http://foa.sagepub.com/Developmental DisabilitiesFocus on Autism and Other

http://foa.sagepub.com/content/21/1/36The online version of this article can be found at:

 DOI: 10.1177/10883576060210010501

2006 21: 36Focus Autism Other Dev DisablDelann Soenksen and Sandra Alper

Teaching a Young Child to Appropriately Gain Attention of Peers Using a Social Story Intervention  

Published by:

  Hammill Institute on Disabilities

and

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Focus on Autism and Other Developmental DisabilitiesAdditional services and information for    

  http://foa.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

 

http://foa.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:  

What is This? 

- Jan 1, 2006Version of Record >>

at Maastricht University on July 3, 2014foa.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Maastricht University on July 3, 2014foa.sagepub.comDownloaded from

The purpose of this study was to assess the effectiveness of a Social Story™ intervention in teaching a young child withhyperlexia to appropriately obtain the attention of his peers.The Social Story intervention consisted of verbal and visual cues incorporated into an age-appropriate storybook format.Attempting to obtain the attention of a peer was defined aseither saying a peer’s name or looking at the face of a peerwhile talking. A multiple baseline across settings design wasused to evaluate the efficacy of the intervention. The results of the study indicated that the Social Story was effective inincreasing the two target behaviors across three settings withinan inclusive school. Implications for researchers and practition-ers are discussed.

Young children naturally learn communication skills byinteracting with peers during academics, play, and so-cial activities. Children with disabilities, however, often

have difficulty acquiring these skills when they have less inter-action with their peers (Guralnick, 1981, 1990; Kohl & Beck-man, 1984). In order for children to effectively interact andsocialize with one another, some form of communication is re-quired. Students identified with hyperlexia often have partic-ular difficulties in this area.

The term hyperlexia was first used by Silberberg and Sil-berberg (1967) to describe students whose reading level farexceeds their level of comprehension. These authors were thefirst to identify hyperlexia as the unique ability to read wordssignificantly above expectations, based on age and measuredIQ, but with little or no comprehension.

Characteristics of Hyperlexia

Silberberg and Silberberg (1967) described three characteris-tics of hyperlexia. First, a discrepancy exists between the abil-ity of a child to recognize words and the extent to which heor she comprehends the ideas represented by the words. Sec-

ond, many children with hyperlexia exhibit challenging be-haviors. Third, these children typically read at an early agewithout formal instruction and show high interest in wordsand letters (see also Cobrinik, 1982; Healy, Aram, Horwitz,& Kessler, 1982; Huttenlocker & Huttenlocker, 1973; Mehe-gan & Dreifus, 1972). It is possible for hyperlexia to occur instudents who have other learning and behavior disabilities.

Social characteristics of children with hyperlexia have beendescribed in parental reports (Miller, 1993). Parents fre-quently reported compulsive reading. Second, noncompliantbehavior was frequently reported. The need for sameness wasthe third characteristic noted. Fourth, parents described theirchildren as “out of touch” and appearing to be “in their ownworld.” Fifth, a shorter attention span than same-age peers wasfrequently mentioned. Finally, parents noted their children“rarely made eye contact” with persons to whom they werespeaking (Miller, 1993).

Strategies for Teaching Children With Hyperlexia

Miller (1993) identified four principles for teaching studentswith hyperlexia. First, provide information in a written form,such as a list or checklist. A written list, at the child’s level ofunderstanding, should reinforce what the child has read, aswell as inform the child of the sequence of events. Second,adults should model spoken language patterns for the child.Third, adults should reward the child for appropriate behav-iors. Fourth, adults should use visual cues to reinforce whatthe child hears. Visual cues are beneficial because they offer anadditional source of information.

Consistent with Miller’s recommendations, Quill (1997)observed that visual cues assist students in their understand-ing of oral language. The combination of visual cues with ver-bal instructions can be even more powerful (Schmit, Alper,Raschke, & Ryndak, 2000). Healy, Aram, Horwitz, and Kes-

FOCUS ON AUTISM AND OTHER DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIESVOLUME 21, NUMBER 1, SPRING 2006

PAGES 36–44

Teaching a Young Child toAppropriately Gain Attention ofPeers Using a Social StoryIntervention

Delann Soenksen and Sandra Alper

at Maastricht University on July 3, 2014foa.sagepub.comDownloaded from

VOLUME 21, NUMBER 1, SPRING 2006

37

sler (1982) found that the students were successful at com-prehending sentences when pictures were available as cues.Quill pointed out that written words or pictographic symbolscombined with the spoken language enable the child to ab-stract meaning from information. MacDuff, Krantz, and Mc-Clannahan (1993) noted that children who have difficultyresponding to verbal instruction are able to respond to writ-ten materials or pictures because the information is more ac-cessible to them. Krantz and McClannahan (1993) reportedincreased interaction when scripts were used.

Recently, Social Story™ interventions have been developedto teach new skills. These interventions consist of short storiesthat describe situations by explaining the social cues and com-mon responses of others (Gray, 1995; Gray & Garand, 1993;Ivey, Heflin, & Alberto, 2004). Social Stories have a variety ofuses. They can be developed to (a) describe a social situationto a student, (b) help a student learn to handle changes in rou-tine, (c) address appropriate student behavior, (d) teach socialskills to a student, or (e) teach academic skills in a social set-ting (Gray, 1995).

