The Effects of a Buddy Skills Package on Preschool Children’s Social Interactions and Play

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of a buddy skills package on the social and play interactions between three preschoolers with developmental delays and their peers. Each child participated in sociodramatic play activities with two peers who exhibited age-appropriate social and play skills. Following baseline, the children participated in three sessions of training on the strategies of stay, play, and talk with your friends. The intervention consisting of teacher feedback, praise, and picture cards was then used to support children’s social interactions and play. A multiple baseline design indicated that the package was effective for increasing children’s cooperative play in the exchange of activity-related comments. In addition, each playgroup continued to demonstrate these positive outcomes during a maintenance condition.

Keywords

interaction peer-mediated

The social interaction skills of preschoolers with disabilities have been a topic of considerable attention over the past 35 years. Children’s formation of positive interactions and relationships with typically developing peers began as an aspiration or desired outcome of preschool integration during the 1970s and 1980s (Apolloni & Cooke, 1978; Odom & McEvoy, 1988). The field then witnessed a wealth of research that focused on developing interventions for promoting children’s social interaction and participation with their peers (Guralnick, 2001; Strain, McGee, & Kohler, 2001). Finally, we have seen the development of What Works Briefs, Practice Guides, videos, and other tools to support early childhood teachers’ use of evidence-based practices to support children’s social outcomes (Center on the Social and Emotional Foundations for Early Learning, 2011; Odom, 2009; Technical Assistance Center on Social and Emotional Intervention, 2011).

Although all three of these areas have been significant, research on children’s social interaction skills has had a monumental impact on best practice in early childhood special education today. An abundance of studies have been conducted with young children who display difficulties with basic skills such as joint attention, turn taking and sharing materials, responding to the overtures of others, initiating and participating in conversations, and engaging in cooperative play with peers. Four of the more prominent interventions that have been examined are adult-directed, peer-mediated procedures; social stories; and video modeling. A number of independent reviews suggest that all four of these interventions are effective for promoting improvements in social outcomes for young children with autism and related difficulties (McConnell, 2002; Odom et al., 2003; Wang & Spillane, 2009).

Adult-directed and peer-mediated interventions have been studied extensively within the research literature. Dunlap and Powell (2009) noted that adult-directed procedures involve direct and explicit modeling, behavioral practice or rehearsal, prompting, reinforcement, feedback, and related instruction for targeted skills. These forms of adult instruction are effective for teaching not only social skills but also integral methods of positive behavior support for supporting young children who display challenging behaviors within home and school settings (Benedict, Horner, & Squires, 2007). In contrast, peer-mediated interventions provide typically developing children with explicit training and support for exhibiting actions that promote social interaction from children with disabilities. The literature indicates that preschool children can fulfill a range of facilitative roles such as acting as tutors to teach preacademic skills (Stokes, Doud, Rowbury, & Baer, 1978), modeling appropriate skills for children with disabilities to imitate (Peck, Apolloni, Cooke, & Rauer, 1978), and acting in ways that facilitate appropriate social interactions and play from others (Hendrickson, Strain, Tremblay, & Shores, 1982; Odom, Hoyson, Jamieson, & Strain, 1985; Strain & Timm, 1974). In an extensive review of five interventions, McConnell (2002) concluded that peer-mediated procedures were the most effective for promoting the social interaction skills of young children with autism.

Many social skill interventions blend components from adult and peer-mediated procedures (McConnell, 2002). Such interventions generally involve teaching desired social skills to a group of children by providing instruction, modeling, opportunities for behavioral rehearsal or practice, and ongoing feedback. Typically developing peers learn to use explicit strategies such as establishing eye contact, engaging in joint attention and play, initiating share offers and requests, offering suggestions for play, responding positively to the overtures of their play, and being persistent with their social interaction strategies (Kohler & Strain, 1993). Following this initial training, children participate in routine play activities while the teacher monitors and provides ongoing support for children’s social interactions and play. A number of researchers have recommended that teacher prompting and reinforcement be faded over time to ensure that children’s interventions become more independent and likely to occur in novel settings and over time (Brown & Odom, 1994; McConnell, 2002). Generalization and maintenance have been a long-standing priority and challenge in the field of early childhood special education (Chandler, Lubek, & Fowler, 1992).

