Teaching Social Skills to Students on the Autism Spectrum in a School Setting: A Guide for Teachers and other School Practitioners
Jos H M van Loon1* and Remco Mostert2
1Department of Special Education of the Ghent University & Ghent University College, Belgium
2BSW, University College Ghent, School of Social Welfare
Submission: September 04, 2020; Published: October 05, 2020
*Corresponding author:Jos H M van Loon, Department of Special Education of the Ghent University & Ghent University College, Belgium
How to cite this article:Jos H M van Loon, Remco Mostert. Guidelines in Supporting People with Intellectual Disabilities. It’s all About Values. Glob J Intellect Dev Disabil, 2020; 7(1): 555703. DOI:10.19080/GJIDD.2020.07.555703
Abstract
In a person-centered support system for people with intellectual disabilities, there should be an alignment between the wishes and goals of a person, his or her support needs, the support given, and his or her quality of life as outcome. Thus far, quite some research has been done on measuring support needs and measuring personal outcomes. In this article the focus is on the actual support to people with intellectual disabilities. It is argued that there should be an emphasis on 1) the application of evidence-based supports, 2) based on evidence-based measurement of support needs, 3) in which the outcomes are evidence-based assessed quality of life-related personal outcomes, 4) within a value-based framework, and 5) in a process of methodological sound Individual Supports Planning. A value-based model for evidence-based supports and interventions in a support methodology is presented.
Keywords: Intellectual disability; Evidence-based practices; Methodology
Introduction
For organizations providing supports to persons with intellectual disability, it is their main task to enhance the quality of life (QOL) of their clients. In a person-centered support system, there should be an alignment between the wishes and goals of a person, his or her support needs, the support given, and his or her quality of life as outcome. It is important to adjust the methodology of how to support people in the direction of a complete person-centered support methodology (input-throughput-output) [1-3].
Thus far, quite some research has been done on measuring support needs and measuring outcomes. For example, the support needs of a person can, in a reliable and valid way, be measured by the Supports Intensity Scale [4]. The outcomes of an individual supports plan for a person should be an enhanced quality of life. Evidence-based outcomes (EBOs) are a critical component of evidence-based practices [5]. Determining whether these outcomes occur, requires the reliable and valid assessment of quality of life-related domains. The Personal Outcomes Scale (POS; [1], which is based on the QOL conceptual model and measurement framework by Schalock & Verdugo [6], was developed for that purpose.
In this article we focus on the actual support to people with intellectual disabilities. The present contribution will in this respect focus on 1) the application of evidence-based supports, 2) based on evidence-based measurement of support needs, 3) in which the outcomes are evidence-based assessed quality of life-related personal outcomes, 4) within a value-based framework and 5) in a process of methodological sound Individual Supports Planning.
If there is an alignment between wishes and goals, assessed support needs, individual supports, and quality of life outcomes, there is an excellent opportunity to enhance clinical decisions regarding how to support people methodically in improving their quality of life.
A Framework
Enhancing Quality of Life, supporting people, working with methods and interventions needs a vision, a framework. It is here important to explicitly express the framework within which the concrete support to people takes place. The vision from where we work, the values that we adhere to, the pedagogical climate, the attitude, conditions, environmental factors: these are all factors within which the concrete support is provided, within which methods are used.
In our view, the UN Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities (CRPD) and the quality of life-related domains set the values, within which the delivery of support should take place. In the CRPD themes such as human dignity, participation / inclusion and accessibility of society, equality and equal opportunities, autonomy and self-determination, empowerment and physical, emotional and material well-being are important. Quality of life is defined as a multidimensional phenomenon composed of core domains that constitute personal well-being. These domains are influenced by personal characteristics and environmental factors. One’s quality of life is the product of and can be enhanced through quality enhancement strategies that encompass developing personal talents, maximizing personal involvement, providing individualized supports, and facilitating personal growth opportunities. QOL domains are the set of factors composing personal well-being. The set represents the range over which the QOL concept extends and thus defines the multi-dimensionality of a life of quality. The eight core QOL domains, described in the QOL - model by Schalock & Verdugo [7,8] are extensively researched and validated in a number of cross-cultural studies; these domains are: emotional well-being, interpersonal relations, material well-being, personal development, physical well-being, self-determination, social inclusion, and rights. Verdugo, Navas, Gomez & Schalock [9] found a close relationship between the QOL domains as developed by Schalock & Verdugo [10] and the UN Convention Articles; these articles can be evaluated assessing indicators associated with the eight QOL domains.