Any teacher or parent can use Gray and Garand’s (1993)guidelines to write Social Stories. The story must be written atthe student’s reading and comprehension levels, using age-appropriate vocabulary. The story must be written using fourtypes of sentences: descriptive, perspective, directive, and con-trol. Descriptive sentences define the who, what, where, andwhy of a specific situation (e.g., sometimes the teacher will say,“Mouths closed when we are walking in the hallway”). Per-spective sentences describe the reactions and feelings of othersin that situation (e.g., “My teacher feels happy when I amquiet”). Directive sentences describe the social response thatis expected. The directive sentence will generally begin with “Ican” or “I will” and usually follows descriptive sentences (e.g.,“I will close my mouth when I am walking in the hallway”).A control sentence is metaphorical and written by the studentto restate the story (e.g., “I will be quiet as a mouse”). Con-trol sentences may not be included in all Social Stories, becausesome students are unable to use metaphors.

Recently, two additional types of sentences for Social Sto-ries were identified (Gray Center for Social Learning and Un-derstanding, 2002), affirmative and cooperative. Affirmativesentences are written to express the importance of surround-ing sentences and follow descriptive, perspective, or directivesentences (e.g., “This is a good thing to do”; Gray Center forSocial Learning and Understanding, 2002). Cooperativesentences identify others who have responsibilities in students’daily routines (e.g., “My mom and dad will help me getdressed for school”).

Advantages and Limitations of Social Story Interventions

One advantage of Social Stories is that they contain elementsof both child-specific and peer-mediated interventions as de-

fined by Odom, McConnell, and Chandler (1994). Theseauthors identified three categories of intervention strategies.Environmental arrangement is an approach that encouragessocial interaction by providing play partners, activities, andtoys, or restructuring the classroom or activity (e.g., arrangingdesk, creating play centers, or providing toys such as dolls orcars; Beckman & Kohl, 1984; DeKlyen & Odom, 1989).

Child-specific interventions consist of the teacher provid-ing direct instruction. Skills taught may include play, social,and other skills used during social interaction (Haring & Lov-inger, 1989; McConnell, Sisson, Cort, & Strain, 1991).

Third, peer-mediated interventions involve peers, ratherthan adults. Strain, Shores, and Timm (1977) trained peerswithout disabilities to interact with students with disabilities.Other researchers focused on teaching peers to prompt or pro-vide reinforcement to students with disabilities (e.g., Gold-stein, Kaczmarek, Pennington, & Shafer, 1992; McHale, 1983;Strain & Odom, 1986). Designing interventions that are childspecific and involve peer mediation and environmentalarrangement is critical (Browder & Ware, 2001; Cushing &Kennedy, 2003).

Both Gray (1995) and Miller (1993) noted that Social Sto-ries can be developed to include the components of visual cues,written script, and/or verbal cues. Social Stories have theadded advantage of being an age-appropriate activity, individ-ualized to the reading level and interests of the child. SocialStories are also easily applied in natural home and schoolsettings, thereby potentially facilitating inclusion and general-ization.

We suggest another advantage of Social Stories; using aSocial Story with a child identified with hyperlexia shouldcombine the child’s reading strength with visual cues. Becausereading is emphasized in the visual cue teaching strategy, thechild may easily learn positive behaviors, practice skills, and in-corporate them into his or her routine within natural settings.In addition, applying the intervention to the participant andpeers without disabilities creates opportunities for inclusion.Utilizing a group format for presenting the Social Story mayalso allow for increased interaction.

The extant research on Social Stories has several limita-tions. First, studies conducted to date focused primarily onautism or autism spectrum disorder (Barry & Burlew, 2004;Ivey, Heflin, & Alberto, 2004; Kuttler, Myles, & Carlson,1998; Lorimer, Simpson, Myles, & Ganz, 2002; Norris &Dattilo, 1999; Scattone, Wilczynski, Edwards, & Rabian,2002; Swaggart et al., 1995; Thiemann & Goldstein, 2001).Two studies were located in which the participants were la-beled with another disability, Asperger syndrome (Bledsoe,Myles, & Simpson, 2003; Rogers & Myles, 2001). The 5-year-old participant in Lorimer, Simpson, Myles, and Ganz’s (2002)study was identified with autism and noted to have character-istics associated with hyperlexia.

Second, these studies are limited due to the lack of main-tenance or generalization phases. Six studies investigated So-

at Maastricht University on July 3, 2014foa.sagepub.comDownloaded from

FOCUS ON AUTISM AND OTHER DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES

38

cial Stories as an intervention to decrease or increase targetedbehaviors using Kazdin’s (1982) AB or ABAB designs (Bled-soe, Myles, & Simpson, 2003; Ivey, Heflin, & Alberto, 2004;Kuttler, Myles, & Carlson, 1998; Lorimer, Simpson, Myles, &Ganz, 2002; Norris & Dattilo, 1999; Swaggart et al. 1995).Despite the positive behavior changes reported, AB designslack maintenance generalization phases. In addition, ABABdesigns have been criticized because they require withdrawalof intervention (Martella, Nelson, & Marchand-Martella, 1999).Scattone, Wilczynski, Edwards, and Rabian (2002) implementeda multiple baseline across participants design with three males,two 7-year-olds and one 15-year-old, with disruptive behav-iors. However, no generalization or maintenance phase wasimplemented.

