

Mean ( Standard Deviation ) 53 (15)
Median 50
Range 29-90
Note. Two of the participants were diagnosed as having
comorbid Autism and PDD. It is important to note that
according to the DSM-IV TR the diagnosis of autism excludes
the diagnosis of comorbid PDD and Autism (American
Psychiatric Association, 2000). It is unclear as to why one article
utilized this diagnosis.

JEIBI VOLUME 4 – NUMBER 3

538

In comparison to the review by Vaughn et al. (2003), similar results are found. We acknowledge

that a the comparison of our findings to those of Vaughn et al.’s is an approximate and conservative
comparison given that the authors presented the data differently. Considering this limitation, it appeared
that the group design studies reviewed included for some social skills interventions, a range from 5 to 60
sessions was reported, others reported between 10-60 minutes for each session length. The group design
studies reported intervention length by different time periods (e.g., weeks, months, etc).

Number of categories used in each intervention study. Unlike the group design studies reviewed

by Vaughn et al. (2003), which averaged 3.4 categories of interventions in each study, the review of
single subject design studies indicated that an average of 2.6 categories of interventions were used in each
study. This difference may be due to the differences of how we defined categories of intervention
compared to Vaughn et al. (2003).

Vaughn et al. (2003) described play-related activities and storytelling as categories of

intervention because these types of activities might have solicited social behavior and social skills. We
chose to not include these intervention categories because it is difficult to separate the effects of a context
that includes play-related activities from another intervention category (e.g., prompting or imitation in a
play activity context). There were no comparative studies that addressed this issue. We did find, however,
that 5 of the studies included play-related activities as part of the intervention. We also excluded
rehearsal/practice, because all but one of the single subject studies reviewed included multiple sessions
that provided opportunities for the participants to practice social skills.

Figure 1. The frequency of different categories of interventions used to teach social skills across the
reviewed articles are displayed.

Figure 1 shows the most commonly utilized interventions in the articles reviewed. The most
frequently used categories of interventions were modeling, prompting, and reinforcement. For studies

JEIBI VOLUME 4 – NUMBER 3

539

utilizing modeling, there were three major types of models used. These included peer modeling (n=4),
adults (n=1), and video modeling (n=4). The next most frequently used categories of interventions
included imitation and peer training. Other categories of interventions used in at least one study included,
parent training, priming, social communication acquisition, fading, naturalistic teaching strategies, and
token economies. None of the studies reviewed implemented time-out.

The categories of reinforcement, modeling and prompting were used in both reviews and were

present in many studies. The ubiquitous nature of these categories provides convergent evidence of the
potential necessity of including these categories of intervention in social skills interventions for preschool
children with ASD. In this review, we make a distinction between the different types of modeling that are
used in interventions. These include adult models, peer models and video models for teaching social
behavior.

State of Single Subject Design Studies

As part of our review, we examined the single subject designs of the reviewed studies in order to
assess the quality of the social skills interventions across studies. An excellent article by Horner et al.
(2005) provides descriptions of quality indicators of single subject design research and provides
guidelines for evaluating such designs. The quality indicators that we evaluated and summarized below
included demonstration of a stable baseline, description of participant characteristics and intervention
setting, behavior that was measured, measurement of social validity, demonstration of procedural fidelity
(which is related to evaluation of the independent variable or intervention), and external validity (i.e.,
maintenance and generalization). Please see Horner et al., (2005) for a thorough review of these and other
quality indicators of single subject design research.

Baseline. One of the quality indicators is the presence of baseline data. In single subject designs,

there needs to be a presence of stable baseline data. Horner et al., (2005) suggest five data points or more.
According to Kazdin (2003), two or more baseline data points are sufficient prior to implementing an
intervention. Considering these differing reports and other issues related to the stability of the data in the
baseline phase (i.e., slope, variability, steady state), we decided that a baseline phase needed to consist of
at least three data points and the baseline needed to be described as stable.

It is our opinion that in 38% of the studies reviewed stable baseline data was not included for at

one or more participants prior to implementation of the intervention. Variability of baseline data or less
than three baseline data points were present in these studies. Specifically, 22% of studies included at least
one participant with no baseline data or less than three points of data in the baseline phase. Therefore,
without stable baseline data, it is difficult to determine whether the intervention had a functional
relationship with the change in behavior.

