Running Head: SOCIAL & BEHAVIORAL GOALS
Social and Behavioral Goals for Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders and Emotional
Behavioral Disturbance in the Context of Special Education
A Pilot Study
Monika Parikh
Washington State University
Alyssa Newcomb
University of Wyoming
Brandon Rennie
The University of Montana
Lisa Milkavich
University of Utah
Marcy Sarkowski
University of North Dakota
Gwen E. Mitchell
University of Idaho
Running Head: SOCIAL & BEHAVIORAL GOALS
2
Brief Description of Project
This project explored the alignment between legal requirements, best practices, and current
school practices in relation to social and behavioral Individualized Education Program (IEP) goals
for children with an Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) or Emotional Disturbance (ED). The
research was conducted through an on-line survey targeting IEP team members via mTurk or
QuestionPro, utilizing both quantitative and qualitative questions to understand current practices
in design and implementation as well as barriers to effective creation and fidelity.
Overview
The investigators of this research are active members in their professional organizations
(i.e. physical therapists, counseling psychology, school psychology, and social work), which has
provided them with a solid understanding of what is considered evidence based best practice.
While working in public schools, the investigators identified that actual practice often differed
significantly from what federal laws require and/or current literature recommends. Recognition of
the existing gap between literature and practice when it comes to social and behavioral Individual
Education Program (IEP) goals for children receiving special education services under the
Individual with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) categories of Autism Spectrum Disorders
(ASD) and Emotional Disturbance (ED) was the catalyst for this research. As a result, the
investigators questioned whether the identified gap was unique to their setting or if it was a
national trend? If it was a national trend, why did this gap exist and what were the barriers to
closing it?
The aim of this pilot study was to explore the alignment between legal requirements, best
practices, and current school practices in relation to social and behavioral IEP goals for children
receiving special education services under the IDEA categories of ASD and ED. Specific areas of
interest that were addressed included:
1. Identification of social and behavioral goals and implementation of plans that carry out
these goals for children meeting special education eligibility under the categories of ASD
and ED in accordance with legal regulations and best practice among IEP team members;
2. Assessment of how IEP teams address important aspects of social and behavioral IEP
intervention elements such as writing measurable goals, aligning goals and plans with
informative assessments, progress monitoring, and ensuring delivery fidelity; and
3. Identification of possible barriers to designing and implementing effective social and
behavioral goals and/or plans and carrying them out with fidelity.
Methodology
Participants
Participants completed an anonymous web-based questionnaire. There were no
experimental conditions or manipulations. The participants were initially recruited through
Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk interface (mturk.com) and consisted of individuals at least 18
years of age. This website hosts a platform that allows individuals to take various surveys for
compensation. In this study, mTurk was chosen in order to provide access to the survey to as many
individuals as possible. Participants had the option of receiving 35 cents, which is a typical level of
compensation for mTurk studies. In addition, some of the investigators of the study emailed a letter
outlining the study to colleagues and coworkers who may have been eligible to participate.
The resulting sample consisted of 21 participants including five general education teachers,
four special education teachers, one principal, two school counselors/psychologists, and nine
Running Head: SOCIAL & BEHAVIORAL GOALS
3
listed themselves as “other.” The other category included physical therapists, paraprofessionals, an
occupational therapist, an autism advocate, and an English as a Second Language (ESL) teacher.
The number of years in their current position ranged from less than five years to more than 15
years, with the majority of respondents being in their position for either less than five years (9;
43%) or 6-10 years (9; 43%). Respondents worked with a variety of grade levels with the most
common being children in grades Kindergarten through 6th grade; however, all grades ranging
from Pre-K through 12th grade were represented. The number of children with IEPs served by the
professional ranged from one for an autism advocate to 170 for two physical therapists. Thirteen
states were represented.
