Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities - Division on ...
Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities - Division on ...
Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities - Division on ...
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
group, he or she was to be placed <str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g> the group<br />
with which he or she spent the most time.<br />
Students were told that they should <strong>on</strong>ly name<br />
as many groups as they could th<str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g>k of, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
that it was okay to <strong>on</strong>ly have <strong>on</strong>e or two. In<br />
additi<strong>on</strong>, students were told that they should<br />
name all members of each group, but that<br />
they did not have to use the names of all<br />
people <str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g> their class. Students were told that if<br />
there were some people that did not seem to<br />
bel<strong>on</strong>g to any particular group, they should<br />
place those names outside the circles. F<str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g>ally,<br />
students were asked to <str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g>clude themselves <str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
the group with which they associated most of<br />
the time. Students were asked to list their<br />
group first <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> to denote themselves with the<br />
word “me.”<br />
The Gilliam Autism Rat<str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g>g Scale (GARS;<br />
Gilliam, 1995) was used to determ<str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g>e a severity<br />
of autism characteristics quotient of each<br />
student with autism <str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g> each of the three ma<str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
characteristic categories: communicati<strong>on</strong>, social<br />
relatedness, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> stereotypic behavior.<br />
Quotients were dichotomized as either mild to<br />
moderate or moderate to severe.<br />
Data Analyses<br />
To determ<str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g>e social preference, the follow<str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g>g<br />
steps were taken: (1) students nom<str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g>ated<br />
peers with<str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g> the classroom whom they would<br />
most <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> least like to play with at recess, <str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g>vite<br />
to a birthday party, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> work with <strong>on</strong> a class<br />
assignment; (2) total positive nom<str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g>ati<strong>on</strong>s<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> total negative nom<str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g>ati<strong>on</strong>s for each student<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g> the class were determ<str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g>ed; (3) negative<br />
scores were subtracted from positives to<br />
determ<str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g>e each student’s overall social preference<br />
score; (4) scores were rank-ordered from<br />
highest to lowest; (5) data were dichotomized,<br />
based <strong>on</strong> a median score derived from the<br />
rank<str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g>g; <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> (6) students listed above the median<br />
score were c<strong>on</strong>sidered to have high social<br />
preference, while those below the median<br />
score were c<strong>on</strong>sidered to have low preference.<br />
To determ<str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g>e social impact, the follow<str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g>g<br />
steps were taken: (1) students nom<str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g>ated<br />
peers with whom they would most <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> least<br />
like to do three activities; (2) <str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g>stead of subtract<str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g>g<br />
the negative nom<str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g>ati<strong>on</strong>s from the<br />
positive nom<str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g>ati<strong>on</strong>s, the two were added to<br />
determ<str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g>e total number of times a student was<br />
nom<str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g>ated, regardless of whether the nom<str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g>ati<strong>on</strong>s<br />
were positive or negative; (3) students<br />
were then placed <str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g>to rank order from most<br />
to least number of times nom<str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g>ated; (4) data<br />
were dichotomized, based <strong>on</strong> a median score<br />
derived from the rank<str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g>g; <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> (5) aga<str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g>,<br />
those whose score fell above the median were<br />
c<strong>on</strong>sidered to have high social preference,<br />
while those with a score below the median<br />
were c<strong>on</strong>sidered to have low preference.<br />
Social network affiliati<strong>on</strong> was determ<str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g>ed<br />
us<str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g>g a procedure described by Farmer <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
Farmer (1996), <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g>volved the follow<str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g>g<br />
steps: (1) students were asked to list students<br />
with<str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g> the class who “hang around together a<br />
lot”; (2) from these lists, the number of times<br />
students were named to any group was determ<str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g>ed<br />
us<str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g>g a social network recall matrix;<br />
(3) the number of times students were named<br />
together to a group was determ<str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g>ed us<str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g>g a<br />
social network co-occurrence matrix; (4) us<str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g>g<br />
a social network correlati<strong>on</strong> matrix , students<br />
who were named together as a group<br />
50% or more of the number of times they<br />
were named to any group were determ<str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g>ed to<br />
bel<strong>on</strong>g to a group together; <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> (5) students<br />
were then dichotomized as affiliated or not<br />
affiliated. Tables 2 <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> 3 present the preference,<br />
impact, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> affiliati<strong>on</strong> data by GARS<br />
scores <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> by participant disability, respectively.<br />
A2 2 c<strong>on</strong>t<str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g>gency design was used. Independent<br />
variables were type of disability (autism<br />
or no disability) <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> severity of autism<br />
characteristics. Dependent variables <str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g>cluded<br />
social preference, social impact, <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> social<br />
network affiliati<strong>on</strong>. Fisher’s Exact Test was<br />
used as an alternative to the Pears<strong>on</strong> Chi<br />
Square procedure, because all of the assumpti<strong>on</strong>s<br />
of Chi Square could not be made. Significance<br />
was set at the .05 level.<br />
Results<br />
18 / <str<strong>on</strong>g>Educati<strong>on</strong></str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Tra<str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g><str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g>g</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Developmental</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Disabilities</str<strong>on</strong>g>-March 2005<br />
Results <str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g>dicated no differences between students<br />
with autism <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> students without disabilities<br />
<strong>on</strong> the social <str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g>tegrati<strong>on</strong>s c<strong>on</strong>structs:<br />
social preference, social impact, or social network<br />
affiliati<strong>on</strong>, (Fisher’s Exact Test .7512,<br />
p .05; .5281, p .05; .3856, p .05, respectively).<br />
Similarly, results were no significant<br />
difference between autism characteristics for<br />
students with autism <str<strong>on</strong>g>and</str<strong>on</strong>g> the social <str<strong>on</strong>g>in</str<strong>on</strong>g>tegrati<strong>on</strong><br />
c<strong>on</strong>structs: social preference (Fisher’s Exact<br />
Test 1.0, p .05; 1.0, p .05; 1.0, p <br />
.05), social impact (Fisher’s Exact Test 1.0,