Third, there is a great deal of variability in the methods andprocedures employed. Several studies have implemented mul-tiple interventions. Response-cost systems (Swaggart et al.,1995), token economy systems (Kuttler, Myles, & Carlson,1998), reinforcement systems (Agosta, Graetz, Mastropieri, &Scruggs, 2004), prompts (Scattone, Wilczynski, Edwards, &Rabian, 2002), and multiple-step interventions (Thiemann & Goldstein, 2001) have been combined with Social Story in-terventions. A computer-based Social Stories format was usedby Hagiwara and Myles (1999). Due to the combination ofinterventions, it was difficult to attribute change to only oneintervention.

A few studies used more than one Social Story. Norris andDattilo (1999) utilized three different Social Stories to changethe target behavior of the participant. Utilizing multiple So-cial Stories may have resulted in confusion for the participantand contributed to inability to acquire targeted skills. Two dif-ferent Social Stories, one for each targeted behavior, were usedby Lorimer, Simpson, Myles, and Ganz (2002). It was unclear,however, how many times the stories were read to the student.

Written and visual cues combined in a Social Story mayprovide information to students with autism. Questions re-main, due to the limited research. This study was designed toanswer the following two questions: (a) Are Social Stories ef-fective with students identified with hyperlexia? and (b) areSocial Stories effective in teaching children to acquire andmaintain skills across settings? The purpose of this study wasto demonstrate the use of written cues combined with visualcues embedded in a Social Story to increase a young child’s at-tempts to obtain attention from peers by saying their namesand/or looking at their faces.

Method

Participant

The student who participated in this study was a 5-year-oldboy, referred to as TJ. TJ attended his K–6 neighborhoodelementary school. At the age of 3, he was diagnosed with hy-perlexia. Prior to kindergarten, TJ attended preschool and was

provided a paraprofessional during the day and a pictureschedule consisting of four picture cues. Test results from theDevelopmental Reading Assessment indicated TJ was readingat the third-grade level. While his reading level was higher thanhis same-age peers, reading comprehension was significantlylower. TJ’s strengths were described as reading at an early ageand reciting lines verbatim from Disney movies. Parents re-ported TJ did not maintain eye contact with others and hisconversations consisted primarily of repeating phrases fromDisney movies.

TJ was the second of four children. None of his other sib-lings were identified with any special needs at the time of thisstudy. His mother was a homemaker and his father a white-collar professional. Both parents were very involved and sup-portive of their child’s educational program and attendedIndividualized Education Program (IEP) meetings together.

Hyperlexia was the only disability identified on TJ’s IEP.In the state in which TJ resided (Iowa), this condition met el-igibility criteria for special education services under the autismspectrum disorders category of the IDEA Amendments of1997. The educational team determined that a paraprofes-sional was an appropriate accommodation to assist TJ in par-ticipating in the general education setting.

Setting

The study was conducted within a general kindergarten class-room in a K–6 elementary school. The school identified itselfas an inclusive school; however, pullout programs did exist forsome students receiving special education services. TJ receivedhis instruction within the general education classroom. Thekindergarten class consisted of the classroom teacher, theteacher paraprofessional, a paraprofessional assigned to TJ, and26 other students. The classroom contained four rectangulartables that were arranged to form the letter U in the back halfof the room. A circular table was in the front of the classroomin one corner and the teacher’s desk was in the other front cor-ner. A reading center was located in the back of the room inone corner and consisted of books and pillows. The dramacenter, also in the back corner of the room, consisted of a pup-pet theater, puppets, and other miscellaneous toys such as playdishes and food.

During math time, students participated in a variety ofactivities that emphasized math concepts (e.g., sequencing,numbers, and shapes). Math activities occurred in different lo-cations of the classroom; students were allowed to completetheir work at tables or on the floor. Students engaged in boardgames, computer activities, and various hands-on materialssuch as pattern blocks. The teacher and paraprofessionals in-teracted with the students and engaged them in conversationrelated to math concepts. Math time was intentionally selectedas one of the settings, because academic content areas providemany opportunities for peer interaction. TJ’s parents andteachers wanted TJ to learn appropriate verbal interaction skillsacross a variety of settings.

at Maastricht University on July 3, 2014foa.sagepub.comDownloaded from

VOLUME 21, NUMBER 1, SPRING 2006

39

Choice time activities occurred in various locations in theroom such as the floor, computer station, play center, or read-ing area. Students were able to participate in any activity oftheir choice (e.g., puppet center, reading center, play center,games, or group activities) and interact with peers. Verbal in-teraction among peers was expected and encouraged by theteacher.