Measures
The investigators developed a survey based on the current literature in the field. The survey
included basic demographic questions as well as questions assessing social and behavior goals of
students on IEPs in schools, implementation of these goals, current intervention strategies being
used in the public school sector, and possible barriers to implementation of these goals. Sample
questions included the following: (a) “Does your school use information gathered in functional
behavior assessments (FBA) to develop their behavior intervention plans (BIPS) when addressing
behavior problems in students IEPs?” and (b) “How does your school monitor the behavior
interventions?” (See Appendix B for entire survey).
Procedures
The study was approved by the University of Idaho Internal Review Board (IRB) and the
survey was then posted through mTurk using Question Pro, which is a web based software for
creating and distributing surveys. This allowed the survey to be made available to any school
personnel involved in IEPs who had access to mTurk. Participants were provided a written
informed consent form (see Appendix A), which was signed electronically before proceeding.
Each participant was asked to complete a survey containing: (a) basic demographic
questions; (b) a series of questions regarding social and behavior goals of students with ASD or
ED with Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) in schools (see appendix B). The survey was
completed online via mTurk or Question Pro, taking approximately 4-5 minutes to complete.
Participants were allowed to contact the investigators with any questions or comments regarding
the nature of the present study.
Descriptive statistics were reported on the survey questions, and the qualitative
information from the program survey was reviewed by three investigators to assess for a pattern of
themes. The criteria outlined by Michnowicz, McConnell, Peterson, and Odom (1995) was used to
evaluate the quality of goals.
Results
IEP Creation
With regard to who writes social and behavioral goals, respondents most commonly
endorsed the special education teacher (21 people endorsed), followed by counselor (9), speech
therapist (8), school psychologist (7), other (classroom teacher, team collectively, parent, behavior
analyst; 5), and occupational therapist (4). In terms of percentage of students who have social and
behavioral goals, several of participants listed more students with social and behavioral goals than
students who had IEPs for ASD and ED. Therefore, due to apparent misreading of the question by
respondents, this question was not included in the analysis. Fifteen respondents appeared to report
Running Head: SOCIAL & BEHAVIORAL GOALS
4
in a way consistent with the aim of the questions, and of these the number of children with ASD
and ED varied widely from zero to 60 per category. The total number of students with ASD was
183 and the total with ED was 133. Of these 316 students, 181 had behavior goals (57%) and 174
had social goals (55%).
Intervention and Progress Monitoring
The results of the questions targeting intervention and progress monitoring are shown
below in Table 1.
Table 1
Findings for interventions & progress monitoring
Who implemented
interventions:
Special
ed.
20
Paraprofessionals
14
General ed.
11
School Psy.
6
Who monitored
interventions:
Special
ed.
18
General ed.
1
School Psy.
1
Other
1
Monthly
7
Quarterly
5
End of
semester
2
At IEP
meeting
3
Other
4
Behavior
charts
8
Teacher rating
scale
4
Systematic
observation
3
Discipline
referrals
1
Direct
assessment
1
Yes
19; 91%
No
2; 10%
Yes
11
No
8
How often goals were
reviewed:
How goals were
measured:
Did they use FBA
data?
Do they have a
specific intervention
program?
Counselor
4
Other
4%
Other
4
District developed program was the only program given.
This was given by 2 people.
IEP Goals and Barriers
Of the 21 respondents, 18 wrote examples of specific goals previously written for students.
Two of these goals contained two goals each and were divided accordingly, to create 20 total goals
to be evaluated for quality. Michnowicz and colleagues’ (1995) criteria are based on IDEA
regulations and were addressed in the given order: (a) Did it describe the setting in which the goal
was to be performed? (b) Was it explicitly written in measurable and observable terms? (c) Was a
criterion for success stated? The results from the current study are shown in Table 2.
Running Head: SOCIAL & BEHAVIORAL GOALS
5
Table 2
Evaluation of goal quality
Number that satisfied criterion
Percentage of total
Setting specified
9
45
Measurability
9
45
Criterion stated
11
55
All three components
6
30
Themes were identified by three of the investigators independently for the qualitative data
reported by all respondents on the question inquiring about the barriers to the IEP team’s ability to
create effective social and behavioral goals. One respondent did not report any significant barriers.
Five central themes were identified between all three investigators as outlined below.
