Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities

http://foa.sagepub.com Using a Modified Social Story to Decrease Disruptive Behavior of a Child With Autism
Shannon Crozier and Matthew J. Tincani Focus Autism Other Dev Disabl 2005; 20; 150 DOI: 10.1177/10883576050200030301 The online version of this article can be found at: http://foa.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/20/3/150

Published by: Hammill Institute on Disabilities

and
http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities can be found at: Email Alerts: http://foa.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://foa.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Downloaded from http://foa.sagepub.com by georgela taranu on April 17, 2009

Using a Modified Social Story to Decrease Disruptive Behavior of a Child With Autism
Shannon Crozier and Matthew J. Tincani

Despite the popularity of Social StoriesTM as an intervention for disruptive behavior in children with autism, there have been few investigations on the effectiveness of Social Stories. Scattone, Wilczynski, Edwards, and Rabian (2002) found that Social Stories decreased challenging behaviors in children with autism, but they identified verbal prompts as a source of variability to be examined in future study. The current study examined the effects of a modified social story, with and without verbal prompts, on the disruptive behavior of a student with autism in his preschool classroom. A reversal design was used to compare the effectiveness of the modified social story with and without verbal prompts. The disruptive behavior decreased during both phases of the intervention but to a greater degree when the story was paired with prompting. Maintenance probes conducted 2 weeks after intervention revealed that the modified social story had become a regular instructional routine for the student. Results are discussed in relation to study limitations, applications, and directions for future research.

utism is characterized by impairments in social interaction and communication, as well as restricted repertoires of behavior (American Psychiatric Association, 2000). In children with autism, these impairments commonly result in problem behaviors. Problem behaviors can negatively affect a persons ability to participate in family and community life and to access educational opportunities (Dunlap & Fox, 1999). Interventions that reduce problem behaviors can make significant improvements in the quality of life for people with challenging behaviors and others in the community (Carr et al., 2002). A Social Story is one positive behavior intervention for students with autism. A Social Story is a short, simple story written from the perspective of the child that delivers instruction on appropriate social behaviors (Gray & Garand, 1993). Stories are carefully designed to be within the comprehension level of the target child. Social Stories are potentially beneficial for several reasons. First, they capitalize on the visual learn-

ing strengths of students with autism (Quill, 1997). Second, the stories book format is unobtrusive in an educational setting and, therefore, less stigmatizing. Third, the stories provide concrete instruction that students can easily reference repeatedly until they master a skill. Finally, teachers and parents find the stories to be an effective, user-friendly tool (Ivey, Heflin, & Alberto, 2004; Smith, 2000). Much anecdotal evidence supports the effectiveness of Social Stories (Gray & Garand, 1993; Simpson & Myles, 1998; Rowe, 1999). Students with autism tend to be strong visual learners, and Social Stories provide instruction in a medium of strength without the complexity of interpersonal interaction (Scattone, Wilczynski, Edwards, & Rabian, 2002). Despite the rich anecdotal evidence, few studies have examined the use of Social Stories for behavior change (Sansosti, Powell-Smith, & Kincaid, 2004). Existing studies fall into three categories: case studies, studies that pair Social Stories with other interventions, and Social Storyonly interventions with an experimental design. In one case study, Swaggart and Gagnon (1995) reported a decrease in the problem behaviors of all three of their participants after the introduction of Social Stories. They, however, did not use a formal experimental design to organize their study, reporting instead on informally gathered information. Furthermore, they paired the use of Social Stories with a behavioral social-skills training program, making it impossible to determine which intervention produced the desired behavior change. Two single-participant studies, Kuttler, Myles, and Carlson (1998) and Norris and Dattilo (1999), were the first to use an experimental design and to report data. Kuttler et al. (1998) used an ABAB design, thereby addressing some of the methodological difficulties of the Swaggart and Gagnon (1995) study. Results indicated a significant reduction in problem behaviors during the intervention. Because the participants functioning level was lower than initially recommended by Gray and Garand (1993), the success of the intervention suggests that Social Stories may be useful for children with

