Adult Talk in the Inclusive Classroom and the Socially Competent Behavior of Preschoolers With Autism Spectrum Disorder

Abstract

Difficulty with social competence is a core deficit of autism spectrum disorder (ASD). The aim of this study was to examine the link between adult talk and the socially competent behavior displayed by preschoolers with ASD concurrently and over time. A modified version of Kontos’s Teacher Talk classification was used to code videos of 73 children with ASD (ages 3–5) in inclusive classrooms (n = 33). Supporting peer relation and positive social contact forms of adult talk were concurrently associated with children’s socially competent behavior. In comparison, higher amounts of supporting object play talk positively affected children’s social competence over time (i.e., 1 school year), and more behavior management talk was related to worsening social competence as perceived by teachers. Implications for practice and future research are discussed.

Keywords

adult talk autism inclusion preschoolers socially competent behavior

The inclusive classroom can be seen as a mechanism for ameliorating the social difficulties that are a defining feature of autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Specifically, this type of setting is thought to provide children with ASD opportunities to observe and interact with socially competent peers, which should promote social interaction and play skills (Bailey, McWilliam, Buysse, & Wesley, 1998; Brown, Odom, McConnell, & Rathel, 2008). To begin to positively affect these children’s social difficulties, appropriate support from classroom adults is required (Bricker, 1995). With the increasing prevalence of children with ASD in mainstreamed preschool classrooms (Technical Assistance and Dissemination Network, 2012), adequate support may be difficult to realize, especially because many accommodations, modifications, and teaching strategies can be challenging for classroom professionals to implement (Kohler & Strain, 1999; Stahmer, Collings, & Palinkas, 2005). Adult talk, an expanded variant of teacher talk, can be conceptualized as the type and frequency of verbalizations directed at students by classroom staff (see Kontos & Wilcox-Herzog, 1997), and may be a less burdensome strategy that could be used for augmenting existing classroom strategies/interventions aimed at enhancing the social competence of children with ASD.

In studies examining the types of adult talk thought to affect social competence, adult/teacher talk is operationalized in many ways—some are specific, others are more general. Kontos’s (1999) Teacher Talk classification would be an example of the former, as it includes specific types of verbalizations, such as supporting peer relations (e.g., “Go see if Jennifer wants to play computer.”), supporting object play (e.g., “Add one more track, so you can race your truck.”), positive social contacts (e.g., “Did you go to the fair over the weekend?”), behavioral management (e.g., “Why don’t you have a seat on the rug?”), practical/personal assistance (e.g., “Need help getting the blocks down?”) talking to adults, and reading to the child. An example of the latter would be Wilcox-Herzog and Kontos’s (1998) teacher talk scheme, which is made up of broader categories: directives (e.g., “Time to clean-up”), non-elaboratives (i.e., closed and declarative questions) as well as elaboratives (i.e., open questions, elaborative statements, and suggestions). With Kontos’s (1999) classification having the specificity that could inform everyday classroom practices, it becomes a useful tool for understanding and, if need be, modifying the adult talk directed at preschoolers with ASD.

Transactional theories of development posit that ongoing adult–child interactions affect a child’s essential competencies (e.g., Sameroff, 2010) and, arguably, adult talk is an essential component of these exchanges. For example, Hart and Risley (1992) reported that the amount of language typically developing children are exposed to in the home from 10 to 36 months of age was related to children’s cognitive ability at age 3. For children with disabilities, there is concern that certain impairments, such as communication difficulties, may result in less talk from adults, thereby affecting children’s ability to engage adults, which may disrupt the bi-directional nature of language development (Warren & Yoder, 2004). Warren and colleagues (2010), providing some support for this notion, reported that typically developing children had, on average, more vocalizations and conversational turns with their caregivers per day than children with ASD. Furthermore, caregiver report measures of children’s ASD symptomatology were associated with the amount of words caregivers directed to children. In other words, the amount of adult language children with ASD are exposed to may be related to perceptions of their caregivers. In the preschool classroom, Dykstra et al. (2013) found that the cognitive and language skills of preschoolers with ASD were associated with the frequency of adult words received. Specifically, these authors reported that preschoolers with ASD who had either lower language or cognitive abilities received fewer words from adults. Thus, the transactional relations between adults and children with ASD in the home and classroom may be hindered because of the characteristics associated with the disorder, particularly as they become more pronounced.

In addition to language, the transactional relations between young children with and without disabilities and classroom adults also affect social development. For example, Phillips, McCartney, and Scarr (1987) found a relationship between typically developing preschoolers’ sociability and teacher verbalizations. Others have reported that the positive verbalizations teachers direct toward typically developing children are thought to affect the students’ impressions of one another (Gallagher, Dadisman, Farmer, Huss, & Hutchins, 2007; Stanulis & Manning, 2002). Mahoney and Wheeden (1999) found that teachers’ responsiveness (e.g., following the child’s lead) toward young children with disabilities during free play was positively associated with their initiation of social behaviors toward adults. Although these studies indicate that talk centered on relationship-building may indeed support children’s social development, the talk teachers provide to young children appears to be more centered on preschool activities and routines (File, 1994; File & Kontos, 1993). For example, Kontos reported that teacher talk directed at typically developing preschoolers relating to supporting object play (39%) and practical/personal assistance (19%) was more common compared with positive social contacts (16%) and supporting peer relations (3%). Sontag (1997) identified even lower levels of praise and approval (13%) in her study of preschoolers with disabilities. That said, there is some research suggesting that teacher verbalizations related to supporting object play are positively related to the social behaviors of children with disabilities (Kim et al., 2003; Sainato, Jung, Salmon, & Axe, 2008). By addressing the difficulties children with ASD have in interacting with adults and peers early, long-term improvements in their quality of life may be possible (Lord & Bishop, 2010), and determining how different types of adult talk are related to these children’s socially competent behavior will likely help classroom adults in this effort.