Theme 1: Time. Four respondents identified time as a barrier.
Theme 2: Limited Resources. Eight respondents identified barriers related to having
limited resources, primarily staff or other school personnel, to implement the goals. Specific
resources included: manpower resources, limited resources in the classroom and school, too few
staff to effectively, consistently implement goals, and limited staff numbers in classrooms.
Theme 3: Staff Cooperation/Consistency Issues. Seven respondents identified barriers
related to staffing issues. Specifically barriers included consistency between departments, lack of
staff cooperation and collaboration, lack of coordination between team members, and inconsistent
use of behavioral expectations, protocols, and/or consequences. In addition to consistency with the
school system, frequently changing assistant teachers who use a variety of communication styles
was also mentioned as a barrier.
Theme 4: Parent involvement. Four respondents identified parental involvement or
compliance as a barrier, including parent involvement, parent cooperation in implementing
interventions at home, and parental indifference.
Theme 5: Other. Five respondents identified additional barriers beyond these four
identified themes including: (1) negative stigma associated with children with special needs, (2)
multiple distractions in the classroom, (3) students with BIPs have found ways to “use” the system
(i.e., teachers know they have a BIP so they let the child get away with behaviors that they should
not be doing which then perpetuates the bad behavior), (4) Lack of communication between
teachers, parents, and special services, and (5) finding a peer with similarities to assist in creating a
genuine relationship and not just someone to engage in a dialogue.
Running Head: SOCIAL & BEHAVIORAL GOALS
6
Discussion
The results of this survey indicated that many special education professionals in our study
are writing social and behavioral IEP goals for children with ASD or ED. Of those answering the
survey, 55 percent of the students had behavioral goals and 56 percent had social goals. This is,
perhaps, more than would be expected given previous findings (Williams-Diehm, Palmer, Lee, &
Schroer, 2010). However, given that criteria for special education eligibility in these disability
categories requires social and/or behavioral deficits and IDEA requires social and/or behavior
goals for those with deficits, it is likely that nearly all the students in the sample would legally
require these goals.
Both positive and negative findings were seen in the creation and implementation of goals.
Ninety-four percent of the respondents reported using FBA data to create IEP goals, which is in
alignment with best practices (Christle & Yell, 2010) and congruent with requirement in IDEA
that those interventions follow from assessment (Drasgow, 2001). However, of the goals that were
reported, only a few were measurable and specified a criterion for success, which is consistent with
prior literature (Michnowicz, McConnell, Peterson, & Odom, 1995). Although only 30 percent of
the goals in this study met the criteria, it is far higher than the 9 percent found in the Michnowicz et
al. (1995) study. Many goals did not include a criterion for success, misused percentages, used
ill-defined behaviors, and/or included multiple, unrelated behaviors. These errors in goal creation
rendered goals that guided expectations and instructions to a small degree, and made monitoring
progress accurately impossible. Despite difficulty in creating measurable goals, many forms of
progress monitoring were reported with the most prevalent of which included behavior charts,
rating scales, and direct observation. In addition, these goals were reviewed at least quarterly in 55
percent of the cases. These findings suggest that there may be a presence of quality progress
monitoring procedures; however, a lack of coordination between goals and monitoring may exist.
The final aim of this study was to identify barriers to the successful creation of social and
behavioral goals and implementation of these goals. Responses on the survey indicated many
barriers. These barriers generally fit into five themes including: limited time, limited resources,
lack of staff collaboration, lack of parent involvement, and other. The most commonly endorsed
barrier was limited resources including limited staff to implement, monitor, and coordinate
interventions. The second most endorsed barrier was staff cooperation and consistency. To the best
of our knowledge, this barrier has not been well articulated in the literature on social and/or
behavioral IEP goals. Many of the respondents in this study stated that there is a lack of
consistency across staff and a lack of collaboration between staff members. This theme may
deserve more attention in the literature. The other themes that were identified were limited time
and difficulty with parent involvement. It is important to note that participants were not asked to
discuss how diagnoses and educational categorical placements were determined.
