Study Title: Social skills instruction for students with high-incidence disabilities: A school-based
intervention to address acquisition deficits
Study Author: Miller, M., Lane, K. & Wehby, J.
Publication Details: Preventing School Failure, vol. 49, no. 2, 2005, pp. 27-40.
Summary:
What did the research aim to do?
This study aimed to examine the outcomes of a highly structured, classroom-based social skills
intervention program for seven students with high incidence disabilities (e.g., emotional
disturbance, learning disabilities, and other health impairments).
How was the study designed?
The problem driving this study is located in previous research that suggests antisocial behaviour at
school can negatively impact interpersonal development, academic achievement and future
employment possibilities. This quasi-experimental study focused on seven children (five males, two
females) aged between 6 and 10 years who were diagnosed as having ‘significant behavioural
difficulties’. Students were allocated to one of two groups, with students matched as far as possible
for gender and grade level (no explanation for the use of two groups was provided in the article).
Data collection occurred in three phases: pre-intervention, intervention, and post-intervention.
Data collection tools included the following:
 A semi-structured interview with the regular classroom teacher (who had 28 years’ teaching
experience).
 Four behaviour assessment tools: Social Skill Rating System—Teacher Version, which collects
data about the teacher’s assessment of students’ social skills, behaviour and academic
competence; Critical Events Index and the Combined Frequency Index, both of which are
nationally normed (USA) instruments for identifying children at risk of behavioural and learning
difficulties; and a School Archive Record Search.
 A computer-assisted observation system known as Multi-Option Observational System for
Experimental Studies, which is used to collect rate and duration data on researcher-specified
events. In this case, observations were conducted at 15-minute intervals and focused on
‘academic engagement time’ and ‘inappropriate classroom behaviours’.
 A points-based behaviour management system already in place in the special needs
classroom. This points system required students to evaluate their classroom behaviour 11
times each school day with respect to four different goals: body control, treating others with
kindness, following directions, and a behavioural goal specific to each student.
The intervention program comprised direct instruction in specific social skills 3-4 days a week for
30 minutes per day over a 6-week period (i.e. 24 training sessions over 12 hours). The behaviour
’deficits’ identified by the Social Skill Rating System Assessment became the core content for the
program in order to help the students ‘more successfully negotiate their teacher’s social and
behavioural expectations’. The program therefore focused on cooperation, assertion, responsibility,
empathy and self-control. Each social skills ‘training session’ was carefully structured into five
stages:
1. Tell (demonstration by trainer—a graduate student enrolled in a special education Masters
program)
2. Show (modelling of the target skill by the trainer)
3. Do (guided practice by students with supportive trainer feedback)
4. Follow through and practice (independent practice by students)
5. Generalisation (student practice of target skills in settings outside the classroom).
Data were analysed using: visual inspection of behaviour assessment scores at each phase of the
intervention program; mean score comparisons; and effect size calculations.
What were the limitations?
The authors explicitly listed a number of limitations associated with their study:
 The setting for the study, a self-contained special education classroom, meant that the study
could not be generalised to ‘mainstream’ classrooms.
 The two groups of students were too internally diverse; authors recommended matching group
members along academic performance levels instead of gender and grade level.
 Collecting classroom observation data at 15-minute intervals did not provide sufficient depth of
data to explore the complexity of participants’ interaction and behaviour patterns.
 The two focus areas (academic engagement time and inappropriate classroom behaviours)
proved to be too grossly drawn and blurred important complexities in participants’ behaviours.
In addition, the implementation of the intervention program itself was extremely labour intensive
and would be difficult for a teacher in a ‘mainstream’ classroom to replicate. One oversight in the
study was the absence of data pertaining to participant demonstration of appropriate classroom
behaviours; the authors’ focus on deficit behaviours risks promoting perceptions of students with
high-incidence disabilities as ‘trouble makers’ or as ‘difficult to manage’ students.
What were the findings?
The researchers found that inappropriate classroom behaviour decreased for both groups, with
four children demonstrating substantial decreases in inappropriate behaviour (although only two of
these students maintained this change or continued to improve). One student demonstrated an
increase in inappropriate behaviour, while one student demonstrated no change at all. Students in
Group 1 demonstrated moderate to strong positive changes in academic engagement times when
baseline and intervention phase data were compared. Improvement in academic engagement time
was not sustained for students in Group 2. Two children in Group 2 demonstrated worse academic
engagement times at the close of the study. Behavioural point scores increased in variability
across all seven students, although there was little change in mean point scores for either group.
What conclusions were drawn from the research?
Overall, the intervention was judged successful by the researchers. Inappropriate classroom
behaviour decreased between baseline and intervention phases for both groups. However, findings
showed that variability in student performance increased overall, and only one group of students
maintained improvements or continued to improve their classroom behaviours. Positive changes
were not reflected in the existing points-based behavioural management system implemented by
the classroom teacher.
What are the implications of the study?
The implications of this study are that relatively fine-grained observations or analyses of student
classroom behaviour are needed when evaluating behaviour-oriented intervention programs. The
results of the study also imply that direct teaching, modelling, and supportive feedback and
opportunities to practise new social skills can be beneficial to some students, but not necessarily
all students.
Generalisability and significance for Queensland
It is difficult to generalise from such a specialised area of study to everyday education contexts in
Queensland. Nevertheless, for teachers working in ‘mainstream’ classrooms that include students
with high-incidence disabilities, the study may provide important insights into the importance of
effective social skills for all students, and a reminder that poor social skills may have far-reaching
consequences for some students. It may also provide useful information on the ways in which
children with high-incidence disabilities may benefit from carefully planned, tailored and sustained
direct instruction in and modelling of key social skills.
Where can interested readers find out more?
Lane, K., Wehby, J., Menzies, H., Gregg, R. Doukas, G. & Munton, S. 2003, ‘Social skills
instruction for students at risk for antisocial behavior: The effects of small group instruction’,
Behavioral Disorders, vol. 28, pp. 229-248.
Keywords: social skills, students with disabilities