Participants and setting. A description of participants is an important characteristic of single

subject research with respect to determining if an intervention is appropriate and might be effective for
other participants with similar characteristics. The manner in which the participants were described in the
reviewed studies greatly varied. All of the studies reviewed indicated that the majority of participants
were diagnosed with or stated as having an ASD (see Table 1). Information related to how participants
received a diagnosis varied from participants receiving a diagnosis from an independent psychologist
(47% of studies), to the authors only stating that the participants met the criteria listed in the DSM-IV TR
as a basis for diagnosis (12% of studies), to a diagnosis based on a review of records (12% of studies), to
simply stating that the participants had an ASD, but not reporting how the diagnosis was obtained (29%
of studies). Standardized assessments that measure domains of functioning, such as social skills, cognitive

JEIBI VOLUME 4 – NUMBER 3

540

abilities, language/communication skills, adaptive skills, etc, were greatly underutilized. Many of the
reviewed studies contained descriptions of participant characteristics by stating strengths and weaknesses
of participants or reporting observations of the participants’ abilities and levels of functioning in different
domains. Some studies reported a combination of standardized assessment scores and descriptions of
characteristics. In some studies, there was not enough information about participants to determine the
level of functioning and skill set of the participant(s), presenting a challenge for the reader in determining
whether the intervention is applicable to other children with ASD

From our review of the description of participants’ characteristics, it appeared that approximately
less than half of participants could be described as functioning in the moderate to high functioning range
of ASD, while a little over half of participants could be described as functioning in the moderate to low or
severe functioning range of ASD. The level of functioning reported is subjective in nature and is based
available standardized assessment data and/or descriptions of observed participant skills and abilities. In
the field of Autism, there is some debate over what differentiates between high, moderate, and low
functioning Autism (for further reading, see Szatmari, 2001). One of the most common ways in which
level of functioning is determined is with IQ scores/cognitive ability (Baron-Cohen, Wheelwright,
Lawson, Griffin, Ashwin, Billington, & Chakrabarti, B., 2005). The descriptions of cognitive abilities of
participants in the studies reviewed were not consistently reported.

The studies reviewed typically took place in settings that can be described as involving play

activities, including small group interactions, turn-taking games, pretend play settings, toys, and peers
(including typically developing peers and siblings). Only a few of the reviewed studies implemented an
intervention that took place in a structured instructional setting without a preschool-oriented context, such
as one-to-one teaching with an adult and child (Tarbox, Ghezzi, & Wilson, 2006; Ingersoll &
Schriebman, 2006; Nuzzolo-Gomez, Leonard, Ortiz, Rivera, & Greer, 2002). These studies tended to
focus on acquisition of social communicative behavior, attending behavior (e.g., eye contact), and specific
skill acquisition behaviors.

Measurement of social behavior. The majority of studies measured participants’ behavior through

observational methods. These observations generally focused on play behaviors (n=12). Play behaviors
included actions such as; sharing, amount of interactive play, and following rules of a game. Other
behaviors measured include; verbal (n=6), joint attention (n=4), and emotional response (n=2). Several
studies measured multiple behaviors.

Social validity and procedural integrity. Social validity is the acceptance of an intervention by

consumers (e.g., parents, teachers, etc) as being socially acceptable. If an intervention is deemed socially
acceptable, then it is more likely to be implemented and continued in the home, classroom, etc. In our
review, 53% of studies provided measures of social validity. Social validity was obtained from teachers,
parents, or focus groups comprised of individuals knowledgeable of ASD. We found two basic methods
of measuring social validity. The first was the use of questionnaires completed by teachers or parents
(Reagon, Higbee, & Endicott, 2006; Sawyer, Luiselli, Ricciardi, & Gower, 2005; Garfinkle & Schwartz,
2002; Kaiser,Hancock, & Nietfeld, 2000) and the second was observations of video clips by individuals
not associated with the study (Hine, & Wolery, 2006; Tsao & Odom, 2006; Ingersoll & Schreibman,
2006). In research it is also important to demonstrate that the intervention was implemented consistently
and with fidelity. In the reviewed studies, 65% included measures of procedural fidelity and also
demonstrated procedural integrity.

Maintenance/Follow-up and Generalization. Maintenance and generalization are essential in
determining the effectiveness and possible implications of an intervention study. In our review, we
combined maintenance and follow-up into one category that we will refer to as maintenance. Out of the
17 studies reviewed 13 reported a maintenance phase. Out of the thirteen studies 85% reported that the

JEIBI VOLUME 4 – NUMBER 3

541

participants maintained the skill. This high level of maintenance is encouraging, and suggests that in
general the interventions in this review teach social skills that continue over time.

