Social Skills Training - Institute of Education Sciences (PDF)

Social Skills Training February 2013 Page 1 WWC Intervention Report U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION What Works Clearinghouse™ Early Childhood Education Interventions for Children with Disabilities February 2013 Social Skills Training Report Contents Overview p. 1 Program Information p. 3 Research Summary p. 4 Effectiveness Summary p. 5 References p. 7 Research Details for Each Study p. 11 Outcome Measures for Each Domain p. 16 Findings Included in the Rating for Each Outcome Domain p. 17 Supplemental Findings for Each Outcome Domain p. 20 Endnotes p. 24 Rating Criteria p. 26 Glossary of Terms p. 27 Program Description1 Social skills training is not a specific curriculum, but rather a collection of practices that use a behavioral approach for teaching preschool children age-appropriate social skills and competencies, including communication, problem solving, decision making, self-management, and peer relations. Social skills training can occur in both regular and special education classrooms. A variety of social skills training approaches and curricula are available. For example, teachers may use a structured approach to explain to students how to enact a desired behavior by providing examples and reinforcing targeted behaviors through questions, answers, and other feedback. An example of a more nuanced approach (often referred to as “incidental teaching”) is when teachers respond to student-gener- ated utterances, interactions, and behavior to encourage the desired social skills (such as rewarding positive play). Research2 The What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) identified three studies of social skills training that both fall within the scope of the Early Child- hood Education Interventions for Children with Disabilities topic area and meet WWC evidence standards. All three of these studies meet standards without reservations and together, they included 135 children with disabilities in early education settings in the United States. Although this report presents information about all three studies and their findings, the WWC’s summary ratings of the evidence of effectiveness of the intervention are based on only two of the studies, that, together, included 103 children in their samples. The third study, which had a sample of 32 children, did not provide sufficient information to support calculation of effect sizes and statistical significance, which are used in determining the WWC’s overall evidence ratings. The WWC considers the extent of evidence for social skills training on children with disabilities in early education settings to be small for two outcome domains—(a) cognition and (b) social-emotional development and behavior. There were no studies that meet standards in the five other domains, so we do not report on the effectiveness of social skills training for those domains in this intervention report. (See the Effectiveness Summary on p. 5 for further description of all domains.) Effectiveness Social skills training was found to have no discernible effects on cognition and positive effects on social-emotional development and behavior for children with disabilities in early education settings.  Social Skills Training February 2013 Page 2 2 WWC Intervention Report Table 1. Summary of findings3 Improvement index (percentile points) Outcome domain Rating of effectiveness Average Range Number of studies Number of students Extent of evidence Cognition No discernible effects +7 na 1 65 Small Social-emotional development and behavior Positive effects +18 –18 to +44 2 103 Small na = not applicable  Social Skills Training February 2013 Page 3 3 WWC Intervention Report Program Information Background Social skills training does not have a single developer responsible for providing information or materials. The interventions described in this report were developed by various study authors and are not available for distribution through a common developer. However, many online resources are available for readers interested in using social skills training practices. The following sites provide a general overview of social skills training methods: • Behavior Advisor: Teaching Social Skills: http://www.behavioradvisor.com/SocialSkills.html • Social Skills Training Project: http://www.socialskillstrainingproject.com/ • Social Work Podcast: http://socialworkpodcast.blogspot.com/2010/06/social-skills-training-interview-with.html Program details Teachers can use social skills training practices with individual children, in small-group settings, or with whole classes. Regardless of the setting, social skills training practices are intended to promote positive interactions among children and between children and their teachers. In order to implement the social skills training approach, teachers use modeling, role-playing, and specific instruction on social skills. Then, children typically practice the skills and receive positive reinforcement for engaging in appropriate social behavior. Training and practice activi- ties typically occur for up to one hour each day. The duration of an intervention can vary from a few days to several weeks. More detailed practices for specific social skills training programs are presented in Appendices A.1 to A.3. Cost Some published social skills training programs are freely available to the public. The WWC was unable to identify information about the costs of implementing the intervention (e.g., for teacher training and support).  