Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-07T20:18:43.332Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Social Validity of Interventions for Promoting Preschool Children's Peer Interactions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 February 2012

David Hamilton  and
Aphrodite Zoitas
David Hamilton*
Affiliation:
RMIT University, Australia
Aphrodite Zoitas
Affiliation:
RMIT University, Australia
*
Address for correspondence: David Hamilton, PhD, Centre for Developmental Disability Health Victoria, Suite 202, 3 Chester Street, Oakleigh VIC 3166, Australia. Email: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

This analogue study investigated the social validity of classroom interventions designed to promote peer interactions in young children. The influences of child characteristics and diagnostic labels on social validity ratings were examined, as were the relationships among three components of social validity. Forty-two preschool teachers completed a 15-item social validity scale that yielded scores pertaining to intervention goals, procedures and effects. Participants rated three types of intervention, which varied according to individuals targeted and intensity of programming procedures, with reference to one of three case descriptions of children with social interaction problems. Half the participants were provided with the child's diagnostic label. Results indicated that social validity is affected by interactions between intervention methods and child characteristics. The inclusion of diagnostic labels in the case descriptions had no effect on social validity ratings. Strong positive relationships were found among the components of social validity. Implications for the use of empirically validated interventions in inclusive preschools are discussed.

Type
Research Article
Information
Behaviour Change , Volume 20 , Issue 4 , 01 December 2003 , pp. 208 - 217
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bailey, D.B., & McWilliam, R.A. (1990). Normalising early intervention. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 10, 33–47.Google Scholar
Barbara, L. (1996). Teaching social skills to preschoolers with special needs. Childhood Education, 72, 137–143.Google Scholar
Barrett, P.M., Shortt, A.L., Fox, T.L., & Wescombe, K. (2001). Examining the social validity of the FRIENDS treatment program for anxious children. Behaviour Change, 18, 63–77.Google Scholar
Brown, W.H., Odom, S.L., & Conroy, M.A. (2001). An intervention hierarchy for promoting young children's peer interactions in natural environments. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 21, 162–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calvert, S.C., & Johnston, C. (1990). Acceptability of treatments for child behavior problems: Issues and implications for future research. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 19, 61–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carr, J.E., Austin, J.L., Britton, L.N., Kellum, K.K., & Bailey, J.S. (1999). An assessment of social validity trends in applied behavior analysis. Behavior Interventions, 14, 223–231.Google Scholar
DeKlyen, M., & Odom, S.L. (1989). Structure and preschool peer interactions: Beyond the mainstream. Journal of Early Intervention, 13, 342–352.Google Scholar
Eckert, T.L., & Shapiro, E.S. (1999). Methodological issues in analog acceptability research: Are teachers’ acceptability ratings of assessment methods influenced by experimental design? School Psychology Review, 28, 5–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, S.N., & Treuting, M.V.B. (1991). The Behavior Intervention Rating Scale: Development and validation of a pretreatment acceptability and effectiveness measure. Journal of School Psychology, 29, 43–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Favell, J.E., & McGimsey, J.F. (1993). Defining an acceptable treatment environment. In R., van Houten & S., Axelrod (Eds.), Behavior analysis and treatment: Applied clinical psychology (pp. 25–45). New York: Plenu.Google Scholar
Fawcett, S.B. (1991). Social validity: A note on methodology. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 235–239.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Finn, C.A., & Sladeczek, I.E. (2001). Assessing the social validity of behavioral interventions: A review of treatment acceptability measures. School Psychology Quarterly, 16, 176–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gresham, F.M., & Elliot, S.N. (1984). Assessment and classification of children's social skills: A review of methods and issues. School Psychology Review, 13, 292–301.Google Scholar
Gullone, E., & King, N.J. (1989). Acceptability of behavioural interventions: Child and caregiver perceptions. In M., Hersen, R., Eisler, & P.M., Miller (Eds.), Progress in behavior modification (Vol. 24, pp. 132–151). Newbury Park, CA: Sag.Google Scholar
Hamilton, D.I., & Zoitas, A. (2002). Peer Interaction Rating Scale. Unpublished manuscript, RMIT University, Victoria, Australia.Google Scholar
Jenkins, J.R., Odom, S.L., & Speltz, M.L. (1989). Effects of social integration on preschool children with handicaps. Exceptional Children, 55, 420–428.Google Scholar