One example of such a blended intervention is the buddy skills procedure developed by Goldstein and his colleagues. This procedure involves teaching typically developing children to stay in close proximity of their classmates with disabilities, talk to their friends by saying their names and making other comments, and continue to play with their friends for extended periods of time. In an initial investigation by Goldstein, Kaczmarek, Pennington, and Shaffer (1992), a teacher conducted formal training in these strategies and then provided follow-up praise and visual cues to support children’s overtures. Results demonstrated that this package was effective for increasing the social interactions between 10 typically developing preschoolers (who participated in training) and 5 children with autism. In a follow-up study, Goldstein, English, Shafer, and Kaczmarek (1997) found that typically developing children used the strategies of stay, play, and talk to generate positive responses from children with autism throughout the entire day. Tsao and Odom (2006) taught 4 typically developing children to use buddy skills to increase the social responses of their siblings with autism. Results indicated that this package was effective for each child’s interactions with his or her sibling and that three of four siblings continued to exhibit higher levels of social interaction within a generalization setting. Finally, Kohler, Greteman, Raschke, and Highnam (2007) examined the impact of a buddy skills package of the social interactions between a 4-year-old child with autism and her peers. An intervention consisting of adult training, feedback, praise, and picture cues was implemented to support peers’ use of stay, play, and talk strategies. Results indicated that the focal children directed more overtures to her peers, even though she did not receive training and support for this. In addition, children’s interactions continued and became longer and more reciprocal over time in the absence of adult support.

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of a buddy skills package on the social and play interactions between three children with developmental delays and their typically developing peers. The study was designed to extend the existing literature in several significant ways. First, many prior studies have examined the impact of buddy skills and related peer-mediated intervention on the frequency and reciprocity of children’s social overtures. In contrast, our primary dependent variable was the quality of children’s play with peers. Second, the present study extended prior research by examining whether children continued to exhibit positive interactions and play after the withdrawal of adult training and support.

Method

Participants and Setting

In this study, 9 preschool children participated. All children were enrolled in a half-day inclusive program for children aged 3 to 5 years. The program operated 5 days a week from 8:10 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. and was housed in a K-4 elementary building in a midwestern state. The school served a large number of low-income families, with 85% of students receiving free or reduced lunches. The preschool classroom included a total of 15 children including 5 who received Head Start services and 5 with Individualized Educational Plans.

Three young children with social and communication delays were the primary focus of this study. Whalen was a 3-year 4-month-old boy living in a two-parent family with three siblings. Whalen demonstrated communication skills comparable with a 24-month-old on the Developmental Assessment of Young Children (DAYC; Voress & Maddox, 1998). Whalen had difficulties with speech, and children as well as adults often had trouble understanding his efforts to communicate. Whalen exhibited some age-appropriate play skills such as building with blocks and playing with cars. However, most of Whalen’s play was solitary, and he typically avoided activities that involved cooperative play with peers. When the teacher did include Whalen in group play, he often assumed the role of “baby” and enjoyed being carried and rocked.

Samantha was a 4-year 1-month-old girl living in a one-parent family with two siblings. Samantha qualified for special education services in the area of language development, and her language was 8 to 12 months below age level based on the DAYC. Samantha was in her 2nd year of enrollment in the preschool and needed multiple prompts and encouragement to use words during interactions with peers and adults. She was able to make simple requests but had difficulty answering questions and engaging in conversations with others. Samantha typically wandered around the classroom in close proximity to an adult during unstructured play activities. She sometimes observed and imitated the actions and sounds of other children but engaged in very little interaction with peers unless guided or supported by a teacher.