There are few studies that have examined the types of adult talk children with ASD receive and their subsequent social behavior in the natural classroom setting. Wong and Kasari (2012) examined teacher requests for play and joint attention behaviors among preschoolers with ASD as well as child response to joint attention requests. These authors reported that teachers made more attempts to elicit joint attention than support play. Unfortunately, in their study, child response does not appear specifically linked to teacher bids/prompts for joint attention and children’s response to teacher play prompts appears not to be captured. A study by Reszka (2010) examined the verbal and non-verbal behaviors classroom adults directed at preschoolers with ASD, which included support (e.g., reminders), comment (e.g., questions about home life), and approval (e.g., praise), as well as children’s social behavior toward adults and peers. Reszka found that adult approval (present only 1.7% of the time) was associated with children’s socially competent behavior toward adults. No form of adult behavior, however, was found to increase children’s positive social behavior toward peers. Thus, studies examining the relationship between adult behaviors and the immediate social responses of preschoolers with ASD have not directly related adult behavior to child response or have used broad categories of adult behavior.

Although the studies by Reszka (2010) and Wong and Kasari (2012) are informative, it is clear that additional studies are needed to better understand the relationship between specific types of adult talk and the social behavior displayed by children with ASD. Knowledge about whether certain types and amounts of adult talk result in improvements in the socially competent behavior of children with ASD over time is also needed. Finally, easy-to-use strategies/interventions to foster positive social behavior during naturally occurring preschool activities and routines will be helpful for adults as more children with ASD enter the inclusive classroom; an examination of more refined categories of adult talk could lead to exactly that type of strategy/intervention. The specific research questions addressed in this study were as follows:

Research Question 1: What are the types and amounts of adult talk children with ASD receive in the inclusive preschool classroom?

Research Question 2: How is adult talk related to concurrent as well as longitudinal displays of socially competent behavior of young children with ASD?

Method

Participants

Students

Seventy-three children who were part of a larger project evaluating the efficacy of preschool programs serving young children with ASD were included in this study. For the current study, all participating children were enrolled in inclusive classrooms, and were between the ages of 3 and 5 years (M = 48.64 months) at the time of study enrollment. Children in the study had a prior educational or community diagnosis that placed them on the autism spectrum based on Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed., text rev; DSM-IV-TR; American Psychiatric Association, 2000) criteria (i.e., autistic disorder, Pervasive Developmental Disorder–Not Otherwise Specified, or Asperger) or developmental delay, and had to meet diagnostic criteria for ASD on the most recent Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS) algorithms (Gotham, Pickles, & Lord, 2009). A research-certified ADOS assessor administered the majority of the ADOS assessments (72.5%); the remaining assessments were administered by assessors who had been trained to a reliability criterion of 80% on the diagnostic algorithm. Based on the Childhood Autism Rating Scale (CARS), there were more children with mild autistic symptoms (i.e., a score 30 or below; n = 37) than ones with moderate to severe symptoms (i.e., a score 37 and above; n = 12) or falling within the mild and moderate to severe range (i.e., a score between 30.50 and 36.50; n = 24).

Classrooms

Thirty-three classrooms participated in this study, with an average of two children recruited per classroom. The inclusive classrooms were comprised of two classroom types, either Learning Experiences: Alternative Program for Preschoolers and Parents (LEAP; Strain & Hoyson, 2000) or Business-as-Usual (i.e., eclectic) programs. Dr. Phil Strain established the LEAP model in 1981, and the prevailing theoretical/conceptual foundation for the model is applied behavior analysis. In LEAP, typically developing children learn peer-mediated methods aimed at improving the social interaction skills of children with ASD. The term business as usual (BAU) refers to classrooms in which teachers do not adhere to one theoretical/conceptual framework to guide their instructional practices (e.g., applied behavior analysis), rather teachers in these classrooms use a variety of intervention approaches from multiple models. This eclectic model is the one typically used for children with ASD in public schools (Stahmer et al., 2005). LEAP and BAU classrooms included in the study had to be operating in a public preschool and were screened for study inclusion by trained observers to ensure overall quality using a psychometrically validated classroom quality tool, that is, the Professional Development in Autism (PDA) Program Assessment (PDA Center, 2008). LEAP classrooms operate on a half-day schedule; thus the duration of classroom instructional time for students was 2 to 3 hr per day (M = 2.1 hr). The instructional time for BAU classrooms ranged from 2 to 5 hr (M = 2.9 hr). The number of typically developing preschoolers to children with ASD in LEAP (8.7 to 3.3) and BAU (7.4 to 2.2) classrooms was similar. The average overall adult-to-child ratios were also similar in both types of classrooms (LEAP = 4.19; BAU = 5.46). It was not the purpose of this study to examine group differences; therefore, classroom type (i.e., LEAP or BAU) was included as a covariate in data analyses.

Teachers

All teachers (n = 33: BAU = 11 and LEAP = 22) had to be certified to teach in their respective state and must have taught in a LEAP or BAU classroom for at least 2 years prior to study enrollment. Across both classroom types, teachers had an average of 10.9 years of experience in the classroom and 5.7 years of experience implementing their individual classroom treatment types. Each LEAP and BAU classroom had one to two teaching assistants. Teacher and student demographic information is found in Table 1.

Table 1.

Teacher and Child Demographics.