FOCUS ON AUTISM AND OTHER DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES VOLUME 20, NUMBER 3, FALL 2005 Downloaded from http://foa.sagepub.com by georgela taranu on April 17, 2009 PAGES 150157

VOLUME 20, NUMBER 3, FALL 2005

151 lower cognitive skills. Norris and Dattilos (1999) study examined the effects of Social Stories on the inappropriate behaviors of an 8-year-old girl with autism in an inclusive classroom. The results were highly variable and inconclusive. Their findings were limited by the AB design of the experiment and by external variables at home and school that the authors acknowledged were beyond their control. The first study to use multimedia Social Stories targeted handwashing or on-task behaviors in three boys with autism (Hagiwara & Myles, 1999). Hagiwara and Myles found no consistent results in their multiple-baseline experiment. Given the variable results of the effectiveness of Social Stories reported thus far, it is not possible to determine whether the lack of effect in this study was due to the use of Social Stories, the multimedia medium, or other confounding variables. In another case study, Smith (2000) conducted two 1-day workshops for parents, teachers, and assistants on making and using Social Stories. Workshop participants created Social Stories in groups, and some participants implemented the stories outside of the workshop. Participants completed an evaluation of their perceptions of the efficacy of the stories and their impressions of using them. Although no behavior change data were included in Smiths paper, the feedback from participants indicating satisfaction with the Social Story intervention supports the social validity findings of other researchers. Rogers and Myles (2001) reported on a case study of a 14year-old boy with autism and his responses to Social Stories and Comic Strip Conversations. In their brief report, Rogers and Myles described the positive behavioral changes of their participant; however, the lack of baseline data and the lack of methodological information make it difficult to understand exactly how the behavioral changes came about. Thiemann and Goldstein (2001) included Social Stories in a multicomponent intervention for five students with autism and social deficits. A systematic intervention program consisting of Social Stories, cue cards, role-play, and video feedback was introduced to participants across a multiple-baseline design. The combined treatment was effective in increasing specific social skills, and results were replicated across four different behaviors. Once again, the combination of Social Stories with other interventions prohibits conclusions being drawn on the effectiveness of Social Stories individually. Two recent dissertations have used group experiment designs to assess Social Stories. Feinberg (2001) found significantly higher levels of social skills in the treatment group at posttest. Limitations regarding the delivery, the short duration, and the clinical setting make it difficult, however, to transfer these findings to the natural environment. Romano (2002) also found that Social Stories reduced the problem behaviors in the treatment group, although there also was some reduction of problem behaviors in the control group. Her findings are limited by the fact that treatment and control groups were part of the same classroom, making it difficult to control for contamination. Furthermore, although Romanos results at posttest were promising, neither the treatment nor the control group maintained the behavior after the intervention. Scattone et al. (2002) targeted the problem behavior of three participants with autism using a Social Storyonly intervention in a multiple-baseline design. Problem behaviors decreased across all participants. The authors identified verbal prompting of the Social Story content by teachers as a possible source of variability and recommended further study to assess its influence. Kuoch and Mirenda (2003) isolated Social Stories with three participants ages 3 to 6 years using a reversal design. Intervention took place in home and school settings. For two participants, a simple ABAB design was used to compare Social Stories to a baseline condition. For the third participant, an ACABA design was used to compare Social Stories with a baseline condition and a nonSocial Story book plus adult attention condition. The C condition was included to determine whether behavior change could be attributed to the individualized attention received during the Social Story intervention. Results indicated a significant decrease in problem behaviors for all participants in the Social Story condition and no decrease in the nonSocial Story book plus adult attention condition. There was no treatment reversal for any participant, suggesting irreversible learning as a result of intervention. Most recently, Ivey et al. (2004) used a reversal design to examine the effects of Social Stories on the independent behavior of three participants during novel events. Target skills for each novel event were described in Social Stories, and interventionists verbally repeated cues during the sessions. Participants increased their independent behaviors 15% to 30% over the baseline in the Social Story conditions. The use of verbal reminders during each session appears to be a systematic version of the informal verbal prompts observed in Scattone et al. (2002). Ivey et al. did not examine the differences between verbal reminders and no reminders. The researchers use of the reminders is interesting, however, because it deviates from Grays (2000) intervention guidelines and because of the mention of such prompts as a possible confound in an earlier study. Although many of these studies show promising results, methodological limitations highlight the need for careful experimental design and rigorous replication (Sansosti et al., 2004). The purpose of the current study was to extend the research base by examining the effectiveness of Social Stories in reducing the disruptive behavior of a student with autism in his preschool environment. In particular, this study examined the effect of a modified Social Story, with and without verbal prompts. A standardized reading assessment was used to systematically match the participants reading level with the text. The frequency of problem behavior during baseline and intervention was compared to determine effect. A second purpose was to assess the effectiveness of a Social Story that deviated from Grays (2000) guidelines. These guidelines, though clear and specific, have yet to be systemat-

