An Analysis of the Effects of Multiple Setting Events on the Social Behavior of Preschool Children With Special Needs

Abstract

We examined the effects of four combinations of setting events on the social interactions of 7 preschool children with social delays. In Study 1, the status of the teacher, activity materials, and peer varied across conditions. In Study 2, the status of the teacher and materials varied across conditions. Within the combinations of setting events, we also examined teacher behavior. Teacher presence and absence was varied in both studies. The type and rate of teacher prompting were varied in Study 2. The four combinations of setting events produced different rates of social behavior by the children with social delays. The optimal combination of setting events for promoting peer interaction and reducing teacher-child interaction induded teacher absence from the activity, a limited number and form of materials, and children paired with a socially skilled partner.

Peer Relationship Problems and Disruptive Behavior Disorders

“…Positive social interactions have ranged from 60% to 100% of the observational intervals in the structured settings and between 20% and 40% during the unstructured settings. Interestingly, although adult absence predicted higher rates of interaction for language-delayed preschool children (Chandler et al, 1992), adult presence resulted in higher and more positive rates of interaction for school-age boys with ADHD. Our results are more consistent with those of a performance-deficit model of social incompetence in boys with A D H D than with those of a skilldeficit model.…”

“…Applied behavior-analytic research has identified some of the specific setting events that are desirable for successful peer interactions. For example, Chandler et al (1992) examined four combinations of setting events on the social interactions of language-delayed preschool children who exhibited either low rates of social interaction or high rates of aggressive behavior. Singlesubject alternating-treatment designs were used to study the effects of teacher absence versus presence, limited versus unlimited play materials, and a competent versus less competent play partner to determine which combination of events would result in optimal social performance for the language-delayed children.…”

Effects of Toys or Group Composition for Children With Disabilities: A Synthesis

“…In other studies, social interaction was recorded using children's verbal, gestural, or physical interaction with others, such as vocalizations toward others, social gestures, sharing, and physical contacts (Beckman & Kohl, 1984;Chandler, Fowler, & Lubeck, 1992;Dunn, 1991;Guralnick, 1981;Guralnick & Groom, 1987a, 1988Kallam & Rettig, 1991;Martin et al, 1991;Rettig et al, 1993).…”

“…Similarly, the type of play materials was associated with the social behavior of the child.For instance, puzzles yielded low levels of peer interaction while free blocks yielded high levels of peer interaction(Villarruel, 1990).Although overall positive effects exist for social toys or mixed groups on social behaviors for children with disabilities, social toys or mixed groups were still associated with moderate amounts of isolate/parallel play(Dunn, 1991), and isolate toys or unmixed groups were associated with moderate amounts of social interaction(Beckman & Kohl, 1984;Martin et al, 1991). Furthermore, one child with significant delays in communication and social skills did not benefit from any combinations of environmental variables(Chandler et al, 1992). This finding suggests that manipulation of toys and group composition might not be sufficient to promote positive social behaviors for all children with disabilities.…”

Concept Mastery Routines to Teach Social Skills to Elementary Children with High Functioning Autism

“…A ratio of 3:1 was implemented because it was desirable for more than one child without HFA to be in each group to give input on social skills and to avoid the situation that might arise of the typically developing children pairing up and excluding the child with HFA. No more than three typical children were chosen because peer interaction occurs more often in small groups (Chandler et al 1992).…”