Characteristic	Frequency	%
Teacher demographics
Teacher race
White	32	97
Black	1	3
Teacher ethnicity
Non-Hispanic	25	75.8
Hispanic	8	24.2
Teacher gender
Female	32	97
Male	1	3
Teacher degree
Associates	2	6.1
Bachelors	11	33.3
Masters	19	57.6
Above masters	1	3.0
Student demographics
Child race
Asian	3	4.1
Black	4	5.5
Multi-racial	2	2.7
White	64	87.7
Child ethnicity
Hispanic	32	43.8
Non-Hispanic	41	56.2
Child gender
Male	62	84.9
Female	11	15.1

Measures

Assessments of students participating in this study took place within the first 3 months of the school year. All measures were administered by trained reliable staff who possessed or were in the process of obtaining an MA or a PhD, with the exception of the Social Responsiveness Scale (SRS) and SRS for Preschoolers (SRS-P) which was a teacher report.

CARS (Schopler, Reichler, & Renner, 1988) is an instrument designed to assess children’s behaviors (e.g., relating to others, fear, non-verbal communication) to distinguish children with ASD (age 2 through adulthood) from those children who have a developmental delay. Scores on the measure range from 15 to 60 and are based on a 4-point scale, with higher scores indicating more symptom severity. The instrument has more than acceptable reliability (i.e., an alpha of .94). CARS administrators had to meet the following reliability criterion: be within ±.5 on 12 of 15 items and within ±3 on the total score.

Mullen Scales of Early Learning (Mullen, 1995) is a standardized, comprehensive assessment that measures gross motor (e.g., running), fine motor (e.g., stringing beads), visual reception (e.g., sorting), and language (receptive and expressive) abilities of children from birth through 68 months. Internal reliability ranges from .71 to .83 across subtests of the measure, and .91 for the overall developmental score. Validity of the measure has been established for children with ASD (see Akshoomoff, 2006). Mullen standard scores at Time 1 were used in the data analysis to covary for children’s baseline cognitive abilities.

PDA Program Assessment (PDA Center, 2008) is a classroom observational tool to measure features of quality in programs for learners with ASD. This measure is intended to evaluate general classroom (e.g., physical space) and program quality (e.g., positive instructional climate) in classrooms serving children with ASD. The PDA Program Assessment is a checklist containing 54 items representing eight domains. The measure is scored using a 5-point scale (5 = full implementation, 1 = minimal/no implementation). The PDA is a psychometrically sound instrument with strong internal consistency (α = .94, with a range across subscales of .71–.95), test–retest reliability (intraclass correlation [ICC] = .83, range = .53–.87), and validity demonstrated through descriptive discriminant analysis, which indicated that its subscales could accurately discriminate between classroom types, including LEAP and BAU (Hume, Boyd, et al., 2009). This measure was administered 4 times across the school year.

SRS and SRS-P (Constantino & Gruber, 2005) is a 65-item teacher/caregiver report measure where each item is scored from 1 = not true to 4 = almost always true. The instrument assesses the severity of symptoms children with autism possess by providing information about his or her social impairments, social awareness, social information processing, capacity for reciprocal social communication, social anxiety/avoidance, and autistic preoccupations and traits. The SRS-P for 3-year-olds and the version for children aged 4 to 18 years were utilized in this study. Preschoolers who had not reached the age of 4 by post-test (23%) received the SRS-P at Time 2. The instruments are quite similar with the same item numbers being reverse scored on each measure, with only three items appearing to have a substantive change to the phrasing of the question. For example, on the SRS-P for 3-year-olds, one item is “Wants to be changed when diaper or underwear are soiled or wet,” whereas on the SRS the question is “Has good personal Hygiene.” The internal consistency of each subscale is adequate (i.e., alphas ranging from .77 to .92). Concurrent validity is evident (e.g., mother-reported SRS and the The Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised [ADI-R; a diagnostic instrument for individuals with ASD] with coefficients ranging from .65 to .77; see SRS manual, Constantino & Gruder, 2005). The calculated T scores for the Social Awareness, Social Cognition, Social Communication, and Social Motivation subscales (teacher-reported pre and post) were used to determine changes in social competence over time. These subscales were used instead of the SRS/P total score because the total score is based on an additional autistic mannerisms subscale, and our interest was children’s social competence as opposed to total severity of autistic symptoms. For this study, Time 1 and Time 2 SRS/P data points were used in the analysis. Post-test occurred at least 6 to 9 months after pre-test and was completed by teachers (see Table 2 for Times 1 and 2 SRS/P total scores and children’s age).

Table 2.

Child Assessment Descriptives.

	Time 1			Time 2
SRS/P, Mullen, and age	n	M	SD	n	M	SD
SRS/P–Social Awareness T score	73	66.12	10.54	73	64.16	10.75
SRS/P–Social Cognition T score	72	67.81	8.82	73	63.52	10.26
SRS/P–Social Communication T score	73	65.55	9.70	73	62.42	10.69
SRS/P–Social Motivation T score	73	60.07	9.98	73	56.19	10.77
Mullen SS	71	67.03	18.44
Age (in months)	73	48.64	8.00

Note. SRS/P = Social Responsiveness Scale for Preschoolers; SS = standard score.

Procedure

For the current study, the real-time interactions participating children had with adults and peers during classroom center time were videotaped for approximately 30 min. Direct observations from the vantage point of the focal child with ASD took place on a single day. In preschool classrooms, center time can be conceptualized as the free time or space during which children are provided an opportunity to engage with adults and/or peers in designated areas containing academic and/or play materials. No instructions were provided to teachers other than to continue with their normal classroom routines and activities. The behavioral coding software, PROCODER, with its ability to capture the event and interval data, was then used to code videos (Tapp & Walden, 2000). PROCODER was set up to divide the videos into 10-s intervals, resulting in approximately 179 intervals per observation. Partial interval sampling was used to code adult talk directed at the focal child for each10-s interval.