Social Skills Training February 2013 Page 4 WWC Intervention Report Research Summary The WWC identified 46 studies that investigated the effects of social skills training on children with disabilities in early education settings. The WWC reviewed three of those studies against group design evidence standards. All three of those studies (Ferentino, 1991; Guglielmo & Tryon, 2001; Leblanc & Matson, 1995) are randomized controlled trials that meet WWC group design evidence standards without reservations and are summarized in this report. The WWC reviewed three additional studies against the pilot single- case design standards. All three studies do not meet WWC pilot single-case design standards. The remaining 40 studies do not meet WWC eligibility screens for review in this topic area. (Citations for all 46 studies are in the References section, which begins on p. 7). Table 2. Scope of reviewed research Grade Preschool Delivery method Whole class Program type Practice Studies reviewed 46 Group design studies that meet WWC evidence standards • without reservations • with reservations 3 studies 0 studies Summary of studies meeting WWC evidence standards without reservations Ferentino (1991) randomly assigned classrooms to one of three conditions, two of which included a social skills training curriculum called “My Friends and Me” and one of which was a wait-list control condition. This WWC report focuses on the 32 children in four classrooms that were assigned to a school-based implementation of the social skills training intervention and the 33 children in four classrooms that were assigned to the wait-list control condi- tion and did not receive the intervention during the study period.4 Guglielmo and Tryon (2001) randomly assigned a total of nine classrooms to receive various combinations of social skills training using the “Taking Part: Introducing Social Skills to Children” curriculum. This WWC report focuses on a subset of six classrooms included in the study. Nineteen children in three classrooms received the social skills training intervention, supplemented by a reinforcement of target behaviors. Nineteen children in three other class- rooms received the reinforcement of target behaviors without social skills training and serve as the comparison group to determine the effect of social skills training in this WWC report.5 LeBlanc and Matson (1995) randomly assigned six classrooms to receive an unnamed social skills training cur- riculum or to a business-as-usual comparison condition. Sixteen children in three of the classrooms received social skills training, and 16 children in the other three classrooms did not. Summary of studies meeting WWC evidence standards with reservations No studies of social skills training meet WWC evidence standards with reservations.  Social Skills Training February 2013 Page 5 WWC Intervention Report Effectiveness Summary The WWC reviews of evidence for the Early Childhood Education Interventions for Children with Disabilities topic area addresses student outcomes in seven domains: (a) cognition, (b) communication/language competencies, (c) literacy, (d) mathematics achievement, (e) social-emotional development and behavior, (f) functional abilities, and (g) physical well-being. The three studies of social skills training that meet WWC evidence standards reported findings in two of the seven domains: (a) cognition and (b) social-emotional development and behavior. The findings below present the authors’ estimates and WWC-calculated estimates of the size and statistical significance of the effects of social skills training on children with disabilities in early education settings.6 For a more detailed description of the rating of effectiveness and extent of evidence criteria, see the WWC Rating Criteria on p. 26. Summary of effectiveness for the cognition domain One study reported findings in the cognition domain. Ferentino (1991) reported findings that were not statistically significant or the one measure assessed in this out- come domain, and the WWC confirmed this calculation. The direction of this effect favored the social skills training group but was not large enough to be considered substantively important by WWC criteria. In this study, the effect was classified as indeterminate. Thus, for the cognition domain, one study reported findings that were not statistically significant or substantively important. This results in a rating of no discernible effects, with a small extent of evidence. Table 3. Rating of Effectiveness and extent of evidence for the cognition domain Rating of effectiveness Criteria met No discernible effects None of the studies shows a statistically significant or substantively important effect, either positive or negative. In the one study that reported findings, the estimated impact of the intervention on outcomes in the cognition domain was neither statistically significant nor large enough to be substantively important. Extent of evidence Criteria met Small One study that included 65 children in one school reported evidence of effectiveness in the cognition domain. Summary of effectiveness for the social-emotional development and behavior domain Three studies reported findings in the social-emotional development and behavior domain. Ferentino (1991) analyzed five measures in this outcome domain. The study reported a statistically significant positive effect for one measure, which was confirmed by the WWC. The results for the other four outcomes were not statistically significant. According to WWC criteria, this study shows a statistically significant positive effect for social-emotional development and behavior.7 Guglielmo and Tryon (2001) examined impacts