Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities - Division on ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

group, he or she was to be placed <strong>in</strong> the group with which he or she spent the most time. Students were told that they should only name as many groups as they could th<strong>in</strong>k of, <strong>and</strong> that it was okay to only have one or two. In addition, students were told that they should name all members of each group, but that they did not have to use the names of all people <strong>in</strong> their class. Students were told that if there were some people that did not seem to belong to any particular group, they should place those names outside the circles. F<strong>in</strong>ally, students were asked to <strong>in</strong>clude themselves <strong>in</strong> the group with which they associated most of the time. Students were asked to list their group first <strong>and</strong> to denote themselves with the word “me.” The Gilliam Autism Rat<strong>in</strong>g Scale (GARS; Gilliam, 1995) was used to determ<strong>in</strong>e a severity of autism characteristics quotient of each student with autism <strong>in</strong> each of the three ma<strong>in</strong> characteristic categories: communication, social relatedness, <strong>and</strong> stereotypic behavior. Quotients were dichotomized as either mild to moderate or moderate to severe. Data Analyses To determ<strong>in</strong>e social preference, the follow<strong>in</strong>g steps were taken: (1) students nom<strong>in</strong>ated peers with<strong>in</strong> the classroom whom they would most <strong>and</strong> least like to play with at recess, <strong>in</strong>vite to a birthday party, <strong>and</strong> work with on a class assignment; (2) total positive nom<strong>in</strong>ations <strong>and</strong> total negative nom<strong>in</strong>ations for each student <strong>in</strong> the class were determ<strong>in</strong>ed; (3) negative scores were subtracted from positives to determ<strong>in</strong>e each student’s overall social preference score; (4) scores were rank-ordered from highest to lowest; (5) data were dichotomized, based on a median score derived from the rank<strong>in</strong>g; <strong>and</strong> (6) students listed above the median score were considered to have high social preference, while those below the median score were considered to have low preference. To determ<strong>in</strong>e social impact, the follow<strong>in</strong>g steps were taken: (1) students nom<strong>in</strong>ated peers with whom they would most <strong>and</strong> least like to do three activities; (2) <strong>in</strong>stead of subtract<strong>in</strong>g the negative nom<strong>in</strong>ations from the positive nom<strong>in</strong>ations, the two were added to determ<strong>in</strong>e total number of times a student was nom<strong>in</strong>ated, regardless of whether the nom<strong>in</strong>ations were positive or negative; (3) students were then placed <strong>in</strong>to rank order from most to least number of times nom<strong>in</strong>ated; (4) data were dichotomized, based on a median score derived from the rank<strong>in</strong>g; <strong>and</strong> (5) aga<strong>in</strong>, those whose score fell above the median were considered to have high social preference, while those with a score below the median were considered to have low preference. Social network affiliation was determ<strong>in</strong>ed us<strong>in</strong>g a procedure described by Farmer <strong>and</strong> Farmer (1996), <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>volved the follow<strong>in</strong>g steps: (1) students were asked to list students with<strong>in</strong> the class who “hang around together a lot”; (2) from these lists, the number of times students were named to any group was determ<strong>in</strong>ed us<strong>in</strong>g a social network recall matrix; (3) the number of times students were named together to a group was determ<strong>in</strong>ed us<strong>in</strong>g a social network co-occurrence matrix; (4) us<strong>in</strong>g a social network correlation matrix , students who were named together as a group 50% or more of the number of times they were named to any group were determ<strong>in</strong>ed to belong to a group together; <strong>and</strong> (5) students were then dichotomized as affiliated or not affiliated. Tables 2 <strong>and</strong> 3 present the preference, impact, <strong>and</strong> affiliation data by GARS scores <strong>and</strong> by participant disability, respectively. A2 2 cont<strong>in</strong>gency design was used. Independent variables were type of disability (autism or no disability) <strong>and</strong> severity of autism characteristics. Dependent variables <strong>in</strong>cluded social preference, social impact, <strong>and</strong> social network affiliation. Fisher’s Exact Test was used as an alternative to the Pearson Chi Square procedure, because all of the assumptions of Chi Square could not be made. Significance was set at the .05 level. Results 18 / <strong>Education</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Developmental</strong> <strong>Disabilities</strong>-March 2005 Results <strong>in</strong>dicated no differences between students with autism <strong>and</strong> students without disabilities on the social <strong>in</strong>tegrations constructs: social preference, social impact, or social network affiliation, (Fisher’s Exact Test .7512, p .05; .5281, p .05; .3856, p .05, respectively). Similarly, results were no significant difference between autism characteristics for students with autism <strong>and</strong> the social <strong>in</strong>tegration constructs: social preference (Fisher’s Exact Test 1.0, p .05; 1.0, p .05; 1.0, p .05), social impact (Fisher’s Exact Test 1.0,