We considered generalization to refer to social skills demonstrated in different settings, with
different persons/peers, or with unfamiliar toy sets, social activities as demonstration of generalization.
Ten of the 17 studies reviewed reported a generalization phase. Of these 10 studies, 70% reported that the
participants were successful in generalizing obtained skills to new settings, individuals, activities, etc. In
the Vaughn et al. (2003) article free-play generalization was reported as an important element to group
design research and was specific to generalization to a different setting only. In our review we also
wanted to evaluate the degree to which free-play generalization is being utilized in the single subject
design studies. We found that the descriptions of generalization involving play or free-play varied across
studies. Several articles did not report enough information to determine if the participants were engaged
in free-play (i.e., children are free to choose which activities to engage in) during a generalization phase.
We were able to determine that all ten of the articles that reported a generalization phase utilized a play-
like atmosphere, but it was not clear if the condition was one of free-play, as some studies reported that
the activities were pre-selected or specific to a change in one dimension (e.g., change in setting or toys)
during generalization. Despite this potentially semantic issue, it is encouraging that seven articles reported
successful generalization.

Perspectives on the Current Review

Over the past five years, there has been a substantial amount of research on different types of
social skills interventions for preschoolers with ASD. One of the general criticisms of the current
literature reviewed is the absence of a model or theory to guide intervention selection for the participants
(Romanczyk, White, & Gillis, 2005). Even though there are published social skills curricula and guides
on social skills interventions, these curricula have not been empirically tested (Baker, 2004; Quill, 2005;
Taylor & Jasper, 2001; Weiss & Harris, 2001). We do not intend to imply that these curricula and books
are not helpful or important. Rather, given the increase in different curricula/guide books, available, it is
important to begin to examine these interventions empirically as well as the features that are common
across the interventions described.

In the articles reviewed, only a few authors discuss why specific social skills or behaviors were

chosen as targets for change beyond stating that they were absent. However, most studies lacked a
formulation or assessment process to determine why a specific social skill was targeted for intervention.
The use of assessments is helpful because they inform if the acquisition skill would lead to further social
behaviors or skills or whether other social skills were present. Not all authors reported the method of
assessment of social skills. This lack of information is understandable, as a full description of each child’s
social behaviors is not necessary for implementing an intervention. However, without this information,
one asks, why target this social skill and why at this time? Were other requisite skills already present?
Would a different social behavior be more or less important to target before this social skill, etc?

We propose the use of a curriculum that is ideally developmentally based, to guide the teaching

of social skills. Such a curriculum allows for the selection of a social behavior that is not currently in a
child’s repertoire and may be a pre-requisite for the development of other social behaviors. There are a
few curricula that provide a sequence of social skills goals for consideration. The Individualized Goal
Selection Curriculum (Romanczyk, Lockshin, & Matey, 2000) provides developmentally sequenced tasks
in many skill areas, one of which is social development. Another curriculum is Getting to Know You! A
Social Skills Curriculum (Hanken & Kennedy, 1998). This is a social skills curriculum specifying a
variety of social skills that can be taught at different grade levels (grades 1-9). Using a curriculum as a
guide is also helpful to develop identify what behaviors are present, missing, and may be of priority to the
child’s family in terms of their goals for the child’s social development. It should be emphasized that

JEIBI VOLUME 4 – NUMBER 3

542

using a developmentally based curriculum does not imply that one goes through each of the
developmental goals in a rigid fashion. It does imply that there is a sequence of social skills in order to
provide a guide for goal selection. Procedures or assessments that guide social skills interventions for
preschoolers need to be identified or developed and empirically tested.

Conclusion

The goals of this review were to compare categories (or features) of social skills interventions for

preschoolers with ASD in single subject design studies and to examine the state of single subject design
studies that examine interventions for social skills. We included 17 articles in our review from 12
different peer-reviewed journals dating from June 1999 to December 2006. Based upon the findings from
our review, two general themes emerged. The first is the concordance of findings in the current review
and Vaughn et al.’s review of group design research (2003). The second is the variability of quality of
single subject design studies on social skills intervention.

Social skills interventions typically comprise of a number of features or categories of

interventions. In other words, different teaching strategies are used to promote acquisition of social
behaviors. Despite these differences, there are categories of interventions that are universal. Across both
group design studies (Vaughn et al., 2003) and single subject design studies (based upon the current
review), these include categories of reinforcement, prompting, and modeling. These three categories are
conceptually intuitive considering the learning styles of individuals with ASD. Social skills are impaired
in children with ASD and are a priority in most children’s individualized educational plans or
individualized intervention programs. Therefore, increased attention to the all components of social skills
interventions will be important to identify strategies that work best for children who present with different
skill levels.

