Research for Young Children With Autism Spectrum Disorders

Abstract

The social and ecological validity of a body of research may impact the degree to which interventions will be used outside of research contexts. The purpose of this review was to determine the extent to which social and ecological validity were demonstrated for interventions designed to increase social skills for young children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD). Results indicated that although the percentage of studies including social validity assessment has remained stable over the 20-year review period, subjective assessments of social validity have increased and objective assessments have decreased. Acceptability was measured more often than feasibility or importance. Approximately half of the studies included indigenous implementers, typical social partners, or typical settings. Suggestions include additional research on the validity of measures, explicit reporting by researchers, and the use of multiple, objective, and psychometrically sound social validity assessments.

Social Validity in Early Language Interventions for Dual Language Learners: A Systematic Review of the Literature

“…Several recent reviews have evaluated the use of social validity in intervention studies for children with, or at risk for, disabilities, but none have specifically focused on DLLs. Snodgrass et al (2018), for example, reviewed 429 articles addressing social validity within single-case research studies in special education journals between 2005 and 2016, and Ledford et al (2016) examined evidence of social validity more specifically in social skill interventions for young children with autism spectrum disorders (from 1994 to 2013). Neither of these reviews commented on the cultural or linguistic characteristics of participants included in the studies, nor how social validity was considered based on participants' background.…”

“…Some researchers (e.g., Leko, 2014) have emphasized the value of qualitative methods in social validity assessments, including more subjective social validity assessment methods such as interviews, focus groups, surveys, and rating scales. Yet, other researchers (e.g., Ledford et al, 2016) have argued for the need for more objective and psychometrically sound social validity assessments such as normative comparisons and measures of maintenance or sustained use of an intervention (see Barton, Meadan-Kaplansky, & Ledford, 2018, for a brief review). Considerations for the measurement of social validity in interventions with culturally and linguistically diverse populations may be especially critical as these groups may benefit from different procedures to assess social validity based on language (e.g., use of interpreters) and cultural preference (e.g., involving a peer assessor rather than a researcher).…”

“…Spear and colleagues (2013) reported 68% of studies including some assessment of social validity, whereas Snodgrass et al (2018) found that only 26.8% of studies reported measurement of social validity data. Ledford and colleagues’ (2016) review demonstrated that fewer than half of their included studies measured social validity. When researchers addressed social validity, results of recent reviews noted that very few (e.g., 6.8% of the studies reviewed by Snodgrass and colleagues, 2018) addressed all three aspects of social validity as originally conceptualized by Wolf (1978).…”

“…When researchers addressed social validity, results of recent reviews noted that very few (e.g., 6.8% of the studies reviewed by Snodgrass and colleagues, 2018) addressed all three aspects of social validity as originally conceptualized by Wolf (1978). In addition, no researchers reported on intervention consumers’ evaluation of intervention procedures or components (Ledford et al, 2016). Results from these reviews, along with other research (e.g., Hurley, 2012; Odom & Strain, 2002), reveal the underutilization of social validity, as well as a lack of consideration for the content of an intervention within research for children with and/or at risk for disabilities.…”

Behavioral treatment of spitting in a child with autism spectrum disorder: Functional analysis, intervention evaluation, and maintenance assessment

“…Further, natural care providers helped plan intervention and they implemented procedures contemporaneously with their other classroom activities. In combination, these factors contribute to the social validity of behavioral interventions among care providers within applied settings serving persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities (Ledford, Hall, Conder, & Lane, 2016; Luiselli, 2020; Wolf, 1978).…”