SEDP 651 De Arment
Systematic Literature Review
Overall Topic:
Author(s),
Year of
Publication
APA in-text citation
format
Ledford, J. , &
Wolery, M. (2013)
Hughett, K., Kholer,
F., & Raschke, D.
(2013)
Participants
Independent
Variable
Dependent
Variable
Details about who
directly participated in
the study (if children,
age, disability, gender,
functioning; if teachers,
experience level, gender)
3 preschoolers with
disabilities, 10 without
disabilities. 7 girls and
6 boys. Disabilities
were: Down Syndrome
with developmental
delays and speech, and
Autism. Two teachers
and one researcher.
What was the treatment
or intervention being
tried with the
participants?
What outcome(s) did the
researchers measure as a
result of the treatment?
* Progressive time
delay with teaching
academic stimuli and
teaching names.
* PTD for social skills
with typically
developing peers.
*Peer modeling for
children with
disabilities.
* Academic stimuli and
names.
* Sharing and saying
“thank you.”
* Sharing and saying
“thank you.”
3 preschoolers with
disabilities, 6
preschoolers without
disabilities. Did not give
the gender of the
typical developing
peers. 2 boys and 1 girl.
Disabilities were social
and communication
Buddy Skills
intervention. Teaching
the skills stay, play, talk
with one’s friends.
Done by a paraeducator
with visual prompts
and role-play. Then
they took those skills
and incorporated them
Social and play
interactions.
Research
Design
Measuring
Instruments
Major
Findings
Limitations
Look for how the
researchers talk about
their study; is it
experimental? Nonexperimental? Single
subject? etc.
Experimental with a
multiple probe across
the behavior sets.
What tool(s) (formal or
informal) did the
researchers use to
measure outcomes? (a
standardized test? An
observation tool? Other?)
* Probe conditions for
target stimulus. Marked
for unprompted
corrects, unprompted
errors, prompted
corrects, prompted
errors, and no
response.
* Same with social skills
for sharing and saying
“thank you” being
separate categories.
* Interobserver
agreement and
procedural fidelity data
for behaviors.
What results to the
researchers report? What
do those results suggest?
What limitations do the
researchers share about
their study?
* PTD was effective in
teaching preschoolers
with and without
disabilities to name
target stimuli.
*Preschoolers with and
without disabilities
learned behaviors
taught to their group
mates.
* PTD and reminders
were more effective in
teaching peers without
disabilities to share and
say “thank you.”
* Preschoolers with
disabilities shared and
said thanked their
peers in the
instructional sessions
after observing their
peers model the
behaviors.
* All children
generalized the
behaviors to some
extent and performed
them spontaneously
during snack and art.
* Attainment of
academic behaviors
was the dependent
variable that was
focused in the
experimental design.
They did not have
sufficient controls for
threats to internal
validity for sharing and
thanking behaviors.
Experimental design
Quality play was coded.
Solitary play, Parallel
play, and Cooperative
play. Also coded
children’s exchanges
with their peers. Used
multiple baselines
before, during, and
after the intervention.
The Buddy Skills
Package consisting of
social skills training,
visual cues, and teacher
support produced
increases in the
frequency and duration
of cooperative play
among the three focal
*Lack of information
about the quality and
reciprocity of children’s
social overtures, quality
of extended play, and
children’s joint
attention over the same
activity.
SEDP 651 De Arment
delays and
developmental delays.
1 teacher and 1
paraeducator.
into doll play, pizza
shop, dress-up, and
kitchen play activities.
Then maintenance.
Katz, E., &
Girolametto, L.
3 preschoolers with
Autism Spectrum
Disorder, and 6
preschoolers without
disabilities. Ages were
around 4-5 years old. 1
girl and Gender not
included for typical
developing peers. 1 girl
and 2 boys for children
with ASD. 3 Early
Childhood Educators
and first author of the
article participated.
Stanton-Chapman,
T., Denning, C. and
Jamison, K. (2012)
4 preschoolers with
disabilities, 4
preschoolers without
disabilities. 2 children
with developmental
delays and 2 children
with language
disability. Two child
interventionists.
