social skills training children learning disabilities p

8/6/2019 Social Skills Training Children Learning Disabilities P

1/26

Social Skills Training in LD Funderburk, Schwartz, Nye

1

Title: Social Skills Training for Children with Learning Disabilities1

2

Lead Reviwer: Lucy Funderburk3

Co-Reviewers: Jamie Schwartz4

Chad Nye5

6

7

Contact Reviewer:8

9Chad Nye10UCF CARD11

12001 Science Dr12

Suite 14513Orlando, FL 3282614

15


2/26

Social Skills Training in LD Funderburk, Nye, Schwartz

2

According to the 2006 Annual Report by the National Center for Learning Disabilities1

(NCLD), there are over 15 million children, adolescents and adults with learning disabilities in2

the United States (US) alone. Over the past 35 years, the term learning disability (LD) has been3

used to identify and subsequently inform instruction for children struggling in the classroom. The4

characteristics typically defining children with LD include recognition of a neurological5

processing disorder impacting oral or written language as exhibited in tasks involving speaking,6

listening, reading, writing, spelling, or mathematic calculations. (IDEA, 34 Code of Federal7

Regulations 300.8 (c)(10); NJCLD, 1997, ). The term learning disability does not include8

individuals with sensory impairment (e.g., deaf, blind), mental retardation, emotional disturbance,9

or environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage; although individuals with these10

handicapping conditions frequently have difficulty learning [IDEA, 34 Code of Federal11

Regulations 300.8 (c)(10); NJCLD, 1997]. Unfortunately, the definition of LD is not universal12

and does not necessarily cross international boundaries. In other countries (e.g., United Kingdom,13

Belgium), the term learning disability refers to individuals with mental retardation. In these14

countries terms such as dyslexia, dyscalculia, and dysgraphia are used to identify those15

children who have specific difficulties learning and may not necessarily be identified as LD based16

on the US definition.17

Although the definition of learning disabilitycenters on the difficulties in academic18

achievement, difficulties in self-regulation, social perception, and social interaction also may exist19

in children with LD. Social skill deficits in children with LD have the potential to affect20

adversely not only their social interactions but academic achievement as well. Researchers21

(Kavale & Forness, 1996; Kavale & Mostert, 2004; Swanson & Malone, 1992) have22


3/26


3

demonstrated the importance of social competence on the overall development and well-being of1

children with learning disabilities.2

Implications of Social Skills Deficits3

Social skills can refer to a wide range of behaviors and abilities, which can be categorized4

as behaviors associated with social interactions (Kavale & Forness, 1996), and social competence5

(McFall, 1982). These dimensions of social interactions and competence can include friendliness,6

helpfulness, self-control, the ability to cooperate, and the ability to share (LaGreca, 1987). The7

positive attributes of these social behaviors result in successful social interactions for the child8

while the negative attributes are viewed as deficits that can lead to problems such as aggression,9

impulsiveness, acting out, and an overall inability to get along with peers in social situations10

(LaGreca, 1987).11

Social interaction and competence deficits prove to be a defining characteristic of most12

individuals with LD, especially in children and adolescents. Kavale and Forness (1995)13

suggested that social skills deficits are a prominent feature in 75% of children with LD. The14

implication of such a high rate of social deficit is that children and adolescents with LD are faced15

with compound deficits that impact both the quality of life and academic performance in school.16

Few would argue that development of social skills does not play an important role in how all17

children adapt to both societal and academic pressures, thus the presence of social skill and18

competence difficulties can only exacerbate the lack of school success for children with LD.19

Social skill and competency deficits are readily identified at the pre- and early adolescence20

age. Social skill deficits have been shown to increase chances of involvement with juvenile21

authorities, legal problems, or both (Parker & Asher, 1987; Bender & Wall, 1994; Winters, 1997).22


4/26


4

In addition, Seidel and Vaughn (1991), Bear, Kortering and Braziel (2006), and Reschly and1

Christenson (2006) have all found that youth with LD are at a higher risk of dropping out of2

school. An understanding of difficulties that these students face (Sabornie, 1994) and the impact3

that these deficits have on factors such as peer status and acceptance (Bruininks, 1978; Dudley-4

Marling & Edmiaston, 1985; Wiener, 1987), the student-teacher relationship (Brophy, 1979;5