Coding scheme

The scheme used to code adult talk was comprised of categories and codes adapted from Kontos’s (1999) Teacher Talk classification. Children’s social behavior was coded based on operational definitions from the Code for Active Student Participation and Engagement (CASPER-III; Tsao, Odom, & Brown, 2001). Kontos’s coding scheme was deemed to be appropriate for this study because it was designed to capture the types of teacher talk in the preschool setting that have been associated with children’s social competence. Her classification includes questions and statements that fall under the following categories: (a) supporting peer relations, (b) supporting object play, (c) positive social contacts, (d) behavior management, (e) practical/personal assistance, (f) talking to adults, and (g) teacher reads to child. For the current study, several modifications were made to Kontos’s coding system (see Appendix A for categories and examples of adult talk). Talking to adults and teacher reads to child were removed because these categories were not of primary interest in the current study. The individual codes were placed in the following hierarchy to establish a mutually exclusive coding system (arranged from most to least important type of adult talk based on the autism literature): supporting peer relations, positive social contacts, supporting object play, practical/personal assistance, and behavior management. This hierarchy was decided on because social impairments are a core deficit of autism, and children with this disorder appear to have the most difficulty engaging with peers followed by adults (Hauck, Fein, Warehouse, & Feinstein, 1995). Thus, supporting peer relations and positive social contacts are the top two forms of adult talk in the hierarchy. Although not a core deficit, supporting object play follows those two codes as appropriate engagement with objects is important for peer play, a skill that may be stilted or absent among children with ASD (Carter, Ornstein-Davis, Klin, & Volkmar, 2005; Strain, Schwartz, & Bovey, 2008). Adaptive/independence competencies are another difficulty that can limit opportunities to have meaningful exchanges with peers and adults (e.g., Hume, Loftin, & Lantz, 2009); however, for our purposes, we were primarily interested in adult talk that is more likely to directly influence children’s social competence. Behavior management came last in the hierarchy because we were more interested in pro-social behaviors than maladaptive exchanges between children with ASD and classroom adults and peers. Furthermore, preschoolers in this study had, on average, levels of problem behavior that fell below the clinical cutoff of 60 on the Caregiver-Teacher Report Form (C-TRF) measure (i.e., M = 47.04; Achenbach & Rescorla, 2000). Only the highest form of talk that occurred during an interval was coded. No talk and can’t tell (e.g., when it was unclear whether the adult was directing talk at the focal child) categories were added to the coding scheme, so that codes were exhaustive. Finally, the talk of any classroom staff who directed verbalization at the focal child with ASD was coded. Thus, adult talk reflects more than just teacher talk.

Again, child social behavior categories were derived from CASPER-III. These codes were chosen to capture children’s immediate displays of positive social behavior directed at peers and adults. Using partial interval sampling, child social behavior directed at a peer or an adult was only coded when it followed some form of adult talk. This coding category also was hierarchical in that within a given interval social behavior directed toward peers took precedence over adults. This decision was based on the greater difficulty children with ASD often experience interacting with peers as compared with adults (see Hauck et al., 1995). Negative social behavior was not considered for this project because of the low occurrence of the behavior (e.g., focal child screams at an adult; see Appendix B for categories and examples of child social behaviors).

Inter-rater reliability

All videos were coded by two independent graduate student coders naïve to the purposes of this study, and 20% were subsequently coded by a second rater (the first author of this study) for reliability purposes. Training included familiarization with the modified Kontos’s (1999) Teacher Talk classification and CASPER-III codes (Tsao et al., 2001), coding of three non-study videos (e.g., videos of Treatment and Education of Autistic and related Communication handicapped Children [TEACCH] or BAU self-contained classrooms), and ongoing discussion. Raters had to reach at least an average of 80% agreement per code as well as overall agreement with the first author of this investigation across three consecutive non-study videos to begin coding videos used in the actual study. Coders had to maintain at least a mean 80% reliability criterion for each code as well as overall agreement throughout the coding period. If a coder fell below 80%, they would have had to re-code practice videos and then re-code the video in which they did not meet 80% agreement. However, at no point did the coders fall below 80% (see Table 3 for complete reliability results).

Table 3.

Inter-Observer Agreement for Overall Categories and Individual Codes.

	Coder 1			Coder 2
Adult talk and child social behavior	M	Maximum	Minimum	M	Maximum	Minimum
Total adult talk	0.83	0.91	0.81	0.86	0.94	0.80
Supporting peer relations	0.97	1.00	0.92	0.97	1.00	0.92
Positive social contacts	0.96	0.99	0.91	0.95	1.00	0.89
Supporting object play	0.95	0.99	0.85	0.96	1.00	0.90
Practical/personal assistance	0.92	0.97	0.84	0.95	1.00	0.92
Behavior management	0.98	0.99	0.96	0.98	1.00	0.92
Can’t tell	0.95	1.00	0.89	0.97	1.00	0.93
No talk	0.94	1.00	0.89	0.95	0.97	0.89
Total socially competent behavior	0.88	0.94	0.81	0.90	0.96	0.83
Social behavior to adult	0.92	0.99	0.88	0.93	0.96	0.87
Social behavior to peer	0.99	1.00	0.97	0.99	1.00	0.98
Can’t tell	0.97	0.99	0.93	0.98	0.99	0.91
No social behavior	0.89	0.94	0.82	0.91	0.97	0.86

