Reply

Kavale, Kenneth A.; Forness, Steven R.

doi:10.1177/074193258700800213

Cited by 6 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Conversely, it may be the case that individuals who engage in appropriate behaviors detailed within Social Stories™ are punished for practicing a newly learned skill due to a history of negative interactions with others. The potential contribution of social consequences is particularly salient since research has demonstrated that some of the most powerful and effective interventions for facilitating behavior change in special education include the use of reinforcement (e.g., Heflin & Alberto, 2001; Kavale & Forness, 1999). Such variability in the extant literature may indicate a lack of consideration for natural consequences.…”

Section: Social Stories™mentioning

confidence: 99%

Teaching social behavior to children with autism spectrum disorders using Social Stories™: Implications for school-based practice.

Sansosti¹

2008

The Journal of Speech and Language Pathology – Applied Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Due to recent demands in education calling for increased evidence-based practices and data-based decision-making, it is imperative that the research support for Social Stories™ be made available to a variety of practitioners. Furthermore, it is essential that the future practice of using Social Stories™ in schools be grounded in behavior analytical approaches. This article explores the use of Social Stories™ for increasing the social behavior of individuals with autism spectrum disorders within school-based settings. Following an overview of Social Stories™ and brief critique of the research literature, this article will discuss recommendations for future research and implications for school-based practice.

show abstract

Section: Social Stories™mentioning

confidence: 99%

Teaching social behavior to children with autism spectrum disorders using Social Stories™: Implications for school-based practice.

Sansosti¹

2008

The Journal of Speech and Language Pathology – Applied Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The meta-analysis of traditional group studies has broad acceptance, and increasingly sophisticated statistical methods have been developed (Borenstein, Hedges, Higgins, & Rothstein, 2009). This approach has formed the methodological cornerstone of the movement toward evidence-based medicine (see Higgins & Green, 2009) and has been widely used in special education (Kavale & Forness, 1999) and education more generally (Hattie, 2009). Nevertheless, much research in special education relies on single-subject research designs.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reconsidering Overlap-Based Measures for Quantitative Synthesis of Single-Subject Data

Carter

2013

Behav Modif

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Overlap-based measures are increasingly applied in the synthesis of single-subject research. This article considers two criticisms of overlap-based metrics, specifically that they do not measure magnitude of effect and do not adequately correspond with visual analysis. It is argued that these criticisms are based on fundamental misconceptions regarding the nature of effect sizes and their appropriate interpretation in single-subject research. Suggestions for considerations in evaluating single-subject research studies are offered, including the need to separately consider experimental control and magnitude of effect.

show abstract

“…When aptitude interaction approaches, apparently favored by Detterman and Thomspon (1997), were analyzed separately the ES was 0.15. An effect size of 0.91 (range 0.52 to 1.62) was found when only studies of modified or adapted instructional methods were included (Kavale & Forness, in press).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The real world of special education.

Keogh¹,

Forness²,

MacMillan³

1998

American Psychologist

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

shorter histories (i.e., treating cancer early in its development is much easier than waiting for it to mature and drastically affect the entire system), and it is cost effective for society to prevent later special education services or at least decrease the intensity of services required. Furthermore, early intervention is itself often a form of special education. The very real problems of stigmatization that accompany social labeling (i.e., mental retardation, autism) are a different issue than whether or not special education is effective or individualized. Detterman and Thompson's (1997) opinion that the only goal of special education is to change IQ or academic achievement test scores is remarkably narrow. Relying on IQ or academic achievement test scores as the only indicator of student performance ignores numerous dimensions of learning and development relevant to diverse groups of children with disabilities. Although it is true that tests are used in special education to measure intelligence and academic achievement, it does not necessarily follow that the only goals of special education therefore are to raise scores on those same tests. In the absence of identifying any proponents supporting this as the only goal of special education, Detterman and Thompson may well have created a straw man. In fact, the goals of special education are as diverse as the students who are provided services ranging from basic toilet training and self-help skills for students with profound mental retardation to orientation and mobility skills for students with visual impairments to high-level reading and math skills for students with learning disabilities. Contrary to Detterman and Thompson's opinion, a considerable amount of thought has been given to the goals of special education. Detterman and Thompson (1997) accurately point out that conventional approaches to general education instruction do not generally individualize to meet distinctive student needs (unlike special education). We agree with them that this creates problems for both special and general education. Some time ago, Donald Baer (1972) noted that one of the functions of special education is almost the reverse of the general education tradition; namely, to accomplish meaningful development of some of the most difficult-to-teach students. It is precisely because of trying to meet their unique educational needs that educators must understand teaching as completely as behavioral science will permit. The problem for special education is that because it does individualize instruction, it does not fit easily into the general education system. These are not new issues, nor are they easily resolved. The unfounded and unwarranted assertion that "special education is not special" sheds little light on their resolution.

show abstract

Reply

Cited by 6 publications

References 9 publications

Teaching social behavior to children with autism spectrum disorders using Social Stories™: Implications for school-based practice.

Teaching social behavior to children with autism spectrum disorders using Social Stories™: Implications for school-based practice.

Reconsidering Overlap-Based Measures for Quantitative Synthesis of Single-Subject Data

The real world of special education.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About