Garrett & Crump, 1980; Siperstein & Goding, 1985; Northcutt,1986; Seidel & Vaughn, 1991),6

self-concept and perceptions of others (Gresham & Reschly, 1986, Bryan, 1991), and adjustment7

later on in life (Parker & Asher, 1987; Gerber et al, 1990; Kavale & Forness, 1996; Winters,8

1997; Moisan, 1998) may be important to academic success. Thus, attention to interventions that9

will remediate these deficits may be an important component of an individuals educational10

program.11

Social Skills Training (SST)12

SST has been approached from several different cognitive and behavioral intervention13

models such as direct instruction, coaching, modeling, rehearsal, shaping, prompting, and14

reinforcement. Though these models have distinctly unique dimensions they all share the same15

core goal of developing more normalized social behaviors in children and adolescents with16

learning disabilities. The interventions for the various social skills and competencies target17

behaviors such as learning how to listen, ask questions, and ask for assistance; anger control;18

disappointment management; or, demonstrating appropriate emotions and expression of feelings.19

Evidence regarding SST can be drawn from at least three different types of research information20

including primary studies, narrative reviews, and meta-analyses.21

Findings from Primary Studies22


5/26


5

SST has been advocated by many in the research community as an effective means to treat1

social skills deficits in children and adolescents with LD. For instance, Amerikaner & Summerlin2

(1982) found that group counseling and relaxation techniques were effective in promoting social3

self-esteem and reducing the probability of acting out and distracting others. Likewise, Omizo &4

Omizo (1988) incorporated similar techniques into a treatment program and found that the5

individuals who participated scored significantly higher on the Piers-Harris Childrens Self-6

Concept Scale (Piers, 1969). Trapani and Gettinger (1989) studied the effects of SST and tutoring7

on school-aged boys with LD and found that a combination of a direct instruction method for SST8

and cross-aged tutoring had a positive effect on both the childs overall communication ability9

and academic test scores.10

SST interventions that focus on role-playing, modeling, and feedback have also reported11

mixed or inconclusive findings. Berler, Gross, and & Drabman (1982) found that a five-week12

intervention implemented in group sessions was effective in improving appropriate verbalizations13

and speech duration. However, there was no noted improvement in observed sociometric ratings14

by peers. Hart (1996), who applied a cross-age tutoring and social skills training program similar15

to Trapani but applied to school-aged girls with LD, reported inconclusive results suggesting that16

any social intervention must take into account gender differences.17

Not all research has produced positive intervention effects. Some studies have reported an18

absence of compelling results to support SST (Berler, Gross, & Drabman, 1982; Straub &19

Roberts, 1983; Wanat, 1983; Blackbourn, 1989; Fox, 1989; Utay & Lampe, 1995; Wiener &20

Harris, 1997; Conway, 2001). Other studies have reported little to no improvement in outcomes21

measured, including sociometric scores, teacher ratings, self-perception, starting and maintaining22


6/26


6

conversations, and responding to failure (LaGreca & Mesibov, 1981; Byham, 1983; Merz, 1985).1

Discrepancies across these studies can be attributed to sampling, measurement, and2

methodological differences; but it is clear that there is a substantial body of research on the topic3

that warrants attention in order to summarize and synthesize the available research regarding the4

efficacy of SST in children and adolescents with LD.5

Findings from Narrative Reviews6

The need for SST for children and adolescents with LD has been a focus of the7

research community for over 30 years (La Greca & Mesibov, 1979; Schumaker & Hazel, 1984;8

Vaughn, 1985) . The awareness of this need has prompted several seminal narrative reviews on9

the topic. In 1980, Zigmond and Brownlee pointed out the need for children with LD to have10

training in social skills. They argued that adolescents with LD need some form of SST and that11

instruction in social skills is as important to the education process as instruction in academic and12

vocational skills. The focus of this summary addressed a series of recommendations as to on13

what an SST program should entail, including aspects of social perception and social behavior;14

how to implement adequately a program through careful assessment and instruction of targeted15

skills; and what kind of student would benefit from SST such as individuals with inappropriate,16

passive, or aggressive behaviors.17

Other researchers have provided similar narrative reviews that have highlighted the need18

for SST in children and adolescents with LD due to low social acceptance ratings among their19

peers. LaGreca (1987) summarized the social skills research in terms of four primary categories20

of issues related to social skill research for children with LD. The first issues was that of21

heterogeneity of the definition of LD which is reflected in the presence of children in the22