Limitations
The investigators identified four limitations to this study. First, there may be concerns
surrounding the sample. Our sample size was very small, limiting generalizability. Due to low
initial participation rates, the investigator emailed a letter outlining the study to colleagues and
coworkers. This may have lead to a sample bias. Second, many of the items on our survey
appeared to be misunderstood by respondents. Although some misunderstanding is unavoidable
and some rushed responses are likely, it may be beneficial to make modifications to questions in
future studies. Third, while care was taken to minimize the amount of time the survey required, the
small number of questions included in the survey leaves gaps in knowledge. Lastly, the terms ASD
Running Head: SOCIAL & BEHAVIORAL GOALS
7
and ED were not clearly defined for the participants, which may have impacted how individuals
responded, possibly leading to an inflated or deflated estimation of children with ASD or ED.
Implications and Future Directions
Strengths and weaknesses in current practice were illuminated by the current study. The
results provided preliminary evidence that school personnel are frequently using social and/or
behavioral goals for their students with ASD and ED. Professionals overwhelmingly reported
using FBAs to create educational goals, which is in alignment with federal requirements (IDEA,
1997) and best practices (Christle & Yell, 2010). The goals themselves demonstrated significant
weaknesses and very few meet legal requirements, making it difficult to know how progress
monitoring is being carried out. This may partially be due to the lack of measurable goals.
However, if the identified goals represented actual IEP goals used by respondents, it seems
unlikely that progress monitoring follows logically from the goals and unlikely that they feedback
into goal modification and development, as suggested by best practice. Based on the results from
this study, it is unclear what types of interventions are being delivered. The participants identified
many barriers to effective goal creation and intervention (e.g., limited time, limited resources, lack
of staff collaboration, lack of parent involvement, and other); however, these barriers are different
than what has been hypothesized in past research.
Future research should focus on addressing these barriers, as well as increasing the quality
of goals written and the relationship between goals and progress monitoring. In addition, it may be
beneficial to better understand the training that is provided to school personnel on how to monitor
progress with goals and address barriers that may exist with effectively implementing social and/or
behavioral goals.
Running Head: SOCIAL & BEHAVIORAL GOALS
8
References
Christle, C. A. & Yell, M. L. (2010). Individualized education programs: Legal requirements and
research findings. Exceptionality: A Special Education Journal, 18(3), 109-123.
Drasgow, E. & Yell, M. (2001) Functional behavioral assessments: Legal requirements and
challenges. School Psychology Review, 30(2), 239-251.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Amendments of 1997, Pub. L. No. 105-17.
Michnowicz, L. L., McConnell, S. R., Peterson, C. A., & Odom, S. L. (1995). Social goals and
objectives of preschool IEPs: A content analysis. Journal of Early Intervention, 19(4),
273-282.
Sugai, G. & Horner, R. (2002). The evolution of discipline practices: School-wide positive
behavior supports. Child & Family Behavior Therapy, 24(1-2), 23-50.
Williams-Diehm, K., Palmer, S., Lee, Y., & Schroer, H. (2010). Goal content analysis for middle
and high school students with disabilities. Career Development for Exceptional
Individuals, 33(3), 132-142.
Running Head: SOCIAL & BEHAVIORAL GOALS
9
Appendix A
Informed Consent to Participate in Human Subject Research
“Social and Behavioral Supports for Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders and Emotional
Behavioral Disturbances in the Context of Special Education”
Thank you for your interest in participating in our study. The study has been approved by the
University of Idaho Internal Review Board.
If you decide to participate, you will be asked to answer some demographic information and
questions regarding your role in the educational system. In addition, you will be asked about your
impression of the alignment between legal requirements, best practices, and current school
practices in relation to social and behavioral Individualized Education Program (IEP) goals for
children with an Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) or Emotional Disturbance (ED).
Your responses will be completely anonymous. Your name will not be linked to any of your
responses in any way. There are no risks associated with participation. Rather, we hope that
your participation will help you learn something about yourself and about social science
research. If you decide to participate, you are free to withdraw your consent and to discontinue
participation at any time with no penalty.