During recess, students were able to engage in recreationalactivities on various playground equipment or on the school’ssports field. The playground consisted of (a) a stand-aloneswing set with four swings, (b) a stand-alone geodesic dome,(c) stand-alone overhead bars, (d) a stand-alone set of rings,and (e) a large composite structure consisting of four slides,suspended bridge, sliding pole, vertical climber, chinning bars,horizontal ladder, and overhead bars. Adjacent to the play-ground was a grass lawn that students used to play soccer. Dur-ing this study TJ chose to play on the playground equipment.

Independent Variable

The independent variable was a combination of written andverbal cues embedded into a Social Story arranged in a bookformat. The completed book consisted of a title page and fourpages of the story (Table 1). Each page, except for the titlepage, contained a drawing (i.e., icons from Boardmaker), cen-tered on an 81⁄2- × 51⁄2-in. piece of white paper. The sentenceswere typed at the bottom of the page and printed in black let-ters. The title, “Getting My Friend’s Attention,” was centered.The Social Story was written by the first author using Gray’s(1995) guidelines. Descriptive, perspective, and directive sen-tences were used. Control sentences were not used in this storybecause the student was unable to comprehend sentences thatmetaphorically restated the story. At the time this study wasimplemented, Gray had not yet identified or recommended af-firmative and cooperative sentences.

The first author selected four of TJ’s peers, two boys andtwo girls, who knew TJ prior to kindergarten as either a neigh-borhood friend or a preschool classmate. None of the peers se-lected were identified with a disability. Each Monday, two newstudents were selected to join the group as two students leftthe group. This allowed the group to consist of two peers whowere familiar with the story and two new students. If a studentcommented that he or she did not want to participate, he orshe was allowed to leave the group and the first author selecteda new student. Only two peers declined participation duringthe course of the study. It was hoped that including peers with-out disabilities during the instructional sessions would facili-tate inclusion (Alper & Ryndak, 2003; Browder & Ware,2001; Cushing & Kennedy, 2003).

Each story session occurred at the beginning of each targetsetting and could be completed within approximately 5 min-utes. Nonparticipating students engaged in their regular ac-tivities. As the first few minutes of each period consisted ofstudents selecting an activity and location within the room, nostudents missed any direct instructional time. During each

story session, TJ, his peers, and the first author sat in a circleon the floor. The first author provided each student with acopy of the story. The first author held a copy of the story infront of the students and read the story verbatim as it wasprinted, never adding, changing, or deleting the printed con-tent. TJ read the story aloud along with the first author andhis peers, who were familiar with the story, and recited it frommemory. The story was not available to be read on the week-ends or on days school was not in session.

Dependent Variables

After consultation with TJ’s parents and teacher, the first au-thor observed TJ’s social skills during school day activities thatallowed opportunities for interaction. These activities were re-cess, lunch, math time, and choice time. After observation andfurther discussion with the special education teacher, it was de-termined that the dependent variables should consist of thenumber of attempts made to obtain peer attention during each15-minute observation period. Attempting to obtain the at-tention of a peer was defined as successful when TJ (a) verballysaid the peer’s name and/or (b) looked at the peer’s face whiletalking to him or her. To be counted as a correct response, say-ing the peer’s name had to be done in an appropriate tone ofvoice with no yelling. Looking at the peer’s face was definedas standing in front or slightly to the side of the peer and look-ing directly toward the face. TJ had to be close enough for thepeer to hear him without shouting.

TABLE 1Social Story Written to Gain the Attention of Peers

Verbal cueVisual cue (Script corresponding

Page (Drawings) to drawing)

1

2

3

4

Two friendsstanding side by side

A person talkingto anotherperson who islooking at them

Two peoplelooking at eachother

A smiling face

When I want to talk to a friend, Ifirst get their attention.

When I say my friend’s name, myfriend should look at me. If myfriend does not look at me, Ican say their name again. Myfriend may be busy and I willhave to wait. When I say myfriend’s name, my friend feelsgood.

When I stand in front of myfriend and look at my friend’sface, my friend should look atme. It makes my friend feelgood when I look at theirface.

The teachers are happy when Italk to my friends.

at Maastricht University on July 3, 2014foa.sagepub.comDownloaded from

FOCUS ON AUTISM AND OTHER DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES

40

Social Validity

Social validity refers to the appropriateness of a study’s goals,procedures, and outcomes (Wolf, 1978). Subjective evaluationand social comparison are two methods for determining socialvalidity (Kazdin, 1982). Subjective evaluation consists of ob-taining the opinions of others who are familiar with the stu-dent and evaluating the behaviors that need to be changed.Social comparison involves identifying peers who perform thesame behaviors, but who differ in the level of performance ofthe target behavior (Kazdin, 1982).

Both subjective evaluation and social comparison wereused in this study. Interaction with peers was a goal identifiedby TJ’s mother. The parents also indicated their desire for TJto make “social progress.” Looking at the faces of others dur-ing conversations was a goal for TJ and of great importance tohis parents. The IEP team identified appropriate social inter-action and stating the names of classmates as goals for TJ. Inaddition, the school team identified Social Stories as an ap-propriate tool to use. The special education teacher providedsuggestions and evaluated the story, indicating that the read-ing and comprehension level was appropriate for TJ.