on two outcomes in this domain. For both outcomes, the estimated effects were positive. One of the findings was statistically significant and the other was not, but was large enough to be considered substantively important. According to WWC criteria, this study shows a statistically significant positive effect for social-emotional development and behavior. LeBlanc and Matson (1995) analyzed two outcomes in this domain and found a statistically significant positive effect favoring the intervention on one outcome but no significant difference between the groups on the other outcome. However, there was insufficient information for the WWC to calculate effect sizes or to verify the signifi-  Social Skills Training February 2013 Page 6 WWC Intervention Report cance tests conducted by the authors. As a result, the information from this study does not contribute to the rating of the evidence of effectiveness for this WWC report. Thus, for the social-emotional development and behavior domain, there are two studies with statistically significant positive effects, one study failing to show evidence of an effect (positive or negative), and no studies showing a statistically significant or substantively important negative effect. This results in a rating of positive effects, with a small extent of evidence. Table 4. Rating of effectiveness and extent of evidence for the social-emotional development and behavior domain Rating of effectiveness Criteria met Positive effects Strong evidence of a positive effect with no overriding contrary evidence. The review of social skills training in the social-emotional development and behavior domain had two studies showing statistically significant positive effects and no studies showing statistically significant or substantively important negative effects. Extent of evidence Criteria met Small The review of social skills training in the social-emotional development and behavior domain was based on two studies that included two schools and 103 children.  Social Skills Training February 2013 Page 7 WWC Intervention Report References Studies that meet WWC standards without reservations Ferentino, S. C. (1991). Teaching social skills to preschool children in a special education program. Dissertation Abstracts International, 52(08B), 223-4490. Guglielmo, H. M., & Tryon, G. S. (2001). Social skill training in an integrated preschool program. School Psychology Quarterly, 16(2), 158–175. LeBlanc, L. A., & Matson, J. L. (1995). A social skills training program for preschoolers with developmental delays: Generalization and social validity. Behavior Modification, 19(2), 234–246. Studies that do not meet WWC standards Lewis, T. J. (1994). A comparative analysis of the effects of social skill training and teacher-directed contingen- cies on social behavior of preschool children with disabilities. Journal of Behavioral Education, 4(3), 267–281. The study does not meet WWC pilot single-case design standards because it does not have at least three attempts to demonstrate an intervention effect at three different points in time. Macy, M. G., & Bricker, D. D. (2007). Embedding individualized social goals into routine activities in inclusive early childhood classrooms. Early Child Development & Care, 177(2), 107–120. The study does not meet WWC pilot single-case design standards because it does not have at least three attempts to demonstrate an intervention effect at three different points in time. McConnell, S. R., Sisson, L. A., Cort, C. A., & Strain, P. S. (1991). Effects of social skills training and contingency management on reciprocal interaction of preschool children with behavioral handicaps. Journal of Special Education, 24(4), 473–495. The study does not meet WWC pilot single-case design standards because it does not have at least three attempts to demonstrate an intervention effect at three different points in time. Studies that are ineligible for review using the Early Childhood Education Interventions for Children with Disabilities Evidence Review Protocol Algozzine, B., Algozzine, K., & McClanahan, T. (2010). Preschool behavior support. In B. Algozzine, A. P. Daunic, & S. W. Smith (Eds.), Preventing problem behaviors: Schoolwide programs and classroom practices (2nd ed., pp. 13–32). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. The study is ineligible for review because it is a secondary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention, such as a meta-analysis or research literature review. Antia, S. D., & Kreimeyer, K. H. (1996). Social interaction and acceptance of deaf or hard-of-hearing children and their peers: A comparison of social-skills and familiarity-based interventions. Volta Review, 98(4), 157–180. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol—the sample either includes less than 50% students with identified disabilities or more than 50% students with autism. Antia, S. D., Kreimeyer, K. H., & Eldredge, N. (1994). Promoting social interaction between young children with hearing impairments and their peers. Exceptional Children, 60(3), 262–275. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol—the sample either includes less than 50% stu- dents with identified disabilities or more than 50% students with autism. Bernard-Opitz, V., Sriram, N., & Nakhoda-Sapuan, S. (2001). Enhancing social problem solving in children with autism and normal children through computer-assisted instruction. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 31(4), 377–384. The study is ineligible for review because it does not take place in the geographic area specified in the protocol.  