7/26


7

research that present with learning deficits who do not meet the formal definition of a learning1

disabled child (e.g., attention deficit disorder, hyperactive). Further, LaGreca points out that2

even among the identified LD population, the heterogeneity of cognitive, behavioral, and social3

skills is remarkable. For example, in some studies, the participatning LD children were drawn4

from children identified as ADDH making the interpretation of the appropriateness of any5

intervention difficult to extrapolate for those identified specifically as LD.6

A second area of concern regarding social skill training for LD children centers on social7

status. LaGreca (1987) concluded that several studies reported that most children with LD are8

perceived as socially unappealing and that they are generally rejected by their peers. Several9

sociometric issues emerged that would warrant a more indepth investigation of social skill10

intervention for LD children. For example, several studies reported that girls were at a11

disadvantage in social acceptance in spite of the fact that the prevalence of LD is considerably12

higher in males. Other studies reported not all identified LD children have social skill problems13

and concluded that non-academic characteristics may be critical to school success.14

The third area of interest for LaGreca (1987) was social cognitive skills in which a case15

is made for confusion in understanding the research in the area of social skills. LaGreca points16

out that LD children have difficultly in the areas of social perception, social motication, and17

social knowledge and that the research in these areas is inconsistent in terms of the nature of the18

deficits as well as the efficacy of remediation. The conclusions drawn from this summary19

suggested that while social processing may social processing poses potential difficulties for LD20

children, the evidence for the impact of remediation is questionable.21


8/26


8

Lastly, LaGreca (1987) suggested that the area of social skill training is noticeably1

absent a rich research literature. She points out that while a few studies suggest that intervention2

studies suggest a measure of improvement, the generalization of the trained skills and the impact3

on social status are unknown.4

In a more recent summary, Olmeda & Trent (2003) explored the need for including5

minority individuals with LD in research investigating SST. The authors stressed that the social6

behaviors resulting from sociocultural contexts need to be taken into consideration when7

assessing an individuals social skills abilities. Olmeda and Trent argued that there is a need for8

incorporation of perspectives reflecting multicultural aspects when designing and implementing9

SST interventions.10

These summaries indicated that cognitive, behavioral, and social interaction contribute to11

the low social acceptance of children and adolescents with LD. The primary shortcoming of the12

all of these reviews was the absence of a critical assessment of the existing research that would13

provide guidance in the implementation of a social skill intervention program for learning14

disabled children. That is, they did provide a narrative description of the conclusions that might15

have been gleaned from the primary research, but little attention was paid to either the critical16

analysis of the reported research or the efficacy of that research base.17

The conclusions drawn from these narrative reviews offer a consistent picture of the18

nature, need, and importance of SST for individuals with LD. However, they provide little insight19

into the practices or social skills interventions that might be effective in providing LD children20

with an improved social skill set. A quantitative summary of SST programs would provide an21


9/26


9

independent and objective assessment of the magnitude of effect for SST programs. Several such1

meta analyses have been reported and are summarized next.2

Findings from Meta-analyses3

Kavale and colleagues (Forness and Kavale (1996); Kavale and Forness, 1996; Kavale &4

Forness, 1995; Kavale and Mostert, 2004) reported results from one (reported in four different5

publications) meta-analysis assessing the effectiveness of SST training for children and6

adolescents with LD. The meta-analysis included 53 empirical studies of varying research design7

representing 2113 participants, 74% of whom were male, with a mean age of 11.5 years and a8

mean IQ of 96. The included studies spanned the years 1976 to 1991. The focus of the review9

was SST programs for children and adolescents with LD that targeted specific behaviors10

associated with social interactions and competence. Summaries of SST effect were presented for11

peer, self, and teacher report. Results suggested that overall, SST programs produced minimal12

results, with about two-tenths of a standard deviation improvement reported by peer and self13

report studies and teachers reporting an SST effect size of about .16. In order for a social skills14

training program to be more effective, Kavale and colleagues have suggested that research on15

STT programs should provide more attention to a higher level of research rigor in the areas of (1)16

design quality, (2) fidelity of program implementation, (3) outcome measurement, and (4)17

implementation of reliable and valid SST programs.18

The Need for a Systematic Review19

Several primary and summary studies have been reported regarding the nature of the20

social skills and competencies of children and adolescents with LD and the effects of programs21

designed to improve those skills and competencies. However, only Kavale and colleagues22


10/26


10

(Forness and Kavale (1996); Kavale and Forness, 1996; Kavale & Forness, 1995; Kavale and1