After a period of observation, the first author noted thatTJ did not look at people when they were talking to him orwhen he talked to them. A peer comparison standard was es-tablished by randomly selecting one kindergarten peer with-out disabilities per activity per day. Data were collected for 1 week by the first author. The average number of instances oflooking at a peer’s face and saying a peer’s name was calculatedby adding up the total number of attempts for each behaviorand dividing by five, the total number of peers observed. Fifteen-minute observation periods during recess indicatedpeers without disabilities obtained the attention of peers byverbalizing their name and looking at their face on an averageof five times per period. Observations during choice time andmath indicated that peers verbalized another peer’s name onceand looked at a peer’s face twice on average during a 15-minute period. Thus, the peers’ averages on the dependentvariables during recess, choice time, and math were used as cri-terion levels for TJ.

Design and Procedures

A multiple baseline across settings design (Kazdin, 1982) wasused in this study to assess the efficacy of a Social Story on in-creasing the number of times the student attempted to obtainthe attention of a peer. Kazdin (1982) described this design asbeing appropriate to use when there is a desire to change a par-ticular behavior across a number of settings. In addition, themultiple baseline design allows for the demonstration of afunctional relationship between the intervention and behav-ioral change.

Data Collection. The first author collected data during a15-minute observation period four times each week in each of

the following settings: recess, choice time, and math. Usingpaper and pencil, the first author stood or sat near the studentin each of the three settings, and data were collected on thenumber of times TJ looked at a peer’s face or said his or hername.

The data points on the graph (Figure 1) represent a fre-quency count of the number of times TJ attempted to solicitthe attention of a peer by looking at his or her face or sayinghis or her name. The solid horizontal line represents the aver-age frequency with which peers without disabilities demon-strated each of these same behaviors during recess, choicetime, and math time with no intervention. This procedure wasused to establish social comparison between TJ and his class-mates.

Interrater reliability was established by having a second ob-server, TJ’s paraprofessional, independently record the fre-quency count of TJ’s attempts to gain the attention of a peer,consisting of saying a peer’s name or looking at his or her face.The first author defined the two target behaviors for the sec-ond observer and modeled these behaviors. Training of theparaprofessional occurred prior to collection of baseline data.The first author and the observer then observed TJ duringeach of the activities, recorded the behaviors, and discussedTJ’s behaviors. Interrater reliability was collected during 20%of the 15-minute observational periods during baseline, 21%of the 15-minute observational periods during intervention,and 20% of the 15-minute observational periods during main-tenance. Interrater reliability checks were not computed dur-ing follow-up because of the high reliability (96.4%) obtainedin the previous three phrases (Schloss & Smith, 1999). Re-liability was calculated by using a frequency count, with thesmaller total divided by the larger total, times 100 (Kazdin,1982). The overall agreement mean was 94.3% across all threeactivities with a range of 80% to 100%. Interrater reliability forrecess was 83%. For choice time and math, interrater reliabil-ity was 100%.

Baseline Data. Baseline data were obtained during a 15-minute observational period each day during recess, choicetime, and math without any special manipulations or instruc-tions. TJ participated freely in any activity and played with anypeers of his choice.

Training Data. After 3 days of data collection, baselinedata were evaluated as stable in the first setting, and interven-tion was applied in that setting. After criterion level (i.e., at orabove criterion level for three consecutive sessions on both tar-get behaviors) was reached in the first setting, intervention wasapplied in the second setting. When TJ met criterion in thesecond setting, intervention was applied in the third setting.

Maintenance. Maintenance data were collected in eachof the settings immediately after the criterion level was reachedin the training phase. Maintenance data consisted of frequencydata on the dependent variables. However, no direct instruc-

at Maastricht University on July 3, 2014foa.sagepub.comDownloaded from

41

FIGURE 1. Frequency of saying a peer’s name and looking at a peer’s face across three different settings.

at Maastricht University on July 3, 2014foa.sagepub.comDownloaded from

FOCUS ON AUTISM AND OTHER DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES

42

tion was provided during maintenance; that is, the Social Storywas no longer read to TJ.

Follow-Up. Forty-nine days after the maintenance phaseended, follow-up data were collected for two 15-minute ob-servational periods during both math and choice time. Due tochanges in the school day, follow-up data collection during re-cess was not feasible.

Results

Baseline data indicated TJ attempted to gain the attention ofa peer during recess through verbalization of a peer’s namewith a mean of zero. The mean frequency during interventionwas 2.9 (range = 0–9). During the maintenance phase, themean frequency for saying a peer’s name was 5.7 (range =2–10), as compared to the average score of 5.0 for his peers.The frequency of the attempts to gain the attention of a peerthrough looking at his or her face during baseline was zero.The frequency of looking at a peer’s face was 4.2 (range = 0–8)during intervention, and 5.4 (range = 3–7) during mainte-nance, which was similar to his peer’s average of 5.0.