Data Analysis

Pearson’s partial correlations, with chronological age as the covariate, were used to examine concurrent associations between adult talk and children’s socially competent behavior (i.e., the video-coded, observed occurrence of child social behavior following adult talk). Correlational analysis was also relied on to further explore whether child social behavior following specific forms of adult talk was more related to adults or peers. Using PROC MIXED (SAS Institute, 2010), mixed models were relied on to predict changes in social behaviors over time (i.e., duration of 1 school year), as measured through teacher report on the SRS/P. We opted to use a three-level model because (a) we wanted to preserve the original structure of the data and ensure ample power to detect effects; (b) there were repeated measures within persons; and (c) children were nested within classrooms. Classroom type (i.e., BAU vs. LEAP), race, gender, cognitive ability, and age were treated as covariates because these variables are thought to explain some of the relationship between the types of adult talk and the changes in the SRS-P subscales, although not of substantive interest to this study’s research questions. White/non-White was used as the race variable because the small number of ethnic minority students resulted in inaccurate estimates. Adult talk was used to predict changes in children’s social competence (i.e., social awareness, social cognition, social communication, and social motivation) based on teacher report using the SRS/P, while covarying for SRS/P Time 1 subscale scores. More specifically, the estimates for each SRS/P subscale by time variable describe the expected change in the outcome in relation to each type of adult talk, controlling for other forms of talk, coded from videos at Time 1. Note, higher scores on the SRS/P are associated with increased symptom severity, thus, lower scores over time reflect improvement.

Results

Research Question 1: What are the types and amounts of adult talk children with ASD receive in the inclusive preschool classroom?

Descriptives were used to identify the types and amounts of adult talk children with ASD were exposed to as well as the socially competent behavior they displayed. The frequency descriptives reveal that preschoolers with ASD directed more socially competent behavior to adults (13.1%) than their peers (1.5%). That said, positive child social behavior following adult talk within 10-s intervals was absent for the most part (82.3%). (See Figure 1 for complete results.)

Figure 1.

Types and amounts of adult talk children received and children’s socially competent behavior following some form of adult talk.

Research Question 2: How is adult talk related to concurrent and longitudinal displays of social competent behavior by young children with ASD?

Using direct observations, we found significant correlations (r) between the supporting peer relations adult talk category and children’s total socially competent behavior (i.e., social behavior directed to adults and peers; r = .340, p = .003). Of importance, the correlational analysis revealed that the association with the largest magnitude was between adults using supporting peer relations talk and children then directing positive social behavior to peers rather than adults (r = .716, p ≤ .0001). In comparison, the association between positive social contacts talk and total socially competent behavior also was significant (r = .437, p = .0001) but appeared to be primarily driven by the child directing social behavior to adults (r = .458, p ≤ .0001). Finally, supporting object play was positively associated with total socially competent behavior (r = .283, p = .016) and social behavior directed at adults (r = .309, p = .008; see Table 4 for complete results). Other forms of adult talk, that is, practical/personal assistance and behavior management, were not significantly associated with children’s displays of social behaviors.

Table 4.

Adult Talk and Socially Competent Behavior Correlations.

Adult talk and age	Total socially competent behavior	p	Socially competent behavior to adults	p	Socially competent behavior to peers	p
Supporting peer relations	.340	.003**	.224	.059	.716	<.0001***
Positive social contacts	.437	.0001**	.458	<.0001***	.114	.341
Supporting object play	.283	.016*	.309	.008**	.011	.929
Practical/personal assistance	.182	.127	.215	.070	−.068	.572
Behavior management	.080	.508	.110	.359	−.105	.378
Chronological age	.208	.077	.220	.062	.046	.702

Note. Correlational analysis of adult talk and children’s socially competent behavior toward adults and peers followed an initial examination of adult talk and total socially competent behavior.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .0001.

To examine the longitudinal relationship between the types of adult talk and children’s socially competent behavior, individual mixed models were utilized. The findings reveal that children who received more adult statements or questions around positive social contacts at Time 1 (i.e., baseline video observations) were perceived by teachers as having more improvements in social cognition (β = −15.341 p = .0008) and social motivation (β = −12.451, p = .0206) over the course of 1 school year. Preschoolers who received higher amounts of supporting object play talk at Time 1 were rated by teachers as improving over time on the following SRS/P subscales: Social Awareness (β = −11.875, p = .0029), Social Cognition (β = −10.503, p = .0003), Social Communication (β = −10.231, p = .0008), and Social Motivation (β = −9.322, p = .0063). In contrast, higher amounts of behavior management talk directed to the child at Time 1 were associated with less social awareness (β = 25.639, p = .0094) and social cognition (β = 17.285, p = .0137), as perceived by teachers over time. The amount of supporting peer relations and practical/personal assistance talk did not affect children’s socially competent behavior over time, at least as measured using teacher report (see Table 5 for a reduced version of the statistical output for the sake of clarity).

Table 5.

Socially Competent Behavior Over Time by Adult Talk.

	SRS/P–Social Motivation		SRS/P–Social Awareness		SRS/P–Social Cognition		SRS/P–Social Communication
Adult talk and covariates	β (SE)	p	β (SE)	p	β (SE)	p	β (SE)	p
Supporting peer relations	−9.683 (6.014)	.1121	2.277 (6.996)	.7458	−7.839 (4.985)	.1206	−9.304 (5.274)	.0823
Positive social contacts	−12.451 (5.250)	.0206*	−8.413 (6.107)	.1729	−15.341 (4.352)	.0008***	−7.098 (4.604)	.1279
Supporting object play	−9.322 (3.306)	.0063**	−11.875 (3.846)	.0029**	−10.503 (2.740)	.0003***	−10.231 (2.899)	.0008***
Practical/personal assistance	5.318 (2.673)	.0508	2.407 (3.110)	.4417	4.223 (2.216)	.0610	4.351 (2.345)	.0679
Behavior management	7.331 (8.237)	.3767	25.639 (9.582)	.0094**	17.285 (6.828)	.0137*	10.573 (7.224)	.1480
Chronological age	.105 (0.140)	.4565	−.130 (0.129)	.3201	−.053 (0.114)	.6456	.079 (0.117)	.5052
Gender	−.470 (1.588)	.7681	−.763 (1.467)	.6048	−.523 (1.291)	.6870	−2.136 (1.329)	.1127
Non-White	2.003 (2.193)	.3642	−.645 (2.025)	.7510	1.846 (1.783)	.3043	1.756 (1.835)	.3421
BAU	.987 (2.405)	.6829	.745 (2.221)	.7383	.173 (1.955)	.9299	−.426 (2.013)	.8331
Mullen SS (Time 1)	−.288 (0.066)	<.0001***	−.310 (0.061)	<.0001***	−.298 (0.054)	<.0001***	−.318 (0.055)	<.0001***