TABLE 2 Levels of Social Preference, Impact, <strong>and</strong> Network Affiliation for Students with Autism by GARS Scores Average-High Preference Low-Average Preference p .05; 1.0, p .05; .20, p .05), <strong>and</strong> social network affiliation (Fisher’s Exact .30, p .05; 1.0, p .05; .183, p .05). Studies have suggested that student social preference, impact, <strong>and</strong> network affiliation differ accord<strong>in</strong>g to disability type (Bender et al., 1984). Therefore, a Fisher’s Exact Test was run post hoc to determ<strong>in</strong>e if there was a difference between students with autism <strong>and</strong> students with other disabilities (i.e., LD, BD, <strong>and</strong> ADHD) on each the social <strong>in</strong>tegration constructs. No differences were found, suggest<strong>in</strong>g that the type of disability did not impact on the social <strong>in</strong>tegration constructs: social preference (Fisher’s Exact Test .0598, p .05), social impact (Fisher’s Exact Test .4593, p Average-High Impact .05), <strong>and</strong> social network affiliation (Fisher’s Exact Test .5142, p .05). Discussion Low-Average Impact Affiliated with a Network Not Affiliated with a Network N Mild-Moderate GARS Communication Scores 3 3 4 2 4 2 6 Moderate-Severe GARS Communication Scores 2 2 2 2 3 1 4 Mild-Moderate GARS Behavior Scores 5 4 5 4 7 2 9 Moderate-Severe GARS Behavior Scores 0 1 1 0 0 1 2 Mild-Moderate GARS Social Scores 3 4 3 4 6 1 7 Moderate-Severe GARS Social Scores 2 1 3 0 1 2 3 TABLE 3 Levels of Social Preference, Impact <strong>and</strong> Network Affiliation for Participants Average-High Preference Low-Average Preference The purpose of this study was two-fold. First, to identify whether students with autism differed from their peers without disabilities on three social <strong>in</strong>tegration constructs. Second, to determ<strong>in</strong>e if there were differences between severity of autistic characteristics <strong>and</strong> social preference, social impact, or social network affiliation of the students with autism. Additionally, an analysis was conducted to determ<strong>in</strong>e whether there was a difference between students with autism <strong>and</strong> their peers with Average-High Impact Low-Average Impact Affiliated with a Network Not Affiliated with a Network N Students with Autism 50% 50% 60% 40% 70% 30% 10 Students with Other <strong>Disabilities</strong> 69% 31% 38% 62% 81% 19% 26 Students without <strong>Disabilities</strong> 44% 56% 48% 52% 83% 17% 141 Social Integration / 19
Page 1 and 2: Education
Page 7 and 8: Using Self-Monitor
Page 9 and 10: monitor their frequency of follow<s
Page 11 and 12: instructional task
Page 13 and 14: Figure 1. Percentage of correct res
Page 15 and 16: Social Validity Informal feedback f
Page 17 and 18: itoring procedure.
Page 19 and 20: ple characteristics of communicatio
Page 21: TABLE 1 Demographic Information, St
Page 25 and 26: esponses given by students
Page 27 and 28: (1997). The effects of peer network
Page 29 and 30: his or her monitorin</stron
Page 31 and 32: the five minute pe
Page 33 and 34: the token system (see Figures 1 <st
Page 35 and 36: ing, number of tok
Page 37 and 38: self-monitoring to
Page 39 and 40: potatoes) in a mic
Page 41 and 42: .”), and the tea
Page 43 and 44: While hearing the
Page 45 and 46: Figure 2. Graphic data for Alley. O
Page 47 and 48: Joe met criterion of 100% correct r
Page 49 and 50: trials. Ninth, det
Page 51 and 52: Computer-Based Video Instruction to
Page 53 and 54: ing materials. He
Page 55 and 56: Generalization Probe Procedures Pri
Page 57 and 58: Figure 1. Hyperstudio “card” wi
Page 59 and 60: to emit the behaviors, multiplied b
Page 61 and 62: curred after the prompt. Dur<strong
Page 63 and 64: ulation train<stro
Page 65 and 66: enhance the indepe
Page 67 and 68: een a part of the expected rout<str
Page 69 and 70: Figure 4. Kent’s performance on c
Page 71 and 72: Mirenda, P., Wilk, D., & Carson, P.
Page 73 and 74:
search indicates t
Page 75 and 76:
sions were conducted week days afte
Page 77 and 78:
Maintenance Probe
Page 79 and 80:
Figure 2. Number of correct respons
Page 81 and 82:
TABLE 1 Instructional Data for Each
Page 83 and 84:
Fetko, K. S., Schuster, J. W., Harl
Page 85 and 86:
lar challenge for school personnel
Page 87 and 88:
TABLE 1 Participant Demographic Cha
Page 89 and 90:
vidually identified feedin<
Page 91 and 92:
(i.e., before the in</stron
Page 93 and 94:
Figure 2. Graphic display of Nate
Page 95 and 96:
TABLE 2 Individual and</str
Page 97 and 98:
tion, this rate in
Page 99 and 100:
A functional relationship was estab
Page 101:
Search the entire archives of <stro
show all

Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities - Division on ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?