Mostert, 2004) have attempted to summarize statistically the nature and magnitude of the effect of2

SST for LD children and adolescents. Unfortunately, the authors did not provide a sufficiently3

transparent and systematic approach to their study in order to replicate the findings. In addition,4

the review did not include studies reported since 1991. Further, their analyses did not provide an5

assessment of the differential effects of SST based on the quality of research design related6

characteristics (e.g., design type, allocation procedure, and fidelity of implementation). Thus, the7

purpose of this review will be to conduct a comprehensive up-to-date systematic review of SST8

programs to provide an assessment of the magnitude of SST effects based on a more extensive,9

transparent, and explicit presentation of the information retrieval, data extraction, analysis, and10

synthesis processes.11

OBJECTIVE12

The purpose of this review is to assess the effectiveness of school based social skills13

training programs on learning disabled school-aged children (grades K - 12) as measured by14

observational, criterion, or formal measures of social skill outcomes.15

16

Operational Definitions of learning disability and social skills training17

Learning Disability18

For this review the term learning disability (LD) will be defined as". . . a disorder in19

one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language,20

spoken or written, that may manifest itself in an imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read,21

write, spell, or do mathematical calculations, including conditions such as perceptual disabilities,22


11/26


11

brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia." Learning1

disabilities do notinclude, "learning problems that are primarily the result of visual, hearing, or2

motor disabilities, of mental retardation, of emotional disturbance, or of environmental, cultural,3

or economic disadvantage." [IDEA, 34 Code of Federal Regulations 300.8(c)(10)]. It is4

recognized that this definition is not universal and indeed most countries do not use the term LD5

to identify individuals who have difficulty learning. In other countries individuals that may be6

identified LD in the US may be identified as having learning difficulties (e.g., United Kingdom,7

Australia, Zimbabwe) or instrumental disabilities (Belgium). In addition, many countries do not8

provide services in the schools for these individuals. According to the Organization for Economic9

Co-operation and Development (OECD), for the 22 countries most likely to provide services to10

children with special needs only 54% provide LD services (OECD, 2004). The following are11

common qualities of individuals with LD regardless of the terminology used to describe them:12

--reading, mathematics, and/or written language achievement substantially below that of peers13

despite normal intelligence,14

--visual and/or auditory perceptual problems,15

--adequate academic instruction,16

--LD first identified in elementary grades,17

--may demonstrate social or emotional difficulties,18

--generally life long19

Social Skill Training20

21

Social skills training are those cognitive or behavioral interventions used to develop more22

normalized social behaviors in children and adolescents with learning disabilities. The23


12/26


12

intervention may include any of the following strategies: direct instruction, coaching, modeling,1

rehearsal, shaping, prompting, and/or reinforcement.2

METHOD3

Inclusion Criteria and Procedure4

Inclusion of studies will be achieved through a process of screening for (a) titles and5

abstracts and (b) full texts. At the first stage of screening (title/abstract), citations will be6

reviewed for the following inclusion criteria:7

1. social skills training intervention targeted towards participants identified as learning8

disabled; AND9

2. participants in grades K 12 (or international equivalent) AND10

3. two group comparison designs.11

Information Retrieval12

Database thesauri will be consulted, if available, to ensure that appropriate terms and13

synonyms have been included in the participant, intervention and outcome search term categories.14

Search terms and retrieval techniques will be modified to meet the requirements of each15

individual database. No restriction will be used for publication source, language, or date.16

Electronic Databases17

At a minimum, the following electronic databases/sources will be searched:18

1. PSYCINFO19

2. ERIC20

3. DISSERTATION ABSTRACTS21

4. MEDLINE22


13/26


13

5. GOOGLE SEARCH1

6. SAGE FULL TEXT EDUCATION2

7. BRITISH EDUCATION INDEX3

8. AUSTRIALIAN EDUCATION INDEX4

9. FRANCIS5

10.CBCA EDUCATION6

11.EDUCATION ABSTRACTS7

12.ACADEMIC SEARCH PREMIER8

All databases, including grey literature, will be submitted to the same information retrieval9

criteria described below. Reference lists from a variety of sources such as reviews, retrieved10

studies, anthologies, and conference papers, will be searched for potential inclusion11

characteristics. The following information will be reported for the electronic search:12

a. Databases searched13

b. Time frame searched14

c. Search terms used15

d. Number of citations retrieved16

Grey literature search will be limited to the databases cited above. No attempt will be17

made to search non-professional databases such as Google, AltaVisa, or Web Crawler in order to18

focus time and resources on the professional database sources.19

Search Strategy20

All electronic searches will be comprehensive without restriction to date, language, or21

source. Additional grey literature citations will be sought through contact with experts and22