Stuart was a 5-year 4-month-old boy who lived in a two-parent family with no siblings. Stuart received special education services in the areas of language and social skill development. Teachers reported that Stuart exhibited delays in speech/communication and had difficulty using complete sentences and responding to peers’ social overtures. Teachers encouraged Stuart to use words when requesting items from others. Stuart played in close proximity with peers and often observed their actions, but his play was primarily solitary in nature. He enjoyed large and fine motor (puzzle) activities and sometimes chased other children and acted out the role of a “monster” during unstructured play activities.

Whalen, Samantha, and Stuart each participated in structured play activities with two other 3- to 5-year-old children who exhibited age-appropriate social and communication skills. The playgroups of three children remained constant throughout the entirety of the study. The study occurred during a 50-min period that occurred on 4 days during most weeks and included 10 different activities that were set up in the classroom (dramatic play, blocks, art, sand and water, art, etc.). Whalen, Samantha, Stuart, and their playgroups participated in 1 of 4 different sociodramatic activities that rotated daily (doll play, pizza shop, dress-up, and kitchen play). These activities included a variety of different materials that were designed to generate cooperative play and social interaction between the three children. Each 10-min session was monitored by a paraeducator who had 5 years of experience. The children were expected to remain in the activity throughout the 10-min session.

Experimental Measures

All experimental sessions were videotaped and then coded with a 15-s partial interval coding system. A variety of child and teacher behaviors were monitored and recorded.

Measures of child behaviors

The quality of play between the three focal children and their typically developing playmates was coded. Solitary play was marked when a child played alone and did not observe or interact with peers. Parallel play was coded when Whalen, Samantha, or Stuart played in close proximity to other children and/or observed their play actions or activities but did not engage in social interaction. Finally, cooperative play was coded when a child was in close proximity and engaged in simultaneous thematic play together. Examples of cooperative play included playing together to create something or engaging in interrelated roles such as a cook and customer in a pizza shop. It is important to note that a focal child had to participate with one or both peers to score cooperative play. Cooperative play was also scored when a focal child engaged in intentional physical contact during their play (i.e., sharing materials, high fives, etc.). We also coded children’s exchange of verbal interaction or talk throughout play sessions. All comments that were positive and related to the ongoing activity were recorded. Examples included comments about the play materials, making a suggestion or request for another child to engage in some play-related action, asking a question about the ongoing activity, and so on. Child talk was scored a maximum of 1 time per interval and included cases where a focal child talked to or received a comment from their playmate.

Adult prompts

Adult prompts were coded when the paraeducator directed a specific verbal direction or reminder for the focal children and/or peers to engage in cooperative play or social interaction with one another. Examples included comments such as “Help Samantha take the pizza out of the oven” or “Ask Stuart to hand you to bottle.” Although adult practice was a part of the intervention, it was not formally coded by the observer.

Interrater Agreement

Interrater agreement was assessed during at least 25% of sessions conducted for each playgroup across all experimental conditions. The percentage of agreement on occurrence of each subcode was calculated by dividing the total number of agreements by the total number of agreements plus disagreements and multiplying by 100. Agreement on the three types of play averaged 92% overall with a range of 85% to 96%. Cooperative play ranged from 87% to 100% across children and conditions, whereas solitary and parallel play averaged 85% and 96% overall (range = 78%–100% across conditions). Interrater agreement on the occurrence of children’s talk ranged from 89% to 100% across conditions, whereas agreement on adult prompts averaged 89% overall, with a range of 85% to 100% across conditions for the three playgroups.