Downloaded from http://foa.sagepub.com by georgela taranu on April 17, 2009

FOCUS ON AUTISM AND OTHER DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES

152 ically verified. Moreover, Gray (1994) suggests that deviations from the guidelines may be appropriate in some instances. Therefore, the goal was to determine whether a modified Social Story would be effective in reducing challenging behaviors.

Target Behavior
Teacher interviews were conducted to identify Alexs disruptive behaviors and the settings in which the behaviors were most likely to occur. One target behavior, talking out, was identified by the teachers in response to the question What single behavior most interferes with this students ability to succeed at school? Once talking out was identified as the target behavior, classroom staff were further interviewed to determine when, where, and with whom the behavior was most likely to occur. Alexs classroom teacher was also asked what purpose she thought the talking-out behavior served. The teachers intuition was supported by analysis of her responses to the Motivational Assessment Scale (MAS; Durand & Crimmins, 1992). After the interviews, the first author conducted a classroom observation. This information gathering was conducted to ensure that the modified Social Story would accurately address the target behavior. The information that was gathered revealed that Alex was most likely to talk out during independent work times when he did not have the direct attention of one of the staff members. He sought the attention of all staff without discrimination. Alexs talking out did not appear to increase or decrease according to his location in the classroom. When Alex succeeded in gaining a staff members attention, he would talk until he was directed to work quietly again. After this redirection, Alex would return to his task without complaint and would work quietly for a couple of minutes before talking out again.

Method
Participant
The participant in this study was an 8-year-old boy with autism who had been diagnosed by his pediatrician. He was an only child of middle-class parents. Alex attended a private school for students with challenging behaviors. His teachers nominated Alex for the study because he was leaving the school soon and they were concerned that his behavior would make the transition difficult. The criteria for including the participant in the study were (a) a diagnosis of autism, (b) the presence of prerequisite skills, and (c) the classroom teachers willingness to use the intervention. Prerequisite skills included emergent literacy skills and demonstrated ability to sit and read a book with adult support. At his parents request, Alex had not participated in any formal assessments. For the study, Alexs reading skills were assessed using the Analytical Reading Inventory (ARI; Woods & Moe, 2003). The ARI is an informal reading inventory designed for use in classroom and clinical settings to provide information on how a reader processes text (Woods & Moe, 2003). Graded word lists, passages, and comprehension questions were administered to the participant, one on one. Alexs score on the ARI showed that he had solid emerging literacy skills. He knew all of his letters and correctly read 90% of the preprimer word list and 40% of the primer word list. On the preprimer reading passage, Alex correctly read 85% of the words. He answered 75% of the comprehension questions correctly, including the interpretive question. His teachers confirmed that Alex loved to read books and quickly mastered simple new sight words in books and the environment.

