Knowledge Library

Utilizing Social Stories to Increase Prosocial Behavior and Reduce Problem Behavior in Young Children with Autism

The purpose of this paper was to evaluate the effects of a Social Story intervention on the behavior rates of 4 young children
with autism using a multiple-baseline across participants design. The results of this paper indicate that the Social Story was
modestly effective in increasing prosocial behavior rates in 3 of the 4 participants, though none of the participants reached the
prosocial behavior rates of age and gender-matched peers. The problem behaviors of the participants modestly decreased with
the intervention. Maintenance of skills over a 1-month period was demonstrated for all of the participants. The variable and
inconsistent results of the research add to the current literature base in support of the use of Social Stories for some children with
autism.

The Benefits of Skinner’s Analysis of Verbal Behavior for Children with Autism

Behavior analysis has already contributed substantially to the treatment of children with autism,
and further gains can result from more use of Skinner’s analysis of language in Verbal Behavior
(1957) and in the resulting conceptual and experimental work. The approach emphasizes a unit
of analysis consisting of the relations between behavior, motivative and discriminative variables,
and consequences. Skinner identifies seven types of verbal operants—echoic, mand, tact,
intraverbal, textual, transcriptive, and copying a text—which function as components of more
advanced forms of language. This approach focuses on the development of each verbal operant
(rather than onwords and their meanings) and on the independent training of speaker and listener
repertoires. Five more specific contributions are described that relate to the importance of (a) an
effective language assessment, (b) mand training in early intervention, (c) establishing operations,
(d) an intraverbal repertoire, and (e) automatic reinforcement.

Identifying Good Group Homes: Qualitative Indicators Using a Quality of Life Framework

Despite change toward more individualized support, group homes are likely to remain for people with severe intellectual disability. As such, the search continues for ways to determine and maintain the quality of these settings. This article draws on in-depth qualitative analysis of participant observations conducted over 9-12 months in seven group homes for 21 people with a severe and profound level of intellectual disability. It explores the conceptualization of good outcomes and support for this group in terms of their quality of life and staff practices. The qualitative indicators of good outcomes for this group using quality of life domains can be used by auditors, community visitors, funders, advocates, or family members to guide observation and judgements about group homes.

Outcomes in Different Residential Settings for People With Intellectual Disability: A Systematic Review

Large-scale reviews of research in deinstitutionalization and community living were last conducted about 10 years ago. Here we surveyed research from 1997 to 2007. Articles were included if the researchers based the study on original research, provided information on the participants and methodology, compared residential arrangements for adults with intellectual disability, and were published in English-language peer-reviewed journals. Sixtyeight articles were found. In 7 of 10 domains, the majority of studies show that community-based services are superior to congregate arrangements. These studies provide more evidence of the benefits of deinstitutionalization and community living and continue to indicate variability in results, suggesting that factors other than the basic model of care are important in determining outcomes.

The role of support staff in promoting the social inclusion of persons with an intellectual disability

Background
Past studies have found that people supported in more individualised housing options tend to have levels of community participation and wider social networks than those in other accommodation options. Yet, the contribution of support staff in facilitating social inclusion has received relatively scant attention.

Methods
In all 245 staff working in either supported living schemes, or shared residential and group homes, or in day centres completed a written questionnaire in which they rated in terms of priority to their job, 16 tasks that were supportive of social inclusion and a further 16 tasks that related to the care of the person they supported. In addition staff identified those tasks that they considered were not appropriate to their job.

Results
Across all three service settings, staff rated more care tasks as having higher priority than they did the social inclusion tasks. However, staff in supported living schemes rated more social inclusion tasks as having high priority than did staff in the other two service settings. Equally the staff who were most inclined to rate social inclusion tasks as not being applicable to their job were those working day centres; female rather than male staff, those in front-line staff rather than senior staff, and those in part-time or relief positions rather than full-time posts. However, within each service settings, there were wide variations in how staff rated the social inclusion tasks.

Conclusions
Staff working in more individualised support arrangements tend to give greater priority to promoting social  inclusion although this can vary widely both across and within staff teams. Nonetheless, staff gave greater priority to care tasks especially in congregated service settings. Service managers may need to give more emphasis to social inclusion tasks and provide the leadership, training and resources to facilitate support staff to re-assess their priorities.