Jones, M.L., Eyberg, S.M., Adams, C.D., & Boggs, S.R. (1998). Treatment acceptability of behavioral interventions for children: An assessment of mothers of children with disruptive behavior disorders. Child and Family Behavior Therapy, 20, 15–26.Google Scholar
Kamps, D.M., Kravits, T., Lopez, A.G., Kemmerer, K., Potucek, J., & Harrell, L.G. (1998). What do peers think? Social validity of peer-mediated programs. Education and Treatment of Children, 21, 107–134.Google Scholar
Kazdin, A.E. (1980). Acceptability of alternative treatments for deviant child behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 13, 259–273.Google Scholar
Kazdin, A.E. (1981). Acceptability of child treatment techniques: The influence of treatment efficacy and adverse side effects. Behavior Therapy, 12, 493–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, C.H. (2002). Toward a socially valid understanding of problem behavior. Education and Treatment of Children, 25, 142–153.Google Scholar
Martens, B.K., Witt, J.C., Elliott, S.N., & Darveaux, D. (1985). Teacher judgments concerning the acceptability of school-based interventions. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 16, 191–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McConnell, S.R. (2002). Interventions to facilitate social interaction for young children with autism: Review of available research and recommendations for educational intervention and future research. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 35, 351–372.Google Scholar
McConnell, S.R., McEvoy, M.A., & Odom, S.L. (1992). Implementation of social competence interventions in early childhood special education classes: Current practices and future directions. In S.L., Odom S.L., McConnell, & M.A., McEvoy (Eds.), Social competence of young children with disabilities: Issues and strategies for intervention (pp. 113–133). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brooke.Google Scholar
Odom, S.L., McConnell, S.R., & Chandler, L.K. (1993). Acceptability and feasibility of classroom-based social interaction interventions for young children with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 60, 226–236. Google Scholar
Odom, S.L., McConnell, S.R., McEvoy, M.A., & Peterson, C. (1999). Relative effects of interventions supporting the social competence of young children with disabilities. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 19, 75–82.Google Scholar
Pitcairn, T.K., & Wishart, J.G. (2000). Face processing in children with Down syndrome. In D.J., Weeks, R., Chua, & D., Elliott (Eds.), Perceptual-motor behaviour in Down syndrome (pp. 123–147). London: Human Kinetic.Google Scholar
Reid, R., & Nelson, J.R. (2002). The utility, acceptability, and practicality of functional behavioral assessment for students with highincidence problem behaviors. Remedial and Special Education, 23, 15–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reimers, T.M., Wacker, D.P., & Cooper, L.J. (1991). Evaluation of the acceptability of treatments for their children's behavioral difficulties: Ratings by parents receiving services in an outpatient clinic. Child and Family Behavior Therapy, 13, 53–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sainato, D.M., & Carta, J.J. (1992). Classroom influences on the development of social competence in young children with disabilities. In S.L., Odom, S.R., McConnell, & M., McEvoy (Eds.), Social competence of young children with disabilities: Issues and strategies for intervention (pp. 93– 109). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brooke.Google Scholar
Serafica, F.C. (1990). Peer relations of children with Down syndrome. In D., Cicchetti, & M., Beaghly (Eds.), Children with Down syndrome: A developmental perspective (pp. 369–98). Cambridg. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Shapiro, E.S., & Eckert, T.L. (1994). Curriculum based assessment among school psychologists: Knowledge, use, and attitudes. Journal of School Psychology, 31, 375–384.Google Scholar
Stinnett, T.A., Crawford, S.A., Gillespie, M.D., Cruce, M.K., & Langford, C.A. (2001). Factors affecting treatment acceptability for psychostimulant medication versus psychoeducational intervention. Psychology in the Schools, 38, 585–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strain, P.S., & Odom, S.L. (1986). Peer social initiations: Effective intervention for social skills development of exceptional children. Exceptional Children, 52, 543–551.Google Scholar
Witt, J.C., & Elliot, S.N. (1985). Acceptability of classroom intervention strategies. In T.R., Kratochwill (Ed.), Advances in school psychology (pp. 215–288). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbau.Google Scholar
Wolery, M., Brashers, M.S., & Neitzel, J.C. (2002). Ecological classroom assessment for classroom activities and routines: Identifying goals and intervention practices in childcare. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 22, 131–142.Google Scholar
Wolery, M, & Garfinkle, A.N. (2002). Measures in intervention research with young children who have autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 32, 463–478.Google Scholar
Wolf, M.M. (1978). Social validity: The case for subjective measurement or how applied behavior analysis is finding its heart. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 203–214.Google Scholar