Response Definitions and Recording Procedures

Event recording was used to measure the target behavior, and each occurrence was recorded as one event during the 30minute observation session. The target behavior for Alex was talking out. Talking out was defined as talking to teachers or other adults without raising his hand or being called on to speak. Examples of talking out include asking questions, making comments, and requesting assistance. Nonexamples include self-talk during play, responding to a teacher, and saying good morning when a teacher or student arrived at school. One incident of talking out was counted for each utterance. An utterance was considered to be anything from a single word to a group of sentences. A new incident was recorded when Alex had stopped speaking for more than 5 seconds or changed the person to whom he was speaking.

Setting
The setting for the intervention was a classroom in a private preschool for children with developmental disabilities and challenging behavior in a major metropolitan area of the southwestern United States. The intervention took place during a structured independent activity session in a classroom with 15 to 19 students, depending on daily attendance. The expectation for students behavior during this session was to work quietly and independently at a station on an activity of the students choice. There were three teachers and one volunteer assistant in the class. During both the baseline and intervention phases, regular classroom activity continued for the students who did not participate. The first author conducted the modified Social Story intervention sessions and collected observation data. The volunteer assistant and one of the teachers assisted in collecting interobserver agreement data.

Materials
Modified Social Story. Based on the information gathered from the classroom staff, the first author wrote a modified Social Story for Alex that targeted his disruptive behavior and described functionally similar replacement behavior. Although the story contained descriptive, perspective, and directive sentences, as well as illustrations that reflected Alexs

Downloaded from http://foa.sagepub.com by georgela taranu on April 17, 2009

VOLUME 20, NUMBER 3, FALL 2005

153 interests, it deviated from Grays (2000) guidelines in some key ways. First, the ratio of directive to perspective and descriptive sentences recommended by Gray is 1:25. Alexs story had a ratio of 3:5. Second, the story did not include such words as sometimes or usually. These types of words are typically used to protect against the literal expectations of students with autism. The decision to write a story that deviated from Grays guidelines was made to accommodate Alexs academic level. The intention was to write a story that Alex would eventually be able to use independently, thus reducing the amount of teacherstudent instruction. To achieve this goal, the story was shorter than many of the example stories in the literature. Additionally, more complex and abstract words (e.g., usually) were eliminated, as Alex had not yet demonstrated the literacy skills for reading such words independently. The story followed the guidelines for emergent reader texts recommended in the Fountas/Pinnell Book Gradient System (Fountas & Pinnell, 1996). Specifically, the story vocabulary included known words as much as possible, key words were repeated throughout the story, the print appeared at the same place on each page and was clearly separated from the pictures, and words were clearly separated for easy pointing. The modified Social Story was seven pages long. Story text was printed in 14-point Helvetica, with a maximum of two sentences per page. Each page included a line drawing illustrating the main point. Stories were printed on white 812 11 paper and stapled at the top, middle, and bottom of the left side of the page. Story text is included in Figure 1. Data Collection Form. The data collection form used during observation sessions was an 812 11 tally sheet with the target behavior across the top and date and time slots along the left side of the page. The observer held the sheets on a clipboard and sat 5 to 8 feet away from the participant during observations. These procedures had been ineffective in reducing Alexs target behavior. During observation sessions, the observers sat 5 to 8 feet away from the participant. Every effort was made to make it appear that observers were engaged in meaningful activities unrelated to the participant, such as marking papers. The first day of intervention consisted of a training session. During the training session, the students who were not participating in the study continued with regular classroom activities. The training session began with the author approaching Alex and saying, I have a new story for you! Come sit with me and lets read it together. The author and the student went into the classroom next door and sat diagonally across a table from one another. The author showed the student the cover of the book and introduced the story (This is a story about talking at school.). The author instructed, Lets read this story out loud. Then Im going to ask you some questions. The author listened to Alex read the story aloud. If Alex had difficulty with a word, the author read the word and then asked him to repeat the sentence. After the first reading of the story, the author showed Alex four visual comprehension questions and asked him to circle his answers. Then the author and Alex returned to the other classroom. Two interventions were used: a modified Social Story without verbal prompts (Phase B) and a modified Social Story with verbal prompts (Phase C). The first author conducted all intervention sessions. Phase B sessions began with the researcher saying to Alex, Its time to read your story! and taking Alex to the classroom next door to read the story. Alex would then read the story aloud. At the end of all intervention sessions, the researcher asked, Whats the rule for talking in school? as a comprehension check. After reading, Alex and the author immediately returned to the other classroom, and Alex resumed his structured play activity. Phase C intervention sessions consisted of two parts. The first part, the reading of the story, was identical to the procedure for Phase B. During the target activity immediately following the story reading, however, verbal prompts were used during the observation period. Prompts were given on a variable interval schedule at an average of once every 6 minutes. The verbal prompt for Alex was Remember to raise your hand when you want to talk to a teacher. The variable interval schedule for prompt delivery was selected to ensure that