Furthermore, one of the current challenges for these organizations, which is more and more emphasized, is the need to use evidence-based practices. Evidence-based practices (EBPs) are defined as practices that are based on current best evidence that is obtained from credible sources that used reliable and valid methods and a clearly articulated and empirically supported theory or rationale [11].
This means that the supports given by a service provider should be value-based and evidence-based, and lead to good evidence-based outcomes: good quality of life related personal outcomes.
What are effective factors?
In determining whether supports are evidence-based, there is also the question of the effectiveness of interventions discussed. In youth care van Yperen & Boendermaker [12] conducted a literature study on effective factors. They cite studies of Lambert and colleagues about the effectiveness of psychotherapeutic interventions, which states that the method represents only 15% of the result. Otherwise, the results would be mainly determined by factors that are beyond the specific methodology."
"Lambert and his colleagues found that forty percent is attributable to extra-therapeutic factors (client factors such as a child who is intelligent being treated for behavioral problems, and therefore easily picks up instructions from the worker, and environmental factors. According to them thirty percent can be explained by generally effective factors (“common factors” such as the quality of the relationship between the caregiver and the client and the extent to which the proceeds help structured).
Other studies come up with different figures, but the overall trend is that the contribution of the various specific forms of therapy is at best mediocre. More general factors seem to have a stronger influence. Well-known examples of these factors are:
a) Fit the motivation of the client;
b) Good quality of the relationship client-therapist;
c) Proper structuring of the intervention (clear objective, planning and phasing);
d) A good ‘fit’ of the approach to the problem and the demand for assistance;
e) Implementation of the intervention as it should be performed;
f) professionalism (good education and training) of the practitioner;
g) good working conditions of the treatment (as bearable caseload, good support, rescue safety).
h) These factors seem comparatively generally have a strong effect.
Jongepier Struijk & Van der Helm [13] emphasize, according to Kok (who speaks of the importance of a good first line strategy) the importance of an open living climate. They mention the seven main characteristics:
(i) Contacting clients (1. ‘Responsibility’)
(ii) Ensure that clients understand the need for their residential treatment and can learn from their treatment (2. “Growth”)
(iii) Ensure a good atmosphere (3. ‘Structure, security and positive interactions’)
(iv) All this has to be organized with as little coercion and punishment, without many and often incomprehensible rules, with the highest degree of clarity, structure and self-determination (4. ‘No repression’)
(v) An open climate is characterized by an adequate conflict management style by support workers aimed at solving problems rather than conflict and dominance (5. Adequate conflict management in social problems)
(vi) Clients are respected at all times (6. “Do not reject the client but his behavior”)
(vii) In an open environment for children and adults with a mild intellectual disability, there is also day-structuring (7. Day Structure) because these clients have difficulty constructing their own structure (learning how to structure themselves in the day can also be an important treatment goal).
Methodical considerations
Then there are also methodical considerations that are important in developing a framework for interventions. Here one can think of following the methodical cycle, person-centeredness, and following the program-logic model. Lombardi & Schalock [14] conducted a study on factors that predict the quality of life of people with intellectual disabilities. They argue on the basis of their research, among 1285 people with ID in 23 organizations, that the emphasis should be on providing support that is tailored to the specific domain of quality of life, and on the basis of the support needs of the individual person. The support process should be person centered and based on personal needs and goals.
Environmental factors
It is obvious that environmental circumstances are important in enhancing Quality of Life. Schalock [15] in this regard speaks of the importance of focusing on creating environments instead of focusing on services, as main task of an organization. A study by Claes, Van Hove, Vandevelde, van Loon & Schalock [16] in an organization for people with ID shows that environmental factors (living independently, a regular job or having volunteer job) were related to a higher QOL. Also Lombardi, Croce, Claes Vandevelde & Schalock [14] found that it is clear that people who live in smaller residential settings and participate in community activities, such as a regular job and / or a volunteer job, have a better quality of life.
Alignment with QOL
Schalock [15] gives an overview of the various components of a system of supports. In 2014 Schalock aligned Quality of Life Domains to Potential Support Strategies and Anticipated Effects. We combined these tables to come to an overview which can be of help in deciding which support strategies potentially can be used in developing individual support plans. In Table 2 we give an example for two domains. Of course, the support strategies mentioned in Table 2 are exemplary. It will be necessary to elaborate on these [17].
A model for evidence-based supports and interventions in a support methodology
If we take the above considerations together, the following model for evidence-based supports and interventions in a support methodology can be sketched.
(i) The values, based on the UN Convention and the QOL domains, and evidence based general factors regarding the efficacy of interventions set the framework, within which interventions and methods should take place. In this framework there are also methodological and substantive conditions for which interventions and methods to use.