Single subject design methodology lends itself to examining the causal relationship between the

change in social behavior of one or more individuals and a specific “category of intervention” or the
entire intervention package. In this review, we used Horner et al.’s (2005) criteria for evaluating single
subject design studies. We found considerable variability across the reviewed studies in meeting these
criteria. This may be partly due to limitations of conducting single subject design research in applied
settings, but it might reflect a need for researchers to more carefully attend to these quality indicators.

Overall, the quality of research on interventions for social skills impairment in children with ASD

is likely to improve should future studies: a) identify and describe participants better by using
standardized assessments for diagnosis and/or description of participant characteristics when appropriate;
b) improve the elements of the single subject designs used to evaluate social skills interventions in order
to improve the validity; c) demonstrate replication of both specific features of social skills intervention
studies as well as intervention packages; and d) be familiar with current research examining different
aspects of social impairment in ASD that might help to inform social skills interventions.

Limitations

There are limitations of this review worth mentioning. The number of studies reviewed, after
meeting our criteria for inclusion, is relatively small (i.e., 17). This might be due to the focus of this
review. We focused on including studies that mostly included children with ASD who were of preschool
age. Furthermore, the studies needed to utilize single subject design methods only. Another limitation
might be the operational definition of “social skills” we used to include studies in our review. As
mentioned previously, our operational definition of social skills relates to specific learned behaviors.
Different researchers/professionals might not share a consistent definition. This definition might have
limited the studies that were reviewed. Consequently, interventions that might have indirect or ancillary

JEIBI VOLUME 4 – NUMBER 3

543

improvements for social skills development, such as psychopharmacological treatments or language
acquisition interventions were not included in this review. An additional limitation of this review is that
we evaluated the studies based upon the information reported in those studies. It is possible that some
authors did not report information that we were evaluating, which might change the conclusions of this
review. Future reviews of social skills interventions might gather more information by expanding the age
group, broadening the range of disabilities, and including interventions that might have ancillary, yet
positive effects on the development of social skills.

Future research

There are many research questions that warrant future research in the area of social skills
interventions for preschoolers with ASD. As discussed above, many studies included multiple features for
a social skills intervention and the majority of these studies reported success at improving social skills.
Not surprisingly, the focus of many of the interventions was on the acquisition of behaviors necessary for
play and interactions with preschool age peers as play behaviors are an essential part of preschool
development.

Dismantling studies of social skills interventions for young children would be helpful in order to

identify the specific components that are the most important for improving the social impairment in ASD.
Identifying interventions and specific components of interventions that are effective at increasing social
behavior and social skills for children with ASD is an important endeavor that continues to need further
research. The continued use of single subject research is critical for examination of interventions
including the key components of interventions that lead to behavior change and the demonstration of
maintenance and generalization of behavior change. For example, video-modeling interventions for the
teaching of social skills appears to be effective, but it is not yet understood why video modeling is
effective (Corbett & Abdullah, 2005).

Future research should also focus on the development of measures of social behavior that can be

used across multiple studies. Such measures would assist in improving the assessment of different
interventions. In addition, understanding how improvements in social skills relate to outcome for children
with ASD is another important area for future research. The measurement of progress for children with
ASD in the area of social skills continues to vary, as illustrated by this review. That is, ascertaining better
ways to measure the relationship between change in specific social behaviors compared to typical
development is important to understanding what interventions will lead to better outcomes, across
domains (e.g., social, language, academic, behavioral, emotional, etc) in children with ASD.

Summary

The results from this review suggest that there is growing consensus of what features of
interventions are important for social skills interventions between papers reviewing group studies (e.g.,
Vaughn et al., 2003) and this review that examined single subject studies. There was consensus across
different researchers with differing theoretical and clinical orientations in the current review and the
review by Vaughn et al. Both reviews found that the categories in interventions, reinforcement, modeling,
and prompting were commonly used in social skills interventions. However, there remains a need to have
research that can apply measures of social behavior consistently across different research studies (group
or single subject designs). We hope this review encourages others to continue intervention research in this
important area, which will ultimately improve the quality of the social skills interventions used in clinical
and educational settings.

JEIBI VOLUME 4 – NUMBER 3

544

References

American Psychiatric Association (2000). Diagnostic Statistical Manual, 4th edition, Text Revision. APA;
Washington, D.C.