During choice time, the mean frequency for verbalizing apeer’s name was 0.06 (range = 0–1) during baseline, 0.9(range = 0–3) during intervention, and 1.4 (range = 1–3) dur-ing maintenance, which was similar to the average score forpeers. Mean frequency of looking at a peer’s face was 0.06(range = 0–1) during baseline, 2.0 (range = 0–3) in interven-tion, and 3.0 (range = 2–5) during maintenance, as comparedto the peers’ average of 2.0.

During math, the mean frequency for verbalizing a peer’sname was 0.1 (range = 0–2) in baseline, 0.6 (range = 0–1) dur-ing intervention, and 0.83 (range = 0–1) in maintenance, ap-proximately the same as his peers. The mean frequency ofattempts to gain the attention of a peer by looking at his orher face during math was 0.55 (range = 0–9) during baseline,2.4 (range = 2–3) in intervention, and 3.0 (range = 2–4) dur-ing maintenance, once again higher than the peers’ average of 2.0.

Follow-up data were collected 49 days after the mainte-nance phase ended. Follow-up data were obtained during choicetime and math periods only, since the daily schedule in the classhad changed and it was not possible to collect data during re-cess. Follow-up data indicated that TJ maintained the samefrequency of the two target behaviors as his peers without dis-abilities after intervention and maintenance ended.

Discussion

This study evaluated the effectiveness of using a Social Storyto increase a young child’s ability to look at a peer’s face andsay his or her name as a means of appropriately gaining atten-tion. The results indicated a positive increase in the dependentmeasures across recess, choice time, and math. These data are

consistent with results reported by Kuttler, Myles, and Carl-son (1998); Hagiwara and Myles (1999); Scattone, Wilczyn-ski, Edwards, and Rabian (2002); and Swaggart et al. (1995).

Several positive features of the Social Story interventionwere noted. Reading and listening to stories are naturally oc-curring activities that allowed for the intervention to be easilyembedded into the normal school environment. The SocialStory was easy to implement. The story only took a few min-utes to read and could be read by either the teacher or para-professionals. The ease of implementation of the Social Storyallowed for its use throughout the day, as well as across set-tings. In addition, the intervention involved TJ and his peerswithout disabilities. The classroom teacher and paraprofes-sionals reported that based on their observations, peers in-creased their interactions with TJ during school activities.Increased interaction may have been the result of peers with-out disabilities being exposed to the Social Story intervention.The involvement of peers without disabilities may very wellhave supported TJ’s use of the target skills and contributed toacquisition and maintenance. Social Stories also provided op-portunities to read aloud to others, listen to a story read byanother, and read to oneself.

These results are noteworthy for several reasons. First, theSocial Story intervention was operationally defined in greaterdetail than in much of the previous literature. Specifically, theSocial Story involved the combination of verbal and writtencues embedded into an age-appropriate story. Second, thisstudy represents empirical documentation of the effects of So-cial Stories on directly observable and measurable behaviors.Third, this study represents the first time a Social Story inter-vention was applied to a child with hyperlexia. Fourth, resultsindicated the intervention was effective during maintenanceand follow-up phases, as well as during the training phase, andacross three settings. Fifth, unlike much of the previous re-search, the Social Story was used in naturally integrated groupsof TJ and his peers without disabilities, in a general educationclassroom. This was consistent with recommendations madeby proponents of positive behavior supports regarding modi-fying environments to facilitate proactive social behaviors (e.g.,Koegel, Koegel, & Dunlap, 1996). Finally, the criteria for thedependent variables were based on the behaviors of typicallydeveloping peers.

Results must be evaluated with caution due to several lim-itations. First, only one child participated in this study. Second,only three settings were monitored and all three were in theschool. Third, only two behaviors were monitored, verbaliz-ing a peer’s name and looking at a peer’s face. We recognizethat these behaviors represent only two initial steps in suc-cessful interaction with a peer. This study did not attempt tomonitor social reciprocity. Further research is needed to anal-yze verbal content of the initiator as well as responses of thereceiver. Fourth, we cannot state unequivocally that the posi-tive changes in the target behaviors were due solely to theSocial Story. It is entirely possible, for example, that peers,teachers, and the first author may have supplied prompts to TJ

at Maastricht University on July 3, 2014foa.sagepub.comDownloaded from

VOLUME 21, NUMBER 1, SPRING 2006

43

that encouraged these responses. Finally, treatment fidelity wasnot measured. The Social Story was not evaluated for its ad-herence to Gray’s guidelines, nor was the fidelity of imple-mentation measured. These limitations restrict the externaland internal validity of the data.

This study adds to the existing literature on Social Stories.However, additional research is required to validate the effec-tiveness of Social Stories. It is recommended that future re-searchers examine the use of Social Stories with individuals ofvarying abilities and ages. To date, the majority of publishedstudies have focused on students ranging from 7 to 15 yearsof age and identified with autism. Additional research acrossnonschool settings such as the home and the communitywould be helpful. Studies focused on teaching skills in addi-tion to social skills are needed (Kuttler, Myles, & Carlson,1998; Norris & Dattilo, 1999). For example, the use of SocialStories to teach functional life skills, academic skills, or leisureskills might be explored. Finally, future researchers are encour-aged to design controlled studies so the effects of any con-founding variables can be separated from treatment effects.Control is particularly important in studies using multicom-ponent interventions in which it is difficult to determine whichcomponent(s) caused change in the dependent variable(s).