Social Skills Training February 2013 Page 8 WWC Intervention Report Carpenter, E. M. (2002). A curriculum-based approach for social-cognitive skills training: An intervention targeting aggression in Head Start preschoolers. Dissertation Abstracts International Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 63(6-B), 3001. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol—the sample either includes less than 50% students with identified disabilities or more than 50% students with autism. Cirrin, F. M., Schooling, T. L., Nelson, N. W., Diehl, S. F., Flynn, P. F., Staskowski, M., …Adamczyk, D. F. (2010). Evidence-based systematic review: Effects of different service delivery models on communication outcomes for elementary school-age children. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 41(3), 233–264. The study is ineligible for review because it is a secondary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention, such as a meta-analysis or research literature review. Coplan, R. J., Schneider, B. H., Matheson, A., & Graham, A. (2010). ‘Play skills’ for shy children: Development of a social skills facilitated play early intervention program for extremely inhibited preschoolers. Infant and Child Development, 19(3), 223–237. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol—the sample either includes less than 50% students with identified disabilities or more than 50% students with autism. Fenning, R. M., Baker, B. L., & Juvonen, J. (2011). Emotion discourse, social cognition, and social skills in children with and without developmental delays. Child Development, 82(2), 717–731. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol—the sample is not within the specified age or grade range. Girolametto, L. E. (1988). Improving the social-conversational skills of developmentally disabled children: An intervention study. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 53(2), 156–167. The study is ineligible for review because it does not occur within the time frame specified in the protocol. Gorham, M., Barnes-Holmes, Y., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Berens, N. (2009). Derived comparative and transitive rela- tions in young children with and without autism. Psychological Record, 59(2), 221–246. The study is ineligible for review because it does not take place in the geographic area specified in the protocol. Gunn, B., Feil, E., Seeley, J., Severson, H., & Walker, H. (2006). Promoting school success: Developing social skills and early literacy in Head Start classrooms. NHSA Dialog: A Research-to-Practice Journal for the Early Intervention Field, 9(1), 1–11. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol—the sample either includes less than 50% children with identified disabilities or more than 50% students with autism. Haring, T. G., & Lovinger, L. (1989). Promoting social interaction through teaching generalized play initiation responses to preschool children with autism. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 14(1), 58–67. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol—the sample either includes less than 50% students with identified disabilities or more than 50% students with autism. Harvey, R. (2003). Value adding? Improving the effectiveness of social skills training programs. Australian Journal of Psychology, 55(3), 184–189. The study is ineligible for review because it does not take place in the geographic area specified in the protocol. Hoch, J. D. (2008). The role of emotion and stress in predicting response to relaxation and social skills interventions in an early childhood therapeutic preschool program. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 68(11-A), 4605. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol—the sample either includes less than 50% students with identified disabilities or more than 50% students with autism. Houston, F. (1998). Combined interventions: Using social skills training and peer-mediated interventions in an integrated group setting to facilitate the development of social skills in students with autism. Dissertation Abstracts International, 60(03B), 92-1330. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol—the sample either includes less than 50% students with identified disabilities or more than 50% students with autism.  Social Skills Training February 2013 Page 9 WWC Intervention Report Hundert, J., & Houghton, A. (1992). Promoting social interaction of children with disabilities in integrated preschools: A failure to generalize. Exceptional Children, 58(4), 311–320. The study is ineligible for review because it does not take place in the geographic area specified in the protocol. Hurley, J. J., Wehby, J. H., & Feurer, I. D. (2010). The social validity assessment of social competence intervention behavior goals. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 30(2), 112–124. The study is ineligible for review because it does not disaggregate findings for the age or grade range specified in the protocol. Hyatt, K. J., & Filler, J. W. (2007). A comparison of the effects of two social skill training approaches on teacher and child behavior. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 22(1), 85–96. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol—the sample either includes less than 50% students with identified disabilities or more than 50% students with autism. Johnson, J. L. (2001). Preventing conduct problems and increasing social competence in high-risk preschoolers. Dissertation Abstracts International Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 62(2-B), 1085. The study is ineli- gible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol—the sample either includes less than 50% students with identified disabilities or more than 50% students with autism. Kalyva, E., & Avramidis, E. (2005). Improving communication between children with autism and their peers through the “circle of friends”: A small-scale intervention study. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 18(3), 253–261. The study is ineligible for review because it does not take place in the geographic area speci- fied in the protocol. Kamps, D. M., & Ellis, C. (1995). Peer-inclusive social skills groups for young children with behavioral risks. Prevent- ing School Failure, 39(4), 10. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol—the sample either includes less than 50% students with identified disabilities or more than 50% students with autism. Kamps, D. M., Tankersley, M., & Ellis, C. (2000). Social skills interventions for young at-risk students: A 2-year follow-up study. Behavioral Disorders, 25(4), 310–324. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol—the sample is not within the specified age or grade range. Kazdin, A. E., Bass, D., Siegel, T., & Thomas, C. (1989). Cognitive-behavioral therapy and relationship therapy in the treatment of children referred for antisocial behavior. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57(4), 522–535. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol—the sample is not within the specified age or grade range. Kohler, F., Anthony, L., Steighner, S., & Hoyson, M. (2001). Teaching social interaction skills in the integrated pre- school. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 21(2), 93–103. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol—the sample either includes less than 50% students with identified disabilities or more than 50% students with autism. Kroeger, K. A., Schultz, J. R., & Newsom, C. (2007). A comparison of two group-delivered social skills programs for young children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 37(5), 808–817. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol—the sample either includes less than 50% students with identified disabilities or more than 50% students with autism. Leaf, J. B., Dotson, W. H., Oppeneheim, M. L., Sheldon, J. B., & Sherman, J. A. (2010). The effectiveness of a group teaching interaction procedure for teaching social skills to young children with a pervasive developmental disorder. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 4(2), 186–198. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol—the sample either includes less than 50% students with identified disabilities or more than 50% students with autism. Lefler, E., Hartung, C., Scambler, D., Page, M., Sullivan, M., Armendariz, M., …Warner, C. (2009). Effects of a social skills intervention administered in mixed diagnostic groups for children with peer relationship problems. NHSA Dialog: A Research-to-Practice Journal for the Early Intervention Field, 12(1), 18–32. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol—the sample is not within the specified age or grade range.  Social Skills Training February 2013 Page 10 WWC Intervention Report Leon-Guerrero, R. S. (2006). The use of visually enhanced social skills curriculum to teach prosocial skills to young children with autism spectrum disorder. Dissertation Abstracts International, 67(06A), 1-2114. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol—the sample either includes less than 50% students with identified disabilities or more than 50% students with autism. Macklem, G. L. (2011). Evidence-based school mental health services: Affect education, emotion regulation training, and cognitive behavioral therapy. New York: Springer. The study is ineligible for review because it is a second- ary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention, such as a meta-analysis or research literature review. McCabe, P. C., & Altamura, M. (2011). Empirically valid strategies to improve social and emotional competence of preschool children. Psychology in the Schools, 48(5), 513–540. The study is ineligible for review because it is a secondary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention, such as a meta-analysis or research literature review. Nelson, C. B. (2004). Keys to play: A strategy to increase the social interactions of young children with autism and their typically developing peers. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(12A), 142-4422. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol—the sample either includes less than 50% students with identified disabilities or more than 50% students with autism. Peterson, C. A., & McConnell, S. R. (1996). Factors related to intervention integrity and child outcome in social skills interventions. Journal of Early Intervention, 20(2), 146–164. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine an intervention implemented in a way that falls within the scope of the review. Richardson, D. L. (2009). Evaluation of interpersonal problem-solving skills program for preschool and elementary children. Dissertation Abstracts International, 70(05B), 223-3207. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol—the sample is not within the specified age or grade range. Shepherd, E. J. (2009). Intervening to promote social skill usage in Head Start preschoolers: A single-group design evaluation of effectiveness. Dissertation Abstracts International Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 69(9- B), 5793. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol—the sam- ple either includes less than 50% students with identified disabilities or more than 50% students with autism. Storey, K., & Danko, C. (1994). Generalization of social skills intervention for preschoolers with social delays. Edu- cation and Treatment of Children, 17(1), 29–51. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol—the sample is not within the specified age or grade range. Storey, K., Danko, C. D., Strain, P. S., & Smith, D. J. (1992). A follow-up of social skills instruction for preschoolers with developmental delays. Education & Treatment of Children, 15(2), 125–139. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol—the sample either includes less than 50% students with identified disabilities or more than 50% students with autism. Strain, P., Kohler, F., Storey, K., & Danko, C. (1994). Teaching preschoolers with autism to self-monitor their social inter- actions: An analysis of results in home and school settings. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 2(2), 78–88. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol—the sample either includes less than 50% students with identified disabilities or more than 50% students with autism. Tsao, L., & Odom, S. (2006). Sibling-mediated social interaction intervention for young children with autism. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 26(2), 106–123. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol—the sample either includes less than 50% students with identified disabilities or more than 50% students with autism. Turan, Y. (2004). Promoting social responsiveness for young children with disabilities by enhancing the reinforcing value of social interactions. Dissertation Abstracts International, 65(11A), 125-4160. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample aligned with the protocol—the sample is not within the specified age or grade range. Vaughn, S., Kim, A., Sloan, C. V. M., 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(1), 2–15. The study is ineligible for review because it is a secondary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention, such as a meta-analysis or research literature review.  Social Skills Training February 2013 Page 11 WWC Intervention Report Appendix A.1: Research details for Ferentino (1991) Ferentino, S. C. (1991). Teaching social skills to preschool children in a special education program. Dissertation Abstracts International, 52(08B), 223-4490. Table A1. Summary of findings Meets WWC evidence standards without reservations Setting The study was conducted in a special education school in a suburban metropolitan area of the northeastern United States. Study sample The eligibility criteria for this study included (a) the ability of the child to function in a class of eight to nine children and (b) parental consent to participate. Given these eligibility criteria, 100 participants in 12 classrooms were eligible from a population of 177 preschool children in a special education school. There were two other children in the school intervention group (S) that were dropped from the study as outliers. Nearly all participants had speech and language impairments; 25% had various other primary disabilities. The 12 classrooms in the study were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: (a) Four classrooms (n = 32 children) were assigned to a social skills training program to be administered in the school (S), (b) Four classrooms (n = 33 children) were assigned to a social skills training program that would be implemented in both the school and at home (S + H), and (c) Four classrooms (n = 33 children) were assigned to a waiting-list comparison group (C). For the purpose of this WWC report, the evidence of the social skills training program is identi- fied by comparing the school-only group (S) against the waiting-list comparison group (C). Addi- tional comparisons of the remaining groups are presented in Appendices D.2 and D.3. Intervention group The classrooms receiving the social skills training program (both the S and the S + H groups) used the “My Friends and Me” curriculum. The program uses group activities and materials intended to enhance the personal identity and social development of preschool children. The following materials are included: an activity manual; hand puppets; magnets in geometric, human, and doll shapes; activity pictures of a classroom, a city, a single-family home, and a shopping center; an illustrated story book; song cards and recorded songs; an activity board and liquid-chalk pens; and 30 take-home activity sheets (for the school and at-home group). In the school-only group, children participated in 30 half-hour sessions conducted by their teacher over the course of four months. In the school and at-home group, children partici- pated in 15 half-hour sessions conducted by their teacher and 15 additional sessions at home conducted by their parents. Study findings Outcome domain Sample size Average improvement index (percentile points) Statistically significant Cognition 8 classrooms/65 children +7 No Social-emotional development and behavior 8 classrooms/65 children +9 Yes  Social Skills Training February 2013 Page 12 WWC Intervention Report Comparison group Children in the comparison group (C) participated in special arts and crafts projects for the 30 half-hour sessions. These children may have received incidental social skills training. Outcomes and measurement The primary outcomes in this study were in the cognition and socio-emotional development and behavior domains. One outcome was assessed in the cognition domain: (a) the Comprehension subtest of