An SLP and the
teachers trained
typically developing
peers to engage
children with ASD in
play. The teachers were
given a storybook,
puppets of the main
characters and two
picture communication
boards showing
interaction strategies
designed to promote
initiation or
maintenance of play.
Intervention had 4
stages: (a) Two early
childhood educator
training sessions, (b)
five half-hour social
skills training sessions
that were cotaught by
the first author and the
educators, (c) twelve
20-minute play
sessions, with
intervention
implemented, and (d)
four follow-up and
supported sessions
with teachers.
Five dramatic play
themes (grocery store,
doctor, construction,
animal doctor, and hair
salon-barber).
Intervention had three
parts: (a) the advanced
play organizer, (b) the
play session, and (c) the
review session. Similar
Extended interactive
engagement. And the
average length of the
extended interactions
Experimental design.
Single-subject multiple
baseline.
Interval coding system
was applied to all play
sessions to measure the
children’s engagement
in the interaction. The
first author reviewed
the recorded sessions
and noted the
presence/ absence of
joint interaction in
every 6-s period for a
total of 200 intervals
per 20-min play
session. They also used
a checklist to measure
treatment fidelity for
the five social skills
sessions to determine
whether the
intervention was
administered
consistently and in
accordance to the
manual.
The following social
communication skills:
initiations, responding,
use of name, and turn
taking.
Experimental and
multiple baseline
design.
Language, behavioral,
pragmatic, and social
assessments were used
before and after the
intervention. Data
collections were
videotapes and
transcriptions. They
used Systematic
Analysis of Language
children and their
peers. Also showed that
they engaged in more
play-related talk with
their peers during the
intervention phase.
Finally, each group
continued in high levels
of cooperative play and
verbal interactions
during the maintenance
phase, when teacher
support and visual cues
were discontinued.
Tremendously
improved social
engagement of children
with ASD in the study,
specifically improving
the number of lengths
of their extended
interactions with the
two typically
developing trained
peers. Also, the children
with ASD maintained
their skills in a
maintenance test held
4-5 weeks after the
intervention was
complete.
*All eight participants
increased the number
of initiations with an
immediate response.
*Children with
disabilities did
generalize the social
skills once put in their
regular classrooms.
*Possible limitation
with generalizability.
* “Pull-out” service
delivery rather than a
“push-in” service
delivery.
* The extent to which
preschool teachers
value and promote
social interactions may
have influenced social
validity ratings.
SEDP 651 De Arment
to the “plan-do-review”
used in High Scope
Curriculum.
Stanton-Chapman,
T., Snell, M. (2010)
10 preschool children.
Disabilities were
Developmental delay
and Language delay,
some with behavior
problems. 9 boys and 1
girl. Ages were 4-5
years old. Four teachers
also participated.
Five dramatic play
themes (grocery store,
doctor, construction,
animal doctor, and hair
salon-barber).
Intervention had three
parts: (a) the advanced
play organizer, (b) the
play session, and (c) the
review session. Similar
to the “plan-do-review”
used in High Scope
Curriculum.
Targeting skills:
initiations, responses,
name use, proximity,
and turn-taking.
Experimental design
with multiple baselines.
Transcripts software to
transcribe. They also
used Peer Language
Behavior Code to code
the sessions.
Language, behavioral,
pragmatic, and social
assessments were used
before and after the
intervention. Data
collections were
videotapes and
transcriptions. They
used Systematic
Analysis of Language
Transcripts software to
transcribe. They also
used Peer Language
Behavior Code to code
the sessions.
It was highly effective
for five children,
moderately effective for
three children, and
mildly effective for two
children. Generalization
results showed that
nine out of ten children
showed increased peer
play following the
intervention, increased
level of child-initiated
interactions with a
positive peer response,
and decreased levels of
solitary play.
*“Pull-out” service
delivery rather than a
“push-in” service
delivery.
*Effects to the
intervention were
weakened by the fact
that dyads D and E did
not have three stable
baseline points prior to
the intervention and
that student
performance during
intervention was
variable.
*Too much teacher
facilitation.