The purpose of this study was to assess the effectiveness ofwritten and visual cues incorporated into a Social Story to in-crease the frequency with which a young student with hyper-lexia attempted to obtain the attention of peers by looking ata peer’s face and/or verbalizing a peer’s name. Results of thestudy indicated the effectiveness of the Social Story in increas-ing the frequencies of both behaviors. The participant met orexceeded the frequencies of the target behaviors of peers with-out disabilities across recess, choice time, and math and wasable to maintain these behaviors. Additional investigations ofthe efficacy of Social Story interventions should yield implica-tions useful for researchers, practitioners, and caregivers of stu-dents with disabilities.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Delann Soenksen is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Edu-cational Leadership at the University of Northern Iowa. Her researchinterests focus on assistive technology and postsecondary programs for in-dividuals with disabilities. Sandra Alper, PhD, is professor and associ-ate dean of Graduate Studies and Sponsored Research at the Universityof Northern Iowa. Her research interests include inclusive school andcommunity programs for persons with severe disabilities. Address: San-dra Alper, 159 Schindler Education Center, University of NorthernIowa, Cedar Falls, IA 50613.

AUTHORS’ NOTES

1. This project was completed in partial fulfillment for the requirementsof the first author’s master’s research paper at the University of North-ern Iowa and supported, in part, by Grant 20229-07 from the U.S.

Office of Special Education Programs. No endorsement from thefunding agency is implied.

2. The authors would like to acknowledge the cooperation of the staff atthe participant’s elementary school. Particular appreciation is ex-pressed to the participant, his parents, the kindergarten teacher, andthe paraprofessional.

REFERENCES

Agosta, E., Graetz, J. E., Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (2004).Teacher-researcher partnership to improve social behavior throughsocial stories. Intervention in School and Clinic, 39(5), 276–287.

Alper, S., & Ryndak, D. L. (2003). Curriculum and instruction forstudents with significant disabilities in inclusive settings. Boston:Allyn & Bacon.

Barry, L. M., & Burlew, S. B. (2004). Using social stories to teachchoice and play skills to children with autism. Focus on Autism andOther Developmental Disabilities, 19, 45–51.

Beckman, P. J., & Kohl, F. L. (1984). The effects of social and iso-late toys on the interactions and play of integrated and noninte-grated groups of preschoolers. Education and Training of theMentally Retarded, 19, 169–174.

Bledsoe, R., Myles, B., & Simpson, R. L. (2003). Use of a social storyintervention to improve mealtime skills in an adolescent with As-perger syndrome. Autism. International Journal of Research andPractice, 7, 289–295.

Browder, D. M., & Ware, K. (2001). Communication and socialskills. In D. M. Browder (Ed.), Curriculum and assessment for stu-dents with moderate and severe disabilities (pp. 310–336). NewYork: Guilford.

Cobrinik, L. (1982). The performance of hyperlexic children on an“incomplete words” task. Neuropsychologia, 20, 569–577.

Cushing, L. S., & Kennedy, C. H. (2003). Facilitating social rela-tionships in general education settings. In S. Alper & D. L. Ryn-dak (Eds.), Curriculum and instruction for students with significantdisabilities in inclusive settings (pp. 206–238). Boston: Allyn &Bacon.

DeKlyen, M., & Odom, S. L. (1989). Activity structure and socialinteractions with peers in developmentally integrated play groups.Journal of Early Intervention, 13, 342–352.

Goldstein, H., Kaczmarek, L., Pennington, R., & Shafer, K. (1992).Peer-mediated interventions: Attending to, commenting on, andacknowledging the behavior of preschoolers with autism. Journalof Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 289–307.

Gray, C. (1995). Teaching children with autism to “Read” social sit-uations. In K. A. Quill (Ed.), Teaching children with autism strate-gies to enhance communication and socialization (pp. 219–241).Albany, NY: Delmar.

Gray, C. A., & Garand, J. D. (1993). Social stories: Improving re-sponses of students with autism with accurate social information.Focus on Autistic Behavior, 8, 1–10.

Gray Center for Social Learning and Understanding. (2002). The so-cial story guidelines. Retrieved April 20, 2004, from http://www.thegrayceter.org

Guralnick, M. J. (1981). Peer influences on development of com-municative competence. In P. Strain (Ed.), The utilization of peersas behavior change agents (pp. 31–68). New York: Plenum.

Guralnick, M. J. (1990). Social competence and early intervention.Journal of Early Intervention, 14, 3–14.

at Maastricht University on July 3, 2014foa.sagepub.comDownloaded from

FOCUS ON AUTISM AND OTHER DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES

44

Hagiwara, T., & Myles, B. S. (1999). A multimedia social story in-tervention: Teaching skills to children with autism. Focus on Au-tism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 14, 82–95.

Haring, T. G., & Lovinger, L. (1989). Promoting social interactionthrough teaching generalized play initiation responses to preschoolchildren with autism. Journal of the Association for Person with Se-vere Handicaps, 14, 58–67.