the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence–Revised (WPPSI-R). Five outcomes were assessed in the socio-emotional development and behavior domain: (a) Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales Classroom Edition–Socialization domain (VABS-C); (b) Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales Interview Edition, Survey Form–Socialization domain (VABS-I); (c) the Child Behavior Checklist for Ages 4–16 and 2–3, teachers’ ratings (CBCLT 4–16; CBCLT 2–3); (d) the Child Behavior Checklist for Ages 4–16 and 2–3, parents’ ratings (CBCLP 4–16; CBCLP 2–3); (e) the Face Recognition subtest of the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children (K-ABC). For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendix B.8 Support for implementation Two workshops were held to train teachers and parents (for the school and at-home group) on the “My Friends and Me” intervention.  Social Skills Training February 2013 Page 13 WWC Intervention Report Table A2. Summary of findings Meets WWC evidence standards without reservations Setting The study was conducted in a publicly-funded, privately-operated preschool in New York state. Study sample A total of nine integrated classrooms containing 58 children with developmental delays who qualified for special education participated in this study.9 Three intact classrooms were ran- domly 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 rein- forcement of target behaviors (Group B).10 Additional contrasts for Group A against Group C are presented in Appendix D.3. Intervention group 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 behav- iors, 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.11 Comparison group Children in the comparison group (C) did not receive any social skills training but did receive classroom reinforcement of target behaviors. Study findings Outcome domain Sample size Average improvement index (percentile points) Statistically significant Social-emotional development and behavior 6 classrooms/38 children +26 Yes Guglielmo, H. M., & Tryon, G. S. (2001). Social skill training in an integrated preschool program. School Psychology Quarterly, 16(2), 158–175. Appendix A.2: Research details for Guglielmo and Tryon (2001)  Social Skills Training February 2013 Page 14 WWC Intervention Report Outcomes and measurement 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. Support for implementation 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.  Social Skills Training February 2013 Page 15 WWC Intervention Report Setting The study was conducted in a preschool for children with developmental disabilities. Study sample Thirty-two children in six classrooms participated in this study. The children had mild to moderate developmental delays, and many also were physically handicapped. Six intact classrooms of children were randomly assigned to one of two conditions. Children in classrooms assigned to the intervention group (n = 16 children) received social skills training, while children in class- rooms assigned to the comparison group (n = 16 children) received the business-as-usual classroom experience. Intervention group Children in the intervention group received two one-hour sessions of social skills training each week, for a total of 12 sessions over six weeks. The activities in the training were designed to promote social skills and social play. Each session was broken into two phases. During Phase 1 (approximately 15 minutes), children were instructed on target behaviors, including greeting, asking to see a toy, initiating play, and showing a toy. Therapists modeled the target behavior using a pup- pet, the children modeled the behavior following this initial presentation with a puppet, and then the children modeled the behavior with another child. During Phase 2 (approximately 45 minutes), children engaged in play and received verbal and edible reinforcements for engaging in the target behavior. Children who engaged in inappropriate behaviors were prompted to perform an opposite positive behavior. For example, if a child inappropriately took a toy, the corresponding opposite positive behavior was to return the toy and to ask to see it. If the child refused to conduct the opposite positive behavior, they were placed in a one-minute time-out. Comparison group Children in the comparison group participated in regular classroom activities and received a reward for participating in the data collection for the study. They did not receive any social skills training or reinforcement of target behaviors. Outcomes and measurement The study examined two outcomes in the socio-emotional development and behavior domain. The frequency of “appropriate” and “inappropriate” behaviors was assessed through direct observations of children during a semi-structured play session at pretest and at posttest.12 For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendix B. Support for implementation The staff that implemented the intervention was comprised of therapists and assistant therapists. No information was provided about training. Study findings Outcome domain Sample size Average improvement index (percentile points) Statistically significant Social-emotional development and behavior 6 classrooms/32 children na na Table A3. Summary of findings Meets WWC evidence standards without reservations LeBlanc, L. A., & Matson, J. L. (1995). A social skills training program for preschoolers with develop- mental delays: Generalization and social validity. Behavior Modification, 19(2), 234–246. Appendix A.3: Research details for LeBlanc and Matson (1995) na = not applicable