Experimental Design and Conditions

A multiple baseline across three playgroups was used to examine the impact of a buddy skills intervention on children’s play and social interactions. Each group began with a baseline phase and then participated in a second and third condition in an alternated or staggered fashion. Following baseline, Whalen and his peers (Group 1) participated in social skills training and intervention while Samantha and Stuart’s playgroups continued baseline. Next, Samantha and her peers (Group 2) participated in intervention followed by Stuart and his peers (Group 3). Each group also participated in a maintenance phase where all components of the intervention were discontinued and baseline conditions were reinstated.

Baseline

Each playgroup participated in the 10-min sociodramatic activities in a rotating fashion. The paraeducator was responsible for overseeing the sessions and intervened only if children attempted to leave the activity, directed aggression or negative behavior toward peers, or used material in a destructive or harmful fashion. The children did not receive any instruction, modeling, or support for positive social interactions or cooperative play.

Buddy skills intervention

A variation of the buddy skills package described by English, Goldstein, Kaczmarek, and Shafer (1996) was implemented. The first step of intervention included teaching the skills of stay, play, and talk with one’s friends. The paraeducator conducted three 10-min lessons with each group and used visual prompt and role-play cards. Lesson 1 focused on staying in the activity and in close physical proximity with one’s friends. The teacher explained and modeled the skill and then provided children with opportunities to practice. Lesson 2 focused on playing with one’s buddies, which involved engaging in one of the three to four forms of thematic play that were appropriate for that activity. Again, the paraeducator used visual cues, explained and modeled the skill, and provided children with opportunities to practice and receive feedback. Finally, Lesson 3 focused on talking to one’s friends, which included making comments about one’s own play as well as the actions of other children. All formal data collection was discontinued during these three sessions of buddy skills training.

The second step of intervention was incorporating the stay, play, and talk strategies into the doll play, pizza shop, dress-up, and kitchen play activities. The visual cue cards were displayed in the activity, and the paraeducator gave verbal prompts to ensure that children performed the stay, play, and talk skills. The adult also provided verbal praise and “high fives” to reinforce or support children’s buddy skills throughout and after the daily play sessions.

Maintenance

All elements of the intervention were discontinued during this final phase. The visual prompts were removed and the paraeducator reinstated all procedures that were implemented during the initial baseline condition. This phase extended for 16 sessions or 5 weeks after the termination of intervention for Whalen, whereas it extended for 8 sessions or 2.5 weeks for Samantha and 4 sessions or 1 week for Stuart.

Results

Children’s Cooperative Play

Figure 1 illustrates the daily percentage of 15-s intervals where Whalen, Samantha, and Stuart engaged in cooperative play with their peers. Each child engaged in variable but low levels of cooperative play during the initial baseline phase. For example, Whalen and his peers engaged in zero levels of cooperative play during 5 of 8 baseline sessions and 10% to 30% during the remaining 3 sessions. The percentage of cooperative play for Samantha and her peers was 30% or lower during 13 of 16 baseline sessions; Stuart and his peers averaged 19% overall during baseline, and cooperative play exceeded 40% on only one occasion. Solitary play constituted the highest percentage of play for each group, averaging 76%, 45%, and 41% for Whalen, Samantha, and Stuart, respectively, during baseline.

Figure 1.

Percentage of intervals with cooperative play between target children and his or her peers in each buddy group.

The buddy skills package produced increases in the percentage of cooperative play for each group. For example, after displaying modest gains during the first four sessions of intervention, Whalen and his peers engaged in cooperative play during 70% to 80% of intervals during the remainder of the intervention condition (see Figure 1). Samantha and her peers showed immediate and significant increases in cooperative play during intervention, with their percentages averaging 83%. Finally, Stuart and his peers showed modest levels of cooperative play during the first 4 days of intervention, but these levels increased and averaged 70% or greater after seven to eight intervention sessions. In contrast to baseline, the mean percentage of solitary play ranged from 0% to 4% for the three children during the buddy skills condition.

Finally, Figure 1 indicates that each group continued to engage in high levels of cooperative play during maintenance. As indicated earlier, the paraeducator discontinued all elements of the intervention during this final phase. The mean percentages of cooperative play were 84%, 83%, and 75% for the three groups, which is very similar to the levels observed during intervention. Solitary play was 0% for each child during this final condition.