Note. Reference groups include race (White) and classroom type (LEAP). SRS/P = Social Responsiveness Scale for Preschoolers; SS = standard score; LEAP = Learning experiences: Alternative program for preschoolers and parents.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .0001.

Discussion

With difficulties in social competence being a core deficit among children with ASD, it is essential that early intervention efforts are focused on ameliorating these impairments because it may result in reductions in health and educational expenditures as well as in symptom improvement across the lifespan (Lord & Bishop, 2010). This study supports these efforts by providing new knowledge about specific types of adult talk that may foster better relations between children with ASD and classroom adults and peers. Overall, there were moderate to strong associations between supporting peer relation and positive social contact forms of adult talk and the socially competent behavior children with ASD were observed to direct toward others in the classroom. More behavior management talk at the beginning of the school year was related to worsening social awareness and cognition by school year’s end as perceived by teachers; whereas children with ASD who received more supporting object play talk were seen as having improvements in social awareness, cognition, communication, and motivation during this same time period.

In previous studies, adult talk aimed at building relations between children with and without disabilities and classroom adults and peers appears to be less common than talk focused on preschool activities and routines (File, 1994; File & Kontos, 1993; Kontos, 1999). Similarly, we found that talk related to supporting peer relations and positive social contacts were occurring at relatively low levels. This is concerning as children with ASD have difficulty interacting with adults and peers and, therefore, may require more talk related to relationship-building. When, however, children with ASD were exposed to talk aimed at building relationships, desirable social behavior did indeed follow, which also aligns with previous literature on children with disabilities, in general (File, 1994; Mahoney & Wheeden, 1999). Specifically, based on direct observational measures, increased amounts of supporting peer relations talk were associated with children’s increased displays of socially competent behavior toward peers. In addition, greater amounts of positive social contacts and supporting object play talk were associated with children directing more appropriate social behavior to adults. The strength of the association between supporting peer relations talk and children’s positive social behavior toward peers (r = .72) suggests that this type of verbalization may be useful for encouraging interactions between children with ASD and their peers during center time activities. Furthermore, providing preschoolers with this disorder with increased amounts of positive social contacts and supporting object play appear to be promising strategies for encouraging appropriate engagement with classroom adults. Taken together, these findings provide new information on the association between adult talk and the proximal displays of positive social behavior by children with ASD in the inclusive classroom.

Previous descriptive studies have explored how adult behaviors affect the social interactions children with ASD have with classroom adults (Reszka, 2010) and peers (Boyd, Conroy, Asmus, McKenney, & Mancil, 2008; Reszka, 2010). To our knowledge, studies have not examined the link between the amounts of various types of adult talk directed to preschoolers with ASD in the natural environment and changes in social competence over time. The results of this study indicated that certain types of adult talk were predictive of changes in children’s social competence over the course of 1 school year based on teacher perceptions. On one hand, children who received more behavior management talk were reported to have less social awareness (e.g., reacts to people as if they are objects) and social cognition (e.g., takes things too literally) at Time 2. Fortunately, this was the most infrequent type of talk classroom adults directed to children with ASD; nevertheless, behavior management talk appears to have a substantial impact on teacher’s perceptions of children’s social development.

On the other hand, larger amounts of positive social contacts and supporting object play were associated with improvements in several indicators of children’s social competence as perceived by teachers. Specifically, children who received more talk centered on positive social contacts were viewed as having more improvements in social cognition and social motivation. With regard to supporting object play, when students with ASD received greater amounts of this type of talk at Time 1, teachers perceived them as having improvements in social awareness, social cognition, social motivation (e.g., seeks out social interactions with peers or adults), and social communication (e.g., ability to relate to others) over the course of the school year. Thus, supporting object play talk was related to improvements in multiple aspects of children’s social competence as perceived by teachers. This finding is supported by previous researchers who have reported that verbalizations supporting object play are positively related to the social behaviors of children with disabilities (Kim et al., 2003; Sainato et al., 2008). There are several possibilities that could offer some explanation for this finding. For instance, adults may talk more about objects children with ASD are interested in, which could result in children actually displaying more socially competent behavior, or at the very least, children’s appropriate engagement with objects may lead teachers to perceive these preschoolers as being more socially competent. Another possibility is that talk centered on supporting object play is allowing children to develop the play skills needed to interact more appropriately with peers and objects over time. It is not clear why supporting peer relations talk did not result in positive changes in teacher’s perceptions of children’s social competence. One possibility is that subscales on the SRS-P are not sensitive enough to link supporting peer relations talk to changes in children’s social competence over time. That said, these findings are quite compelling in that they potentially provide a minimally burdensome approach (i.e., increasing specific types of adult talk) classroom adults could incorporate into existing classroom strategies/interventions to foster positive social behavior among children with ASD in the natural environment.