American Academy of Pediatrics (1999). Children’s Health Topics: Developmental Stages. Retrieved

from the web July 10, 2005. http://www.aap.org/healthtopics/stages.cfm

*Apple, A. L., Billingsley, F., & Schwartz, I. S. (2005). Effects of video modeling alone and with self-

management on compliment-giving behaviors of children with high-functioning ASD. Journal of
Positive Behavior Interventions, 7, 33-46.

*Arntzen, E., Halstadtrø, A., & Halstadtrø, M. (2003). Training play behavior in a 5-year-old boy with

developmental disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36, 367-370.

Baker, J. E. (2004). Social Skills Training: For Children and Adolescents with Asperger Syndrome and

Social-Communication Problems. Shawnee Mission, KS: Autism Asperger Publishing Co.

*Baker, M. J. (2000). Incorporating the themataic ritualistic behaviors of children with autism into games:

increasing social play interactions with siblings. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 2,
66-84.

Baron-Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S., Lawson, J., Griffin, R., Ashwin, C., Billington, J., & Chakrabarti, B.

(2005). Empathizing and systemizing in autism spectrum conditions. In F. R. Volkmar, R. Paul,
A. Klin, & D. Cohen (Eds.), Handbook of autism and persvasive developmental disorders: Vol. 1.
Diagnosis, development, neurobiology, and behavior (3rd ed., pp. 628-639) Hoboken, New
Jersey: John Wiley and Sons.

Bellini, S. (2004). Social skill deficits and anxiety in high functioning adolescents with autism spectrum

disorders. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 19, 78-86.

Corbett, B. A., & Abdullah, M. (2005). Video modeling: Why does it work for children with autism?

Journal of Early and Intensive Behavior Intervention, 2, 2-8.

*Dauphin, M., Kinney, E. M., & Stromer, R. (2004). Using video-enhanced activity schedules and matrix

training to teach sociodramatic play to a child with autism. Journal of Positive Behavior
Interventions, 6, 238-250.

*Garfinkle, A. N., & Schwartz, I. S. (2002). Peer imitation: Increasing social interactions in children with

autism and other developmental disabilities in inclusive preschool classrooms. Topics in Early
Childhood Special Education, 22, 26-38.

*Gena, A., Couloura, S., & Kymissis, E. (2005). Modifying the affective behavior of preschoolers with

autism using in-vivo or video modeling and reinforcement contingencies. Journal of Autism and
Developmental Disorders, 35, 545-556.

Hanken, D. & Kennedy, J. (1998). Getting to Know You! A Social Skills Curriculum. Research Press:

Champaign, IL.

*Hine, J. F., & Wolery, M. (2006). Using point-of-view video modeling to teach play to preschoolers

with autism. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 26, 83-93.

JEIBI VOLUME 4 – NUMBER 3

545

Horner, R. H., Carr, E. G., Halle, J., McGee, G., Odom, S., & Wolery, M. (2005). The use of single-

subject research to identify evidence-based practice in special education. Council for Exceptional
Children, 71, 165-179.

*Ingersoll, B., & Schreibman, L. (2006). Teaching reciprocal imitation skills to young children with

autism using a naturalistic behavioral approach: Effects on language, pretend play, and joint
attention. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 36, 487-505.

*Kaiser, A. P., Hancock, T. B., & Nietfeld J.P. (2000). The effects of parent-implemented enhanced

milieu teaching on the social communication of children who have autism. Early education &
Development, 11, 423-446.

Kazdin, A. E. (2003). Research Design in Clinical Psychology (4th edition). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Koegel, R. L., & Koegel, L. K. (1995). Teaching children with autism: Strategies for initiating positive

interactions and improving learning opportunities. Baltimore: Brookes.

*Kohler, F. W., Anthony, L. J., Steighner, S. A., & Hoyson, M. (2001). Teaching social interaction skills

in the integrated preschool: An examination of naturalistic tactics. Topics in Early Childhood
Special Education, 21, 93-103.

*Laushey, K. M., & Heflin, L. J. (2000). Enhancing social skills of kindergarten children with autism

through the training of multiple peers as tutors. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders,
30, 183-193.

Lindsey, E. (2002). Preschool children’s friendships and peer acceptance: Links to social competence.
Child Study Journal, 32, 145-156.

*Nuzzolo-Gomez, R., Leonard, M. A., Ortiz, E., Rivera, C. M, & Greer, R, D. (2002). Teaching children

with autism to prefer books or toys over stereotypy or passivity. Journal of Positive Behavior
Interventions, 4, 80-87.