Healy, J. M., Aram, D. M., Horwitz, S. J., & Kessler, J. W. (1982).A study of hyperlexia. Brain and Language, 7, 1–23.

Huttenlocker, R. R., & Huttenlocker, J. (1973). A study of childrenwith hyperlexia. Neurology, 23, 1107–1116.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, 20U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (1997).

Ivey, M. L., Heflin, J., & Alberto, P. (2004). The use of social sto-ries to promote independent behaviors in novel events for childrenwith PDD-NOS. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Dis-abilities, 19, 164–176.

Kazdin, A. D. (1982). Single-case research design. New York: OxfordUniversity Press.

Koegel, L. K., Koegel, R. L., & Dunlap, G. (1996). Positive behav-ioral support: Including community. Baltimore: Brookes.

Kohl, F. L., & Beckman, P. J. (1984). A comparison of handicappedand nonhandicapped preschoolers’ interaction across classroom ac-tivities. Journal of the Division for Early Childhood, 8, 49–56.

Krantz, P., & McClannahan, L. (1993). Teaching children withautism to initiate to peers: Effects of a script-fading procedure.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26, 121–132.

Kuttler, S., Myles, B. S., & Carlson, J. (1998). The use of social sto-ries to reduce precursors to tantrum behaviors in a student withautism. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 13,176–182.

Lorimer, P. A., Simpson, R. L., Myles, B. S., & Ganz, J. B. (2002).The use of social stories as a preventative behavioral interventionin a home setting with a child with autism. Journal of Positive Be-havior Intervention, 4, 53–60.

MacDuff, G. S., Krantz, P. J., & McClannahan, L. E. (1993). Teach-ing children with autism to use photographic activity schedules:Maintenance and generalization of complex response chains. Jour-nal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26, 89–97.

Martella, R. C., Nelson, R., & Marchand-Martella, N. E. (1999). Re-search methods: Learning to become a critical research consumer.Needham Heights: Allyn & Bacon.

McConnell, S. R., Sisson, L. A., Cort, C. A., & Strain, P. S. (1991).Effects of social skills training and contingency management onreciprocal interaction of preschool children with behavioral handi-caps. The Journal of Special Education, 24, 473–495.

McHale, S. (1983). Social intervention of autistic and nonhandi-capped children during free play. American Journal of Orthospsy-chiatry, 53, 81–91.

Mehegan, C. C., & Dreifus, F. E. (1972). Hyperlexia—Exceptionalreading ability in brain damaged children. Neurology, 22, 1105–1111.

Miller, S. M. (1993). Reading too soon: How to understand and helpthe hyperlexic child. Elmhurst, IL: Center for Speech and LanguageDisorders.

Norris, C., & Dattilo, J. (1999). Evaluating effects of a social storyintervention on a young girl with autism. Focus on Autism andOther Developmental Disabilities, 14, 180–186.

Odom, S. L., McConnell, S. R., & Chandler, L. K. (1994). Accept-ability and feasibility of classroom-based social interaction inter-ventions for young children with disabilities. Exceptional Children,60, 226–236.

Quill, K. A. (1997). Instructional considerations for young childrenwith autism: The rationale for visually cued instruction. Journal ofAutism and Developmental Disorders, 27, 697–714.

Rogers, M. F., & Myles, B. S. (2001). Using social stories and comicstrip conversations to interpret social situations for an adolescentwith Asperger syndrome. Intervention in School and Clinic, 35,310–313.

Scattone, D., Wilczynski, S. M., Edwards, R. P., & Rabian, B. (2002).Decreasing disruptive behaviors of children with autism using so-cial stories. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 32,535–543.

Schloss, P. J., & Smith, M. S. (1999). Conducting research. UpperSaddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Schmit, J., Alper, S., Raschke, D., & Ryndak, D. (2000). Effects ofusing a photographic cueing package during routine school tran-sitions with a child who has autism. Mental Retardation, 38, 131–137.

Silberberg, N. E., & Silberberg, M. C. (1967). Hyperlexia: Specificword recognition skills in young children. Exceptional Children,34, 41–42.

Strain, P. S., & Odom, S. L. (1986). Peer social initiations: Effectiveintervention for social skills development of exceptional children.Exceptional Children, 52, 543–551.

Strain, P. S., Shores, R. E., & Timm, M. (1977). Effects of peer so-cial initiations on the behavior of withdrawn preschool children.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 289–298.

Swaggart, B. L., Gagnon, E., Bock, S. J., Earles, T. L., Quinn, C.,Myles, B. S., et al. (1995). Using social stories to teach social andbehavioral skills to children with autism. Focus on Autistic Behav-ior, 10, 1–16.

Thiemann, K. S., & Goldstein, H. (2001). Social stories, written textcues, and video feedback: Effects on social communication of chil-dren with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 34, 425–446.

Wolf, M. M. (1978). Social validity: The case for subjective mea-surement of how applied behavior analysis is finding its heart. Jour-nal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 203–214.

at Maastricht University on July 3, 2014foa.sagepub.comDownloaded from