Limitations

This study has several limitations that must be noted. The videotaping of children with ASD took place during center time only, so whether similar types and amounts of adult talk are present at other times of the preschool day is unknown. Furthermore, it is unclear how adult talk may have been related to the focal child’s social behavior toward peers at other times during the school day. Only high quality classrooms were included in this study, thus, it is uncertain whether these findings generalize to low-quality inclusive preschool classrooms. This study only used Time 1 adult talk data to predict changes in children’s social competence at Time 2 (i.e., the SRS/P); therefore, an inference was made that adult talk at Time 1 would remain constant across the school year, which may have not been the case. Child social behavior was only coded if it followed some form of adult talk, so whether non-verbal child affect behaviors elicited adult verbalizations is unknown. The adult talk and child social behavior coding schemes were hierarchical, which may have resulted in some forms of children’s socially competent behavior and certain types of adult talk being missed. For example, if a focal child received verbalizations related to supporting object play and behavior management in the same 10-s interval, then only the higher level of talk (i.e., supporting object play) would have been captured and the lower level of talk (i.e., practical/personal assistance) would not have been coded. Behavior management talk was likely affected more so than other types of talk as it came last in the hierarchy. Nevertheless, in order to draw conclusions between specific types of adult talk and children’s displays of social behavior, the adult talk and child social behavior hierarchies were necessary for partial interval sampling. Finally, only a teacher report measure was used to examine changes in children’s social competence over time, which limits the generalizability of the findings. However, teacher perception is important because of transactional theories of child development. More specifically, teacher perceptions, similar to parent perceptions (see Warren et al., 2010), likely affect the language input children with ASD receive, which in turn may have cascading effects on children’s development.

Implications for Practice and Future Research

As previously mentioned, the results of this study could be used to augment existing classroom strategies/interv-entions aimed at ameliorating social and other core ASD symptoms (e.g., communication difficulties). Thus, future studies in which teachers are trained to boost the amount of specific types of adult talk to children with ASD (e.g., talk focused on positive social contacts) during existing classroom strategies/interventions are needed to determine if there are indeed differential effects for children in an intervention versus comparison group. Our analysis allowed for an examination of individual types of adult talk thought to be related to socially competent behaviors, while controlling for other types of talk. Future studies are needed to identify the thresholds (i.e., too much or too little) of specific types of adult talk related to changes in the social competence of children with ASD. Studies that further examine the quality of child social behavior (i.e., length and appropriateness of a response) following some form of adult talk as well as how the social behavior of children with ASD changes toward peers in the presence/absence of adults are also needed. Additional investigations are necessary that examine treatment models specifically focused on increasing positive adult talk (e.g., Social Communication/Emotional Regulation/Transactional Support [SCERTS]; Prizant, Wetherby, Rubin, Laurent, & Rydell, 2006) to models that have more generic intervention targets and, in turn, changes children’s social competence. Finally, objective measures of children’s social behavior or those independent of teacher report, such as parent report, collected over time are needed to validate the relationship between adult talk and changes in the social behavior of children with ASD.

Footnotes

Appendix A

Appendix B

Authors’ Note

The opinions expressed represent those of the authors and do not represent views of the Institute or the U.S. Department of Education.

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: The research reported here was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education through Grant R324B070219 awarded to the University of North Carolina (UNC)–Chapel Hill.

References

Achenbach

T. M.

Rescorla

(2000). Caregiver-Teacher Rating Form. Burlington, VT: The University of Vermont.

Akshoomoff

(2006). Use of the Mullen scales of early learning for the assessment of young children with autism spectrum disorders. Child Neuropsychology, 12, 269–277.

American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text rev.). Washington, DC: Author.

Bailey

D. B.

McWilliam

R. A.

Buysse

Wesley

P. W.

(1998). Inclusion in the context of competing values in early childhood education. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13, 27–47.

Boyd

B. A.

Conroy

M. A.

Asmus

J. M.

McKenney

E. L. W.

Mancil

G. R.

(2008). Descriptive analysis of classroom setting events on the social behaviors of children with autism spectrum disorder. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 43, 186–197.

Bricker

(1995). The challenge of inclusion. Journal of Early Intervention, 19, 179–194.

Brown

W. H.

Odom

S. L.

McConnell

S. R.

Rathel

J. M.

(2008). Peer interaction interventions for preschool children with developmental difficulties. In Brown

W. H.

Odom

S. L.

McConnell

S. R.

(Eds.), Social competence of young children: Risk, disability, and intervention (pp. 141–163). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Carter

A. S.

Ornstein-Davis

Klin

Volkmar

F. R.

(2005). Social development in autism. In Ornstein-Davis

(Ed.), Handbook of autism and pervasive developmental disorders (3rd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 312–334). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

Constantino

J. N.

Gruber

C. P.

(2005). Social Responsiveness Scale (SRS). Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services.

10.

Dykstra

J. R.

Sabatos-DeVito

Irvin

D. W.

Boyd

B. A.

Hume

Odom

S. L.

(2013). Using the Language Environment Analysis (LENA) system in preschool classrooms with children with autism spectrum disorders. Autism, 17(5), 582–594.

11.

File

(1994). Children’s play, teacher-child interactions, and teacher beliefs in integrated early childhood programs. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 9, 223–240.

12.

File

Kontos

(1993). The relationship of program quality to children’s play in integrated early intervention settings. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 13, 1–18.

13.

Gallagher

K. C.

Dadisman

Farmer

Huss

Hutchins

B. C.

(2007). Social dynamics of early childhood classrooms: Considerations and implications for teachers. In Saracho

Spodek

(Eds.), Contemporary perspectives in early childhood education: Social learning in early childhood education (pp. 26–44). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

14.