Quill, K. A. (2005). Do-Watch-Listen-Say: Social and Communication Intervention for Children with

Autism. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

*Reagon, K. A., Higbee, T. S., & Endicott, K. (2006). Teaching pretend play skills to a student with

autism using video modeling with a sibling as model and play partner. Education and Treatment
of Children, 29, 517-528.

Romanczyk, R. G., White, S. J., & Gillis, J. M. (2005). Social skills vs. skilled social behavior: A

problematic distinction in autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Early and Intensive Behavior
Intervention, 2, 177-193.

Romanczyk, R. G., Lockshin, S., & Matey, L. (2000). The Individualized Goal Selection Curriculum.

CBTA: Johnson City, NY.

Rubin, K. H., Fein, G. G., & Vandenberg, B. (1983). Play. In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.), Handbook of

child psychology: Vol. 4. Socialization, personality, and social development (4th ed., pp. 693-
744). New York: Wiley.

JEIBI VOLUME 4 – NUMBER 3

546

*Sawyer, L. M., Luiselli, J. K., Ricciardi, J. N., & Gower, J. L. (2005). Teaching a child with autism to
share among peers in an integrated preschool classroom: Acquisition, maintenance, and social
validation. Education and Treatment of Children, 28, 1-10.

Strain, P. S., & Schwartz, I. (2001). ABA and the development of meaningful social relations for young

children with autism. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 16, 120-128.

*Symon, J. B. (2005). Expanding interventions for children with autism: Parents as trainers. Journal of

Positive Behavior Interventions, 7, 159-173.

Szatmari, P. (2001). The classification of autism, Asperger’s syndrome, and pervasive developmental

disorder. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 45(8), 731-738.

Tantam, D. (2000). Psychological disorder in adolescents and adults with Asperger Syndrome. Autism, 4,

47-62.

*Tarbox, R. S. F., Ghezzi, P. M., & Wilson, G. (2006). The effects of token reinforcement on attending in

a young child with autism. Behavioral Interventions, 21, 155-164.

Taylor, B.A. & Jasper, S. (2001). Teaching programs to increase peer interaction. In C. Maurice, G.

Green, & R.M. Foxx (Eds.), Making a Difference: Behavioral Intervention for Autism (pp. 97-
162). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Terpstra, J. E., Higgins, K., & Pierce, T. (2002). Can I play? Classroom-based interventions for teaching

play skills to children with autism. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 17,
119-126.

*Tsao, L., & Odom, S. L. (2006). Sibling-mediated social interaction intervention for young children with

autism. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 26, 106-123.

Vaughn, S., Kim, A., Morris Sloan, C. V., Hughes, M. T., Elbaum, B., & Sridhar, D. (2003). Social skills

interventions for young children with disabilities: A synthesis of group design studies. Remedial
and Special Education, 24, 2-15.

Weiss, M.J. (2001). Expanding ABA intervention in intensive programs for children with autism: The

inclusion of natural environment training and fluency based instruction. The Behavior Analyst
Today, 2 (3), 182-187

Weiss, M. J., & Harris, S. L. (2001a). Teaching social skills to people with autism. Behavior

Modification, 25, 785-802.

Weiss, M. J. & Harris, S. L. (2001b). Reaching Out, Joining In: Teaching Social Skills to Young Children

with Autism. Bethesda, MD: Woodbine House.

Note: The references with an asterisk (*) were the studies included in the review.

Author Contact Information:

Jennifer M. Gillis, Ph.D., BCBA
Assistant Professor

JEIBI VOLUME 4 – NUMBER 3

547

226 Thach
Department of Psychology
Auburn University
Auburn, AL 36849
Email: jengillis@auburn.edu

Robert C. Butler, B.S.
226 Thach
Department of Psychology
Auburn University
Auburn, AL 36849

ADVERTISEMENT

Behavior Analyst Online Is Looking For Financial Support

The Behavior Analyst Online organization is seeking donors to support its cause.
By contributing to the cost of the journals, you will help to keep our journals free.

We plan to list our donors (if they desire) on the BAO site.

The categories of donors are:

Champion – $500.00

Elite – $250.00
Fellow – $150.00
Friend – $50.00

If you would like to contribute, please contact Halina Dziewolska at

halinadz@hotmail.com.

Please make check payable to Halina Dziewolska, Treasurer
Send your check to 535 Queen Street, Philadelphia, Pa. 19147