14/26


14

organizations (e.g., CED) representing individuals with learning disabilities in the US and1

abroad(e.g., LDUK). Because the primary print sources for research in learning disabilities are2

cataloged in the major databases (e.g., ERIC, PsycInfo) a comprehensive and extensive hand-3

search on individual journals would not be an appropriate use of resources. However, if five (5)4

or more included studies are retrieved from any single journal publication source, a hand-search5

of that journal will be conducted.6

For each database, we will use the following terms to locate relevant studies for this7

review:8

a. Domain Terms: learning disabil*, social skill*,9

b. Intervention Terms: interven*, Treat*, Therap*, training method*, program evaluation,10

behavior-modification, counseling11

c. Target Population Terms: , elementary*, secondary or high school, Sschool-age,12

adolescen*13

Title and Abstract Screening Procedure14

All citations at the title/abstract and full-text retrieval stages will be assessed for inclusion15

criteria by two authors independently. In the event of a disagreement between the two reviewers16

regarding inclusion of a study at the title/abstract stage, the full text of the article will be retrieved17

and read by both reviewers for a decision. Should the reviewers still disagree, the full-text article18

will be reviewed by a third author and a final decision made whether to accept the study for19

inclusion. Reviewers will not be blinded at any level of the review to the name(s) of the author(s),20

institution(s), or publication source.21

Full-Text Screening Procedure22


15/26


15

All citations at the full-text retrieval stage will be assessed for inclusion criteria by two1

authors independently. In the event of a disagreement between the two reviewers regarding2

inclusion of a study at the full text retrieval stage, the full-text article will be reviewed by a third3

author and a final decision made whether to accept the study for inclusion. Reviewers will not be4

blinded at any level of the review to the name(s) of the author(s), institution(s), or publication5

source.6

Coding Procedure and Categories for Included Studies7

Coding of included studies will be conducted independently by two authors. Any8

discrepancies in coding of an article will be resolved through discussion between the two authors.9

If the reviewers cannot come to a consensus regarding a particular study, a third author will be10

consulted for final judgment. Interrater reliability will be reported in the final review. All coding11

will address design, participant, intervention, and outcome characteristics.12

Coding for Included Non-English Studies13

Studies meeting the inclusion criteria but published in a language other than English will14

be coded using the same form as the English language publications. The coding will be15

conducted by an individual proficient in the written form of the non-English language and guided16

by one of the trained coders of the included English language studies. While we recognize that17

there is not a reliability of coding in the non-English language, a limitation on resources and18

access to multi-lingual coders make this a reasonable approach to obtaining a coding for non-19

English studies.20

Research Design Characteristics21

All included studies will be either randomized controlled trials or quasi-experimental22


16/26


16

designed studies in which the control and/or comparison group is either matched or statistically1

controlled for at the pre-treatment level. Studies assigning participants at the group level (class,2

school, or district) or individually will be included for review and analysis. No study will be3

included that utilizes a pre-experimental group design (pre- post treatment only), single subject4

design, or qualitative approaches to data collection or analysis. 5

Participant Characteristics6

Participants of the included studies for this review will be Kindergarten through High7

School (or the international equivalent). Each study will be coded for participant characteristics8

such as age, gender, SES, grade in school, severity level, and the number of participants in9

experimental and control or comparison groups. Any study performed outside the United States10

will be examined for the international equivalents of US grades. Excluded populations include11

individuals who were not identified as learning disabled or individuals in whom a learning12

disability was not the primary diagnosis (e.g., deaf, blind, mental retardation, emotional13

disturbance).14

Intervention Characteristics15

Intervention characteristics will include dimensions such as type of intervention16

(e.g., cross-age tutoring, direct instruction, counseling), length of intervention program (e.g.,17

number of days/weeks of program implementation), length of intervention session (number of18

minutes, hours per session) , number of sessions, structure of intervention (e.g., group, individual,19

both). Studies will be excluded from this review if they include only pharmacological20

interventions. In the event that a study treats participants with both behavioral and21


17/26


17

pharmacological interventions, ONLY the behavioral intervention outcomes will be included1