Gotham

Pickles

Lord

(2009). Standardizing ADOS scores for a measure of severity in autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 39, 693–705.

15.

Hart

Risley

T. R.

(1992). American parenting of language-learning children: Persisting differences in family-child interactions observed in natural home environments. Developmental Psychology, 28, 1096–1105.

16.

Hauck

Fein

Warehouse

Feinstein

(1995). Social initiations by autistics children to adults and other children. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 25, 579–595.

17.

Hume

Boyd

Coman

Gutierrez

Shaw

Sperry

. . . Odom

(2009, May). Discriminant analysis & reliability evaluation of fidelity measures for comprehensive treatment models serving young children with ASD. International Meeting for Autism Research, Chicago, IL.

18.

Hume

Loftin

Lantz

(2009). Increasing independence in autism spectrum disorders: A review of three focused interventions. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 39, 1329–1338.

19.

Kim

Vaughn

Elbaum

Hughes

M. T.

Sloan

C. V. M.

Sridhar

(2003). Effects of toys and/or group composition on social behaviors of preschool children with disabilities: A synthesis. Journal of Early Intervention, 25, 189–205.

20.

Kohler

F. W.

Strain

P. S.

(1999). Maximizing peer-mediated resources in integrated preschool classrooms. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 19, 92–102.

21.

Kontos

(1999). Preschool teachers’ talk, roles, and activity settings during free play. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 14, 363–382.

22.

Kontos

Wilcox-Herzog

(1997). Teachers’ interactions with children: Why are they so important? Research in review. Young Children, 52(2), 4–12.

23.

Lord

Bishop

S. L.

(2010). Autism spectrum disorders: Diagnosis, prevalence, and services for children and families. Social Policy Report, 24(2), 1–27.

24.

Mahoney

Wheeden

C. A.

(1999). The effect of teacher-style on interactive engagement of preschool-age children with special learning needs. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 14, 51–68.

25.

Mullen

E. M.

(1995). Mullen Scales of Early Learning. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services.

26.

Phillips

McCartney

Scarr

(1987). Child-care quality and children’s social development. Developmental Psychology, 23, 537–543.

27.

Prizant

B. M.

Wetherby

A. M.

Rubin

Laurent

A. C.

Rydell

(2006). The SCERTS model: A comprehensive educational approach for children with autism spectrum disorders. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

28.

Professional Development in Autism Center. (2008). PDA Program Assessment. Seattle: PDA Center at University of Washington.

29.

Reszka

S. S.

(2010). Ecological features of preschool environments and the social engagement of children with autism spectrum disorder (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (AAT 3418605)

30.

Sainato

D. M.

Jung

Salmon

M. D.

Axe

J. B.

(2008). Classroom influences on young children’s emerging social competence. In Brown

W. H.

Odom

S. L.

McConnell

S. R.

(Eds.), Social competence of young children: Risk, disability, and intervention (pp. 99–116). Baltimore, MA: Paul H. Brookes.

31.

Sameroff

(2010). A unified theory of development: A dialectic integration of nature and nurture. Child Development, 81, 6–22.

32.

SAS Institute. (2010). SAS 9.2. Cary, NC: Author.

33.

Schopler

Reichler

R. J.

Renner

B. R.

(1988). The Childhood Autism Rating Scale. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services.

34.

Sontag

J. C.

(1997). Contextual factors influencing the sociability of preschool children with disabilities in integrated and segregated classrooms. Exceptional Children, 63(3), 389–404.

35.

Stahmer

Collings

Palinkas

(2005). Early intervention practices for children with autism: Descriptors from community providers. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 20, 66–79.

36.

Stanulis

R. N.

Manning

B. M.

(2002). The teacher’s role in creating a positive verbal and nonverbal environment in the early childhood classroom. Early Childhood Education Journal, 30, 3–8.

37.

Strain

P. S.

Hoyson

(2000). The need for longitudinal, intensive social skills intervention: LEAP follow-up outcomes for children with autism. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 20, 116–122.

38.

Strain

P. S.

Schwartz

Bovey

(2008). Social competence interventions for young children with autism: Programmatic research findings and implementation issues In Brown

W. H.

Odom

S. L.

McConnell

S. R.

(Eds.), Social competence of young children: Risk, disability, and intervention (pp. 253–272). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

39.

Tapp

Walden

T. A.

(2000). PROCODER: A system for collection and analysis of observational data from videotape. In Thompson

Felce

Symons

F. J.

(Eds.), Behavioral observation: Technology and applications in developmental disabilities (pp. 61–70). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

40.

Technical Assistance and Dissemination Network (2012). Historical State-Level IDEA Data Files-Education Environments [Data file]. Retrieved from http://tadnet.public.tadnet.org/pages/712

41.

Tsao

Odom

Brown

(2001). Code for active student participation and revised (CASPER III): A training manual for observers. Bloomington: Indiana University.

42.

Warren

S. F.

Gilkerson

Richards

J. A.

Oller

D. K.

Yapanel

Gray

(2010). What automated vocal analysis reveals about the vocal production and language learning environment of young children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 40, 555–569.

43.

Warren

S. F.

Yoder

P. J.

(2004). Early intervention for young children with language impairments. In Verhoeven

van Balkom

(Eds.), Classification of developmental language disorders: Theoretical issues and clinical implications (pp. 367–381). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

44.

Wilcox-Herzog

Kontos

(1998). The nature of teacher talk in early childhood classrooms and its relationship to children’s competence with objects and peers. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 159(1), 30–44.

45.

Wong

Kasari

(2012). Play and joint attention of children with autism in the preschool special education classroom. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 42, 2152–2161.