Experiment Design
This study used an ABAC reversal design (Barlow & Hersen, 1984). In the baseline phase (A), Alex was observed for 30 minutes in his regular classroom setting to assess the rates of the target behavior. In the first intervention phase (B), the modified Social Story was read immediately before the observation period. After six sessions of Phase B, the Social Story intervention was withdrawn to baseline conditions. In the second intervention phase (C), the Social Story intervention resumed with the addition of verbal prompts. During maintenance probes, when the Social Story procedures had been transferred to the classroom staff who incorporated it into their routine, Alex was observed without receiving any intervention from the first author.

Social Story Text: Talking at School At school I play games and work. I like to talk to the teachers. When I want to talk to the teachers, I don't call out. I put up my hand. I look at the teacher. I wait quietly. When the teacher talks to me, then I can talk. Everyone is happy when I put up my hand and wait. FIGURE 1. Alexs Social Story Text.

Baseline and Intervention Procedures

The baseline phase consisted of classroom staff conducting regular instruction and behavior management procedures.

Downloaded from http://foa.sagepub.com by georgela taranu on April 17, 2009

FOCUS ON AUTISM AND OTHER DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES

154 prompts would be equally distributed across the observation session independent of participant behavior. Additionally, because it was determined that Alexs talking out was reinforced by teacher attention, it was important for the verbal cues to occur independently of talking out. Otherwise, verbal prompts could inadvertently reinforce Alexs inappropriate behavior. observation by another students behavior. Excluding that session, IOA ranged from 84% to 100%.

Results
Talk-Outs
Overall, Alex demonstrated a reduction in his disruptive behavior of talking out as a result of the intervention (see Figure 2). The number of behavior incidents during the first baseline phase averaged 11.2 talk-outs during a 30-minute observation period. During the Social Storyonly intervention, his talk-outs dropped to an average of 2.3 per 30-minute observation session. In the second baseline phase, talk-outs rose to an average of 8 per 30-minute observation session. In the final intervention phase, Social Story plus verbal prompts, talkouts dropped to an average of 0.2 per 30-minute observation session. The rates of behavior were most stable during the final intervention phase, with 5 days of consistent data. During the two maintenance observation sessions, Alexs talk-outs remained at zero. The teachers reported that Alex initially read his story daily, but his reading became more inconsistent after several days. Although no data were recorded on how frequently he read the story at the time of the maintenance observations, the teachers estimated his reading at an average of twice a week. Verbal prompting was not used consistently with Alex during the maintenance sessions, although the teachers delivered occasional prompts to all students as part of regular classroom management. Alex was prompted once during the first maintenance session and not prompted at all during the second session. Anecdotally, Alex appeared to enjoy the Social Story interventions. After the first training session and upon seeing the first author arrive at the school, he would say, Im ready to read my book now! It was also noted that, throughout the day, Alex would raise his hand to tell a teacher, Im not allowed to call out. After the study ended, when the first author returned to the school, Alex would ask to read the Social Story with her and would appear disappointed when this was not possible.