Table 1 provides additional information about the number and duration or length of children’s cooperative play episodes. The number of episodes per session was determined by identifying each interval where cooperative play was coded AND not marked during the preceding interval. For example, 4 consecutive intervals of cooperative play would be counted as only one episode. Episode duration was estimated by counting the number of consecutive intervals of cooperative play that occurred after the initial occurrence. As Table 1 shows, Whalen, Samantha, and Stuart engaged in one to three episodes of cooperative play with peers per 10-min session during the initial baseline condition, and these episodes extended for an average of 2 to 3 intervals. However, the number of cooperative play episodes ranged from 4.5 to 6.8 per session during intervention, and the mean duration of these interactions also increased (see Table 1). Finally, occurrences of cooperative play continued to increase for each child during maintenance, and the average duration ranged from 3.3 to 5.9 intervals.

Table 1.

Frequency and Duration of Each Group’s Cooperative Play Episodes During the Three Experimental Conditions

	Baseline	Intervention	Maintenance
Whalen
Average number of cooperative play episodes per experimental phase	1.75	4.55	5.68
Average length of cooperative play episodes per experimental phase	1.92 intervals	6.48 intervals	5.92 intervals
Samantha
Average number of cooperative play episodes per experimental phase	2.5	4.9	6.87
Average length of cooperative play episodes per experimental phase	3.45 intervals	6.87 intervals	4.81 intervals
Stuart
Average number of cooperative play episodes per experimental phase	3.16	6.87	8.5
Average length of cooperative play episodes per experimental phase	2.91 intervals	4.30 intervals	3.32 intervals

Frequency of Children’s Verbal Comments

Table 2 illustrates the mean percentage of talk that children engaged in during each experimental condition. As noted earlier, the occurrence of talk was coded whenever the focal child and/or peers directed a comment to one another during a 15-s interval. Intervals of coded talk could involve one comment or a reciprocal exchange of comments. Whalen and his peers exhibited comments during only 4% of their baseline sessions, whereas the means were 14% and 22% for Samantha and Stuart, respectively. However, children’s talk with peers increased during intervention, ranging from 50% for Whalen to 63% for Stuart (see Table 2). Finally, the occurrence of children’s talk continued to range from 71% to 80% during the final maintenance condition.

Table 2.

Range and Mean Percentage of Child Talk Occurring in Playgroups 1 to 3 for Each Experimental Condition of This Study

	Baseline		Intervention		Maintenance
Playgroup	Range (%)	M (%)	Range (%)	M (%)	Range (%)	M (%)
Whalen and peers	0–15	4	0–88	50	65–85	79
Samantha and peers	5–25	14	23–90	60	75–85	80
Stuart and peers	5–40	22	0–85	63	70–80	74

Teacher Prompts for Social Interaction

We also monitored the occurrence of teacher prompts for children to engage in cooperative play or social interaction throughout each condition. Prompts ranged from 0% to 0.05% during baseline, 4% to 10% during intervention, and 0.07% overall during maintenance.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of a buddy skill package on the interactions between three preschoolers with social and communication delays and their peers. Results indicated that an intervention consisting of social skills training, visual cues, and teacher support produced increases in the frequency and duration of children’s cooperative play. The focal children and their peers also engaged in more play-related talk or conversation during the intervention phase. Finally, each playgroup continued to engage in high levels of cooperative play and verbal interaction during a maintenance condition when teacher support and visual cues were discontinued. These findings will be discussed next.