AND only if there is an accompanying non-experimental control (comparison) group for2

comparison.3

Follow-up assessments will be identified for maintanence and generalization where4

provided and coded for the length of time immediately post intervention.5

Outcome Characteristics6

Outcomes for this review will include:7

a. Behavioral (e.g., anger, aggression)8

b. Cognitive (e.g., social problem solving, self image)9

c. Social (e.g., peer interactions, cooperation)10

Measurement of the outcome characteristics can include observational report, criterion referenced11

assessments, rating scales, or standardized tests12

Assessment of Methodological Quality13

The quality of the methodological rigor of a study may have an important impact on the14

magnitude of the treatment effect size. Individual study methodological quality will be coded and15

assessed for characteristics such as design type, unit of assignment/analysis, attrition, and fidelity16

of treatment implementation. The results of this assessment will be analyzed for their impact on17

the treatment effects. The analysis of this studys methodological quality will be used as18

moderating variables in the data synthesis and interpretation.19

20


18/26


18

Calculating Effect Size1

Since outcome data may be reported in a variety of formats within individual studies,2

Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (CMA; Borenstein 2001) will be used to calculate the treatment3

effect sizes. This software has the ability to accept data in more than 100 different formats in4

order to transform it to a common effect size and variance. This information is then used in the5

meta-analysis.6

The following are the primary metrics anticipated for the calculation of the effect size:7

Standardized Mean Difference Statistic (d-index)8

For studies reporting outcomes on a continuous scale, the post-treatment mean of the control9

group will be subtracted from the post-treatment mean of the experimental group and the10

difference will be divided by the pooled standard deviation of both groups.11

For studies reporting statistics such as t, F, or p value statistics only, conversion formulae12

will be used to calculate the d-index for the effect size estimate. All study calculations will be13

weighted by the inverse mean variance to allow larger n studies to contribute proportionately in14

any effect size synthesis. All effect sizes will be calculated using a 95% confidence interval.15

Effect Size Adjustments16

Adjustments to the calculated effect sizes will be made for both sample size and17

assignment/analysis mismatch. In order to maximize the interpretation of the calculated effect18

size, we will calculate all effect sizes using Hedges g. Hedges g is a standardized mean19

difference with a small sample size bias correction factor.20

Missing Data21

For any included study presenting missing or inadequate data for analysis, the senior author22


19/26


19

will be contacted in an effort to obtain the needed data. Should that data not be available, the1

study will be excluded from analysis.2

Synthesis of Effect Sizes3

When estimating the overall effect size of an intervention, the study is represented by the4

mean value of all outcomes in the study. For those studies presenting multiple outcomes, we will5

employ a shifting unit of analysis approach. However, when examining potential moderators of6

the overall outcomes, a studys results will be aggregated only within the separated categories of7

the moderator variable(s). For example, if a study on the effect of social skill training on social8

behavior measured two outcomes, acting-out and distractibility, those two effects would be9

averaged for purposes of estimating the interventions effect on social behavior. However, when10

examining the type of outcome measure as a moderator variable, the study would contribute an11

effect size to the acting-out variable category, and an effect size to the distractibility variable12

category.13

Heterogeneity Analysis14

The heterogeneity analysis allows for an assessment of the amount of variation in the15

calculated effect beyond what is expected due to sampling error. Two basic models of analysis16

are available: fixed effects and random effects. Since the results derived from a random effects17

model will allow us to apply inferences of effect to a population of studies involving individuals18

who have been engaged in a social skill-training program we will use only a random effects19

model for our data analysis.20

Sensitivity Analysis21

A sensitivity analysis allows for the assessment of potential bias that may be part of the22


20/26


20

calculated effect size. This bias may be present in a variety of characteristics including attrition,1

type of treatment, missing data, sample size, and study design. At a minimum and, where2

appropriate, we will assess potential bias for extreme study effect size, bias using the one study3

removed analysis and funnel plots depictions.4

Post Hoc Subgroup and Moderator Analyses5

It may be important to analyze the impact of specific subsets or study moderators such as6

design, participant, or treatment characteristics. We will examine a limited number of these7

subgroup comparisons or study moderator variables. These analyses may include:8

1. Types of Treatment9

2. Severity Level10

3. Attrition11

4. Intention to Treat vs. Active Treatment only12

5. Age of Participant13

6. Length of Treatment14

15

REVIEW MAINTENANCE16Maintenance of the review will be the responsibility of the lead author Lucy Funderburk.17