The study typically takes approximately 10 minutes to complete. Once we verify that you have
completed, your mTurk account will be credited 35 cents.
Having read the above statement, please click on one of the two options below. If you wish to
participate please select the first button below. If you do not wish to participate, please select
the second button and you will exit the survey.
(1) I am at least 18 years old and voluntarily agree to participate in this study
(2) I do not wish to participate in this study at this time.
If the participant clicks on #1, a hyperlink takes them to the web-survey. If the participant clicks
on #2, a hyperlink takes them to a web-page that says: “If you change your mind and decide to
participate in our study, feel free to access the study again.”
When you have completed the survey, you will receive a payment code, which you should cut and
paste into the space immediately below so that we can verify that you completed the study:
Thank you very much for participating in our study!
If you have any questions or comments, you can send them to us by entering them into the space
below.
Submit
Running Head: SOCIAL & BEHAVIORAL GOALS
10
Appendix B
Survey of Social and Behavioral Supports in Special Education
1. What is your position in a public school?
___Classroom Teacher
___Special Education Teacher
___Principal
___School Counselor/Psychologist
Other ______________________________
2. In what State are you employed? : ___
3. How many years have you served in your current position?
___ Less than 5 years
___ 6 – 10 years
___ 11 – 15 years
___ Greater than 15 years
4. In what type of school are you employed? ___Pre School ___K-6 ___K-5 ___Middle ___Jr.
High ___HS
5. Number of children in the school you serve: _____
6. Number of children on Individual Education Programs (IEPs): ____
7. Number of children on Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) with Autism Spectrum Disorder
(ASD) and/or Emotional Disturbance (ED): ___ASD ___ED
8. Number of children on IEPS with ASD and/or ED are: _______male _____female
9. Number of these students that have goals specifically addressing social and/or behavioral
concerns?
______Social goals
_____Behavioral goals
10. Who writes social and/or behavior goals? (check all that apply)
_____Special Education Teacher
_____School Psychologist
_____Counselors
_____Speech therapist
_____Occupational therapist
Other _______________________________
11. Who implements intervention for social and/or behavioral goals? (check all that apply)
____Special Education Teacher
____School Psychologist/
Running Head: SOCIAL & BEHAVIORAL GOALS
11
____Counselor
____General Classroom Teacher
____Paraprofessionals
Other _______________________________
12. How often and for how long are the social and/or behavioral interventions implemented?
___ Weekly
___ Bi-weekly
___ Three times per week
___ 15 minutes per day
___ 30 minutes per day
Other _____________________________
13. Who monitors progress?
_____Special Education Teacher
_____School Psychologist/Counselor
_____General Classroom Teacher
Other ________________________________
14. How frequently are the social and/or behavioral goals reviewed?
_____Monthly
_____Quarterly
_____End of semester
_____At annual IEP meeting
Other ________________________________
15. How is progress on social and/or behavioral goals measured?
______Teacher rating scales
______Parent rating scales
______Systemic direct observation
______Office discipline referrals
______Behavior charts
______Parent report
______Teacher report
______Direct assessment
Other ____________________________________
16. Does your school use information gathered in a functional behavior assessment (FBA) to
develop their behavior intervention plans (BIPS) when addressing behavior problems in students
IEPs?
Yes ____
No ____
If not, what other assessments or information does your school use to address behavioral
problems in IEPs?
_________________________________________________________________
Running Head: SOCIAL & BEHAVIORAL GOALS
12
17. Does your school use an intervention program for social and/or behavioral issues?
___Yes
___No
If so, what is the program? ____________________________________________
18. Please give an example of a social or behavioral goal for a specific child. (Please, no
identifying information).
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
19. What do you see as barriers to the IEP team’s ability to create effective social and behavioral
goals?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Special thanks to . . .
Our project advisor, Gwen Mitchell and our individual core faculty members Bill
MacLean, Heidi Lane, Jolynn Webster, and Paul Carbone.