First, the buddy skills package produced increases in the cooperative play between three preschoolers with developmental delays and their peers. Each focal child exhibited a high proportion of solitary play during baseline. Following three sessions of training for stay, play, and talk, the paraeducator provided visual cues, verbal reminders, and praise and attention to support children’s play during the sessions. Results indicated that Whalen and Stuart’s playgroups required four to five sessions of intervention before showing significant improvements in cooperative play. These two children may have shown greater improvements in cooperative play if they had received 5 to 6 days of social skills training instead of only 3. It is important to note, however, that each group’s level of cooperative play reached 70% or better after only four to five sessions of intervention and then stabilized with low levels of adult prompting. For example, Whalen and his peers received an average of four prompts per 10-min session during intervention, compared with three and two prompts per session for Samantha and Stuart, respectively. Finally, our analyses indicate that the duration of children’s cooperative play interactions also increased with intervention, which suggests that play became longer and richer in nature.

Second, the intervention produced increases in the frequency of children’s verbal comments. This was expected because the skill of talking to others was taught and supported by the paraeducator. The children learned to describe their own play as well as to observe and comment on the actions of their peers. Results indicated that child talk reached levels of 60% to 70% during intervention, which represents a significant increase from baseline. Moreover, children’s talk was positive and related to the ongoing play activities and was relatively independent of adult prompting. Unfortunately, our coding system did not yield information about the exchange or reciprocity of verbalizations between the three focal children and their typically developing peers.

Third, each playgroup continued to engage in high levels of cooperative play and talk during a final maintenance phase that extended from 4 to 16 sessions for the three playgroups. This finding is impressive and important for research that examines the impact of social skill interventions. This maintenance phase extended for 16 sessions or 4.5 weeks for Whalen, 8 sessions or 2.5 weeks for Samantha, and 4 sessions or 1 week for Stuart.

This study supports and extends the existing literature in a number of important ways. First, a growing number of studies have examined the impact of the stay, play, and talk strategies on children’s social interactions (English, Goldstein, Kaczmarek, & Shafer, 1996; Goldstein, English, Shafer, & Kaczmarek, 1997; Goldstein et al., 1992; Goldstein & Ferrell, 1987; Tsao & Odom, 2006). All of these prior studies have demonstrated the impact of the buddy skills intervention on the frequency and reciprocity of children’s social overtures. Conversely, this study was the first to examine the quality of children’s play interactions. Our results suggest that early childhood practitioners can address a wider range of outcomes with social skill interventions. Discrete initiations, responses, and related overtures are important for children who exhibit minimal social responsiveness to their peers. Conversely, general activity-related talk and parallel and cooperative play seem more suitable for children who possess some appropriate skills but do not engage in prolonged interaction and play with peers.

One important outcome of this study relates to the duration of children’s cooperative play interactions. Our coding system allowed us to estimate the duration of children’s interactions by counting the number of consecutive 15-s intervals that encompassed cooperative play. Unfortunately, a 15-s duration is longer than the intervals used in many prior studies that have examined the topography, length, and frequency of children’s social interactions (Odom et al., 1985; Strain, Shores, & Timm, 1977). Nevertheless, this system yielded findings that are supportive of prior research. For example, the mean number of cooperative play interactions more than doubled from baseline to intervention for all three playgroups. Moreover, all three groups showed significant increases in duration of cooperative play and two groups showed two- to threefold increases. Therefore, although we based our analysis of interaction length on 15-s intervals, the data suggest that the buddy skills package is effective for producing interactions that are long or extended in duration.

Another significant aspect of this study is the collection of maintenance data. Several previous studies have examined whether children who receive buddy skills training can sustain or continue their interactions in the absence of adult support. For example, Tsao and Odom (2006) examined whether four typically developing children could use buddy skills to increase the social responses of their siblings with autism during intervention and generalization settings. Results indicated that three of four typically developing siblings exhibited their newly learned skills in the absence of training or support. In another study, Kohler et al. (2007) examined the impact of a buddy skills package on the social interactions between a preschooler with autism and her peers. Results indicated that the intervention increased the frequency, reciprocity, and duration of children’s verbal and nonverbal overtures. Moreover, children continued to engage in high levels of interaction during a final maintenance phase. Although longer maintenance phases of 4 to 9 months would be more impressive, these data do support the existing literature by demonstrating that each playgroup sustained high levels of cooperative play after the termination of adult support.