Maintenance
Two maintenance probes were conducted 2 weeks after the final intervention session. After the final intervention session, the Social Story was left with preschool staff who had asked to continue to have Alex read the story each morning before he selected his first activity. Staff learned to use the modified Social Story by observing the first author and Alex read the story, receiving verbal directions from the first author on how to use the story, and then reading the story with Alex with feedback from the author. Staff reported that Alex read the social story most, though not all, mornings and that he now required only infrequent redirection. During the maintenance probes, the author arrived at the preschool 20 to 40 minutes after Alex arrived and observed him during independent work. Alex asked each morning if he could read his story again with the author. He was directed back to his activity, and the observation session began.

Treatment Integrity
A checklist was used to assess treatment integrity for each session. On the checklist, the author indicated whether the participant had completed all the steps of reading the story and answering the comprehension question each day. During 25% of the intervention sessions, a teacher from the preschool was present to complete a second checklist. Interobserver agreement was computed as a percentage by dividing the number of agreements by the number of agreements plus disagreements and multiplying by 100. The author completed 100% of the checklist steps across both intervention phases. Interobserver agreement for the treatment integrity checklists was also 100%.

Interobserver Agreement of the Dependent Variable

Interobserver agreement (IOA) data were collected on 25% of the observation sessions. IOA sessions were selected on the basis of the availability of preschool staff. The volunteer who conducted most of the IOA sessions worked part-time and was not available to assist if other staff members were absent. IOA was collected for three baseline sessions and three social story sessions distributed across phases. IOA was calculated by dividing agreements by agreements plus disagreements and multiplying by 100. The mean for IOA was 90%, with a range of 63% to 100%. Only one session had an IOA of 63%, due primarily to the volunteer assistant being interrupted during the

Social Validity
Teacher acceptance of the intervention was assessed before the intervention began and again after the final phase was completed. The author interviewed teachers about whether they thought the modified Social Story was an appropriate intervention for their classroom and if they would be comfortable continuing to use a modified Social Story after the completion of the study. Before the study began, the preschool staff had never used a modified Social Story before. They responded favorably to the idea and said that they thought such a strategy would work well within the preschool structure. After the completion of the study, the first author interviewed each teacher about her

Downloaded from http://foa.sagepub.com by georgela taranu on April 17, 2009

VOLUME 20, NUMBER 3, FALL 2005

155
Social Story with prompts Maintenance

Number of Talk-outs

FIGURE 2. Number of Talk-Outs Across Phases.

impressions of the intervention and the potential benefit versus the effort of using the Social Story. All the teachers reported favorable impressions of the effect of the modified Social Story and indicated that they would like to learn how to write other stories so they could continue to use them with the participant and other students. One teacher committed to having Alex read his story each morning. Two teachers asked for Social Stories for other students in the school.

Discussion
The results suggest that the modified Social Story was an effective intervention for lowering the disruptive behavior of a preschool student with autism. Compared to the first baseline, significant reduction in talk-outs occurred with the introduction of the modified Social Story. After a return to the baseline condition, an even greater reduction in challenging behavior occurred with the reintroduction of the modified Social Story with verbal prompts. Maintenance probes conducted 2 weeks after intervention indicated that low levels of problem behavior were maintained after the experiment ended and that the modified Social Story was incorporated into the students regular education routine. As noted, treatment reversal was observed after 2 days in the second baseline phase, but not during the maintenance probes. One possible explanation is that six sessions were insufficient for mastery of the new behavior. Another possibility is that the story plus prompts was more effective in producing lasting behavior change. In the future, these possible explanations could be examined by (a) increasing the length of the first intervention phase to see how many additional sessions