18

TIME FRAME FOR REVIEW COMPLETION: October 200919

20

AUTHOR INFORMATION2122

Lucy [email protected] 23

Jamie Schwartz [email protected] 24

Chad Nye [email protected]

26

Sources of Support27

Nordic Campbell Center, Copenhagen, Denmark28


21/26


21

References1

Amerikaner, M. & Summerlin, M.L. (1983). Group counseling with learning disabled children:2

Effects of social skills and relaxation training on self-concept and classroom behavior.3

Journal of Learning Disabilities, 15(6), 340-343.4

Bear, G.G., Kortering, L.J., & Braziel, P. (2006). School completers and noncompleters with5

learning disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 27(5), 293-300.6

Bender, W.N. & Wall, M.E. (1994). Social-emotional development of students with learning7

disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 17(4), 323-341.8

Berler, E.S., Gross, A.M., & Drabman, R.S. (1982). Social skills training with children: Proceed9

with caution. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 15(1), 41-53.10

Blackbourn, J.M. (1989). Acquisition and generalization of social skills in elementary-aged11

children with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities 22(1), 28-34.12

Borenstein M, Hedges L, Higgins J, & Rothstein H. (2005). Comprehensive Meta-analysis13

Version 2, Englewood NJ: Biostat.14

Brophy, J. E. (1979). Teacher behavior and its effects. Journal of Educational Psychology,15

71(6), 733-750.16

Bruininks, V.L. (1978). Peer status and personality characteristics of learning disabled and17

nondisabled students. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 11(8), 29-34.18

Bryan, T. (1991). Social problems and learning disabilities. In B.Y.L. Wong (Ed.),Learning19

about learning disabilities (pp. 195-229). San Diego: Academic Press.20

Byham, L.W. (1983). Social skills training to improve the social skills and self-concept of21

learning disabled adolescents. Doctoral Dissertation: University of Pittsburgh.22


22/26


22

Conway, K.M. (2004). An evaluation of social skills training for youth with learning disabilities.1

Doctoral Dissertation: Southern Illinois University Carbondale.2

Dudley-Marling, C.C. & Edmiaston, R. (1985). Social status of learning disabled children and3

adolescents: A review. Learning Disability Quarterly, 8(3), 189-204.4

Forness, S. R. & Kavale, K.A. (1996). Treating social skills deficits in children with learning5

disabilities: A meta-analysis of the research. Learning Disability Quarterly, 19, 2-13.6

Fox, C.L. (1989). Peer acceptance of learning disabled children in the regular classroom.7

Exceptional Children, 56(1), 50-59.8

Garrett, M.K. & Crump, W.D. (1980). Peer acceptance, teacher preference, and self-appraisal of9

social status among learning disabled students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 3(3), 42-48.10

Gerber, P.J., Schnieders, C.A., Paradise, L.V., Reiff, H.B., Ginsburg, R.J., Popp, P.A. (1990).11

Persisting problems of adults with learning disabilities: Self-reported comparisons from their12

school-age and adult years. Journal of Leaning Disabilities, 23(9), 570-573.13

Gresham, F.M. & Reschly, D.J. (1986). Social skills deficits and low peer acceptance of14

mainstreamed learning disabled children. Learning Disability Quarterly, 9(1), 23-32.15

Hart, V.H. (1996). Effects of social skills training and cross-age tutoring on academic16

achievement and social behaviors of girls with learning disabilities. Masters Thesis: Union17

Institute Graduate School.18

Kavale, K.A. & Forness, S.R. (1995). Social skills deficits and training: A meta-analysis of the19

research in learning disabilities. In Scruggs, T.E. & Mastropieri, M.A. (Eds.),Advances in20

learning and behavior disabilities, Volume 9, (pp. 119-160). St. Louis, MO: JAI Press, Inc.21

Kavale, K. A. & Forness, S. R. (1996). Social skills deficits and learning disabilities: A meta-22


23/26


23

analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29(3), 226-237.1

Kavale, K.A. & Mostert, M.P. (2004). Social kills interventions for individuals with learning2

disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27, 31-43.3

LaGreca, A.M. (1987). Children with learning disabilities: Interpersonal skills and social4

competence. Reading, Writing, and Learning Disabilities, 3(2), 167-185.5

La Greca, A.M., & Mesibov, G.B. (1979). Social skills intervention withlearning disabled6

children: Selecting skills and implementing training. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 8,7