Future Research

The results of this investigation suggest three areas for future exploration. First, researchers should continue to examine the impact of peer-mediated interventions on a host of different outcomes. The range of potential measures include the frequency and reciprocity of children’s social overtures, the quality of extended play, children’s joint attention to the same activity, the focus and quality of children’s play-related talk, and so on. Although the collection of cooperative play data can be viewed as a positive aspect, the lack of information about the quality and reciprocity of children’s verbal exchanges is a limitation of the current study. Future investigations might incorporate coding systems that provide additional data on the effects of social skill interventions. Second, researchers should continue to examine the generalization and maintenance of children’s social outcomes. Although the present investigation encompassed 4 to 16 sessions of maintenance data, future studies might examine children’s performance of social and play skills in novel settings, with untrained peers, and for periods from 6 months to 3 to 4 years after intervention. Such investigations will continue to produce advancements in evidence-based practices for improving the social interactions of preschoolers with developmental delays and disabilities (Brown & Odom, 1994).

Finally, future studies might provide more information about the adults’ role in implementing social skill interventions. Although this and prior investigations provide a detailed explanation of the buddy skills training and intervention, additional detail about the adult’s role may be required for parents or early childhood practitioners to implement the buddy skills intervention with fidelity and effectiveness. In particular, more information about the adult’s role in the training lessons might be useful for those wanting to implement this procedure. For example, what amount of adult instruction, role-playing, behavior rehearsal, and feedback was required to teach typically developing children the strategies of stay in the activity (Lesson 1), play with your friends (Lesson 2), and talk to your friends (Lesson 3)? Moreover, we reported the occurrence of adult prompts during the daily sessions but did not provide information about the use of the visual cues and praise during the activity or feedback and instruction after the activity. Such detailed information might hasten the development of What Works Briefs, Practice Guides, and other tools to facilitate teachers’ effective implementation of the buddy skills intervention (Dunlap & Powell, 2009).

Conclusion

This study also adds to an emerging literature that demonstrates the viability of the buddy skills intervention as an evidence-based practice for producing improvements in children’s social interactions and play. The results of this and other investigations suggest that the buddy skills intervention is feasible for teachers to use in the classroom and effective for children who present varying levels of social skill needs and challenges. Future research should continue to examine and refine peer-mediated interventions for producing improvements in young children’s developmental skills and success in inclusive school settings.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This project was supported in part by a grant from the U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs, H325A040084-08.

References

Apolloni

Cooke

T. P.

(1978). Integrated programming at the infant, toddler, and preschool levels. In Guralnick

(Ed.), Early intervention and the integration of handicapped and nonhandicapped children (pp. 147–165). Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.

Benedict

E. A.

Horner

R. H.

Squires

J. K.

(2007). Assessment and implementation of positive behavior support in preschools. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 27, 174–192.

Brown

W. H.

Odom

S. L.

(1994). Strategies and tactics for promoting generalization and maintenance of young children’s social behavior. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 15, 99–118.

Center on the Social and Emotional Foundations for Early Learning. (2011). Retrieved from http://www.vanderbilt.edu/csefel/

Chandler

L. K.

Lubek

R. C.

Fowler

S. A.

(1992). Generalization and maintenance of preschool children’s social skills: A critical review and analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 415–428.

Dunlap

Powell

(2009). Promoting social behavior of young children in group settings: A summary of research (Roadmap to Effective Intervention Practices No. 3). Tampa: University of South Florida, Technical Assistance Center of Social Emotional Intervention for Young Children.

English

Goldstein

Kaczmarek

Shafer

(1996). Buddy skills training for preschoolers. Teaching Exceptional Children, 28, 62–66.