would be required to achieve mastery or (b) using the Social Story plus prompts condition first to determine whether that intervention is more effective in producing mastery. The results support previous studies (e.g., Kuttler et al., 1998) that found reductions in challenging behaviors through the use of Social Stories. The current study examined the effects of a modified Social Story paired with an additional variable, verbal prompts, which were delivered on a variable interval schedule. The data suggest that the verbal prompts served as effective reminders for the participant to follow classroom rules and to refrain from disruptive responses. It is therefore recommended that when Social Stories are used in typical classrooms, teachers provide regular prompts for students to engage in appropriate behaviors, at least initially. As observed during the maintenance sessions, Alex was able to maintain low rates of talking out with fewer prompts than during intervention. This may suggest that Alex benefited from the prompting while acquiring the new skill of handraising, but once his proficiency increased, he did not require prompting to maintain that skill. The data also suggest that using a standardized reading assessment, such as the ARI (Woods & Moe, 2003), is an appropriate method for identifying story vocabulary. For Social Stories to be effective in typical classrooms, they should be systematically matched to each students reading level. Another contribution of this study is the finding that teachers reported favorable opinions of the modified Social Story and continued to use it after completion of the study. This finding indicates that a modified Social Story is not only effective in reducing problem behavior but also likely to be accepted by teachers and incorporated into typical classroom routines.

Downloaded from http://foa.sagepub.com by georgela taranu on April 17, 2009

FOCUS ON AUTISM AND OTHER DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES

156 Two factors may limit the generality of the findings to other students with autism and challenging behaviors. First, the ABAC design used in the study did not establish a functional relationship between the use of verbal prompts and further reductions in challenging behavior. Additional replications (e.g., ABACBC) would be necessary to confirm that verbal prompts enhanced the effectiveness of Social Stories. Still, reductions in talk-outs with the use of verbal prompts in Phase C suggest that the prompts were a useful addition to the Social Stories routine. A second limitation was the use of only one participant. Additional replications of the intervention with two or more participants would strengthen conclusions regarding the effectiveness of Social Stories, both with and without prompts. Another limitation was the use of an indirect assessment, the MAS (Durand & Crimmins, 1992), to determine the function of Alexs challenging behavior. A functional analysis (Iwata, Dorsey, Slifer, Bauman, & Richman, 1984) would have provided more conclusive evidence about the function of his behavior. Finally, this study met its goal of assessing the effectiveness of a modified Social Story and demonstrates that a story that deviates from the parameters set by Gray (2000) was effective in changing Alexs behavior. This suggests that there may be flexibility within Grays parameters that still allow for a successful Social Story. Indeed, Gray (1994) indicated this in a Social Story training tool that instructs the reader to Keep in mind effective Social Stories have been written which deviated from the guidelines (p. 1). To date, the Social Story guidelines have not been validated. The success of a modified Social Story in changing the behavior of a child with autism suggests the need for future research to examine the guidelines for writing Social Stories. In future studies, researchers could examine the role of gestural, written, or other prompts in addition to verbal prompts in combination with Social Stories. An alternating treatments design (Barlow & Hersen, 1984), which readily allows for comparisons between interventions, could be used to examine the effects of Social Stories with and without various types and levels of prompting. Futhermore, studies to extend the investigation of Ivey et al. (2004) on the different applications of Social Stories would broaden the support for wider application of this popular tool. Researchers also could examine procedures for fading Social Stories and prompts from the instructional setting to promote student independence. Finally, although some young children with autism possess emergent literacy skills, other children may not have acquired reading skills sufficient to comprehend beginning-level text. Given the visual learning strengths that characterize this population, future studies could examine the effects of Social Stories that rely exclusively on picture-based depictions of classrooms and other settings for children who lack basic literacy skills.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS

havioral interventions for children with autism and school-wide positive behavior support. Matthew J. Tincani, PhD, is an assistant professor at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Address: Shannon Crozier, Department of Special Education, 4505 Maryland Parkway, Box 453014, Las Vegas, NV 89154-3014; e-mail: croziers@unlv.nevada.edu

REFERENCES

Shannon Crozier, MEd, is a doctoral student in special education at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Her current interests include be-