234-241.8

LaGreca, A. M. & Mesibov, G.B. (1981). Facilitating interpersonal functioning with peers in9

learning disabled children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 14(4), 197-199. 238.10

McFall, R.M. (1982). A review and reformulation of the concept of social skills. Behavioral11

Assessment, 4, 1-33.12

Merz, M.A. (1985). Social skills training with learning disabled children. Doctoral Dissertation:13

Wayne State University.14

Moisan, T.A. (1998). Identification and remediation of social skills deficits in learning disabled15

children. Masters Thesis: Chicago State University.16

National Center for Learning Disabilities. (2006). Closing the achievement gap: Expanding17

opportunities for children and adults with learning disabilities. Retrieved: March 5, 200818

from http://www.ncld.org/content/view/387/463/19

National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. (1997). Operationalizing the NJCLD20

definition of learning disabilities for ongoing assessment in schools. Retrieved March 5, 200821

from http://www.asha.org/docs/html/RP1998-00130.html 22


24/26


24

Northcutt, T.E. (1986). The impact of a social skills training program on the student-teacher1

relationship. Doctoral Dissertation: University of Maryland.2

Olmeda, R.E. & Trent, S.C. (2003). Social skills training research with minority students with3

learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities, 12(1), 23-33.4

Omizo, M.M. & Omizo, S.A. (1988). Group counselings effects on self-concept and social5

behavior among children with learning disabilities. Journal of Humanistic Education and6

Development, 26(3), 109-117.7

Parker, J.G. & Asher, S. R. (1987). Peer relations and later personal adjustment: Are low-8

accepted children at risk? Psychological Bulletin, 102(3), 357-389.9

Piers, E.V., & Harris, D. (1969). Piers-Harris Childrens Self Concept Scale. Pacific Grove, CA:10

Brooks/Cole Publishing.11

Reschly, A.L. & Christenson, S.L. (2006). Prediction of dropout among students with mild12

disabilities: A case for inclusion of student engagement variables. Remedial and Special13

Education, 27(5), 276-292.14

Sabornie, E.J. (1994). Social-affective characteristics in early adolescents identified as learning15

disabled and nondisabled. Learning Disability Quarterly, 17(4), 268-279.16

Schumaker, J. B., & Hazel, J. S. (1984). Social skills assessment and training for the learning disabled:17

Who's on first and what's on second? Part II. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 17, 492-498.18

Seidel, J.F. & Vaughn, S. (1991). Social alienation and the learning disabled school dropout.19

Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 6, 152-157.20

Siperstein, G.N. & Goding, M.J. (1985). Teachers behavior toward LD and Non-LD children:21

A strategy for change. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 18(3), 139-144.22


25/26


25

Straub, R.B. & Roberts, D.M. (1983). Effects of nonverbal-oriented social awareness training1

program on social interaction ability of learning disabled children. Journal of Nonverbal2

Behavior, 7(4), 195-201.3

Swanson, H.L. & Malone, S. (1992). Social skills and learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of4

the literature. School Psychology Review, 21(3), 427-442.5

Trapani, C. & Gettinger, M. (1989). Effects of social skills training and cross-age tutoring on6

academic achievement and social behaviors of boys with learning disabilities. Journal of7

Research and Development in Education, 22(4), 1-9.8

Utay, J.M. & Lampe, R.E. (1995). Use of a group counseling game to enhance social skills of9

children with learning disabilities. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 20(2), 114-10

120.11

Vaughn, S. (1985). Why teach social skills to learning disabled students? Journal of Learning12

Disabilities, 18(10), 588-591.13

Wanat, P.E. (1983). Social skills: An awareness program with learning disabled adolescents.14

Journal of Learning Disabilities, 16(1), 35-38.15

Wiener, J. (1987). Peer status lf learning disabled children and adolescents: A review of the16

literature. Learning Disabilities Research, 2(2), 62-79.17

Wiener, J. & Harris, P.J. (1997). Evaluation of an individualized, context-based social skills18

training program for children with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and19

Practice, 12(1), 40-5320

Winters, C.A. (1997). Learning disabilities, crime, delinquency, and special education21

placement. Adolescence, 32(126), 451-462.22


26/26


26

Zigmond, N. & Brownlee, J. (1980). Social skills training for adolescents with learning1

disabilities. Exceptional Education Quarterly: Special Issue on Special Education for2

Adolescents and Young Adults, 1(2), 77-83.3

social skills training children learning disabilities p

Documents