Goldstein

English

Shafer

Kaczmarek

(1997). Interaction among preschoolers with and without disabilities: Effects of across-the-day peer intervention. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 40, 33–48.

Goldstein

Ferrell

D. R.

(1987). Augmenting communicative interaction among handicapped and nonhandicapped preschoolers. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 19, 200–211.

10.

Goldstein

Kaczmarek

Pennington

Shafer

(1992). Peer-mediated intervention: Attending to, commenting on and acknowledging the behavior of preschooler with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 289–305.

11.

Guralnick

M. J.

(Ed.). (2001). Early childhood inclusion: Focus on change. Baltimore, MD: Brooks.

12.

Hendrickson

J. M.

Strain

P. S.

Tremblay

Shores

R. E.

(1982). Interactions of behaviorally handicapped children: Functional effects of peer social initiations. Behavior Modification, 6, 323–353.

13.

Kohler

F. W.

Greteman

Raschke

Highnam

(2007). Using a buddy skill package to increase the social interactions between a preschooler with autism and her peers. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 27, 155–163.

14.

Kohler

F. W.

Strain

P. S.

(1993). The early childhood social skills program: Making friends during the early childhood years. Teaching Exceptional Children, 25(2), 41–42.

15.

McConnell

(2002). Interventions to facilitate social interaction for young children with autism: Review of available research and recommendations for educational interventions and future research. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 12, 351–372.

16.

Odom

S. L.

(2009). The tie that binds: Evidence-based practice, implementation science, and outcomes for children. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 29, 53–61.

17.

Odom

S. L.

Brown

W. H.

Frey

Karasu

Smith-Canter

L. L.

Strain

P. S.

(2003). Evidence based practices for young children with autism: Contributions for single-subject research design. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 18, 166–175.

18.

Odom

S. L.

Hoyson

Jamieson

Strain

P. S.

(1985). Increasing handicapped preschoolers peer social initiations: Cross setting and component analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18, 3–16.

19.

Odom

S. L.

McEvoy

M. A.

(1988). Integration of young children with handicaps and normally developing children. In Odom

S. L.

Karnes

M. B.

(Eds.), Early intervention for infants and children with handicaps: An empirical base (pp. 241–267). Baltimore, MD: Brooks.

20.

Peck

C. A.

Apolloni

Cooke

T. P.

Rauer

S. A.

(1978). Teaching retarded preschoolers to imitate the freeplay behavior of nonretarded classmates: Training and generalized effects. Journal of Special Education, 12, 195–207.

21.

Stokes

T. F.

Doud

C. I.

Rowbury

T. G.

Baer

D. M.

(1978). Peer facilitation and generalization in a preschool classroom. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 6, 203–209.

22.

Strain

P. S.

McGee

Kohler

F. W.

(2001). Inclusion of children with autism in early intervention: An examination of rationale, myths, and procedures. In Guralnick

M. J.

(Ed.), Early childhood inclusion: Focus on change (pp. 337–363). Baltimore, MD: Brooks.

23.

Strain

P. S.

Shores

R. E.

Timm

M. A.

(1977). Effects of peer social initiations on the behavior of withdrawn preschool children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 289–298.

24.

Strain

P. S.

Timm

M. A.

(1974). An experimental analysis of social interaction between a behaviorally disordered preschool child and her classroom peers. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 7, 583–590.

25.

Technical Assistance Center on Social and Emotional Intervention. (2011). Retrieved from http://www.challengingbehavior.org/index.htm

26.

Tsao

L. L.

Odom

S. L.

(2006). Sibling-mediated social interaction intervention for young children with autism. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 26, 106–124.

27.

Voress

J. K.

Maddox

nnT

. (1998). Developmental assessment of young children. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

28.

Wang

Spillane

(2009). Evidence-based social skills interventions for children with autism: A meta-analysis. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 44, 318–342.