American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text rev.). Washington, DC: Author. Barlow, D. H., & Hersen, M. (1984). Single case experimental designs: Strategies for studying behavior change (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Carr, E. G., Dunlap, G., Horner, R. H., Koegel, R. L., Turnbull, A. P., Sailor, W., et al. (2002). Positive behavior support: Evolution of an applied science. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 4(1), 416. Dunlap, G., & Fox, L. (1999). A demonstration of behavioral support for young children with autism. Journal of Positive Behavioral Interventions, 1(2), 7787. Durand, V. M., & Crimmins, D. B. (1992). The Motivational Assessment Scale. Topeka, KS: Monaco & Associates. Feinberg, M. J. (2001). Using social stories to teach specific social skills to individuals diagnosed with autism. Dissertation Abstracts International. B. The Physical Sciences & Engineering. 62(8), 3797. (UMI No. 3024504) Fountas, I. C., & Pinnell, G. S. (1996). Guided reading: Good for first teaching for all children. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Gray, C. (1994). The Social Story quiz. Jenison, MI: Jenison Public Schools, Social Stories UnlimitedTM. Gray, C. (2000). Writing Social Stories with Carol Gray. Arlington, TX: Future Horizons. Gray, C. A., & Garand, J. D. (1993). Social stories: Improving responses of students with autism with accurate social information. Focus on Autistic Behavior, 8(1), 110. Hagiwara, T., & Myles, B. S. (1999). A multimedia social story intervention: Teaching skills to children with autism. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 14(2), 8295. Ivey, M. L., Heflin, J., & Alberto, P. (2004). The use of social stories to promote independent behaviors in novel events for children with PDD-NOS. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 19(3), 164176. Iwata, B. A., Dorsey, M. F., Slifer, K. J., Bauman, K. E., & Richman, G. S. (1994). Toward a functional analysis of self-injury. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 197209. Kuoch, H., & Mirenda, P. (2003). Social story interventions for young children with autism spectrum disorders. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 18(4), 219227. Kuttler, S., Myles, B. S., & Carlson, J. K. (1998). The use of social stories to reduce precursors to tantrum behavior in a student with autism. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilitites, 13(3), 176182. Norris, C., & Dattilo, J. (1999). Evaluating effects of a social story intervention on a young girl with autism. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 14(3), 180186. Quill, K. (1997). Instructional considerations for young children with autism: The rationale for visually cued instruction. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 27, 697713.

Downloaded from http://foa.sagepub.com by georgela taranu on April 17, 2009

VOLUME 20, NUMBER 3, FALL 2005

157
Rogers, M., & Myles, B. S. (2001). Using social stories and comic strip conversations to interpret social situations for an adolescent with Asperger syndrome. Intervention in School and Clinic, 36, 310313. Romano, J. (2002). Are social stories effective in modifying behavior in children with autism? Dissertation Abstracts International. B. The Physical Sciences & Engineering. 63(2), 1046. (UMI No. 3044313) Rowe, C. (1999). Do social stories benefit children with autism in mainstream primary schools? British Journal of Special Education, 26(1), 1214. Sansosti, F. J., Powell-Smith, K. A., & Kincaid, D. (2004). A research synthesis of social story intervention for children with autism spectrum disorders. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 19(4), 194204. Scattone, D., Wilczynski, S. M., Edwards, R. P., & Rabian, B. (2002). Decreasing disruptive behaviors of children with autism using social stories. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 32(6), 535543. Simpson, R. L., & Myles, B. S. (1998). Aggression among children and youth who have Aspergers syndrome: A different population requiring different strategies. Preventing School Failure, 42(4), 149 153. Smith, C. (2000). Using social stories to enhance behavior in children with autistic spectrum difficulties. Educational Psychology in Practice, 17(4), 337345. Swaggart, B. L., & Gagnon, E. (1995). Using social stories to teach social and behavioral skills to children with autism. Focus on Autistic Behavior, 10(1), 116. Thiemann, K. S., & Goldstein, H. (2001). Social stories, written text cues, and video feedback: Effects on social communication of children with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 34, 425 446. Woods, M. L., & Moe, A. J. (2003). Analytical reading inventory: Comprehensive assessment for all students including gifted and remedial. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Downloaded from http://foa.sagepub.com by georgela taranu on April 17, 2009