(ii) Then there are environmental conditions
(iii) There should be an alignment to QOL and a system of supports
(iv) Then there are specific evidence-based interventions (aligned to the QOL domains and the system of supports) which should comply with the criterion to be called evidence-based: a firm relation should be demonstrated between the specific interventions and measured outcomes.
Conclusion
The alignment between 1) wishes and goals of the person, 2) evidence-based measurement of support needs, 3) the application of evidence-based supports, 4) in which the outcomes are evidence-based assessed quality of life-related personal outcomes, 4) within a value-based framework, and 5) in a process of methodological sound Individual Supports Planning, creates an excellent opportunity to support people methodically in improving their quality of life. In this article we emphasize the importance of values in supporting people. Values, based on the UN Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities and the QOL domains, and evidence based general factors regarding the efficacy of interventions together should set the framework, within which interventions and methods should take place.
References
- Owen-Deschryver J, Carr EG, Cale SI, Blakely-Smith A (2008) Promoting social interactions between students with autism spectrum disorders and their peers in inclusive school settings. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities23(1): 15-18.
- Cook C R, Williams K R, Guerra N G, Kim T E, Sadek S (2010) Predictors of bullying and victimization in childhood and adolescence: A meta-analytic investigation. School Psychology Quarterly 25(2): 65-83.
- Bellini S, Gardner L, Hudock R, Kashima-Ellingson Y (2016) The use of video self- modeling and peer training to increase social engagement in preschool children on the autism spectrum. School psychology forum: Research in practice 10(2): 207-219.
- Banda DR, Hart SL, Liu-Gitz L (2010). Impact of training peers and children with autism on social skills during center time activities in inclusive classrooms. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders4: 619-625.
- Bellini S, Peters JK, Benner L, Hopf A (2007) A meta-analysis of school-based social skills interventions for children for children with autism spectrum disorders. Remedial and Special Education 28(3): 153-162.
- Bellini S (2006) Building social relationships: A Systematic Approach to Teaching Social Interaction Skills to Children and Adolescents with Autism Spectrum Disorders and other Social Difficulties. Shawnee Mission, KS: Autism AspergerPublishing.
- Tantam D (2000) Psychological Disorder in Adolescents and Adults with Asperger Syndrome. Autism 4(1):47-62.
- Durlak JA, Weissberg RP, Dymnicki AB, Taylor RD,Schellinger KB (2011) The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school – based universal interventions. Child Development. 82(1): 405-432.
- Bellini S, Benner L, Peters-Myszak J (2009) A systematic approach to teaching social skills to children with autism spectrum disorders: A guide for practitioners. Beyond Behavior 19: 26-39.
- Heartland AEA (2015) Social skills set the stage for student success.
- Wong C, Odom SL, Hume KA, Cox AW, Fettig A, et al. (2015) Evidence-Based Practices for Children, Youth, and Young Adults with Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Comprehensive Review. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 45: 1951-1966.
- NationalAutismCenter (2019)Nationalstandardsreport,phase2/
- Bellini S,Akullian J (2007) A meta-analysis of video modeling and video-self modeling interventions for children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorders. Exceptional Children 73(3): 264-287.
- Ogilvie CR (2011) Step by step: Social skills instruction for students with autism spectrum disorder using video models and peer mentors. Teaching Exceptional Children 43(6): 20- 26.
- McConnell SR (2002) Interventions to facilitate social interaction for young children with autism: Review of available research and recommendations for educational intervention and future research. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disabilities 32(5): 351- 372.
- Rogers S J (2000) Interventions that facilitate socialization in children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 30(5): 399-409.
- Agran M, Wehmeyer M (1999) Teaching problem solving to students with mental retardation. Washington, DC: American Association on Mental Retardation. USA.
- Wehmeyer M L, Agran M, Hughes C (2000)A national survey of teachers’ promotion of self-determination and student-directed learning. The Journal of Special Education 34(2): 58-68.
- Wong C, Kasari C (2012) Play and joint attention of children with autism in the preschool special education classroom. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 42: 2152- 2161.
- Bruinsma Y, Koegel RL, Koegel LK (2004)Joint attention and children with autism: A review of the literature. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews. 10(3): 169- 175.
- Charlop-Christy M H, Daneshvar S (2003) Using Video Modeling to Teach Perspective Taking to Children with Autism. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions 5(1): 12-21.
- Ozonoff S, Miller J N (1995) Teaching theory of mind: A new approach to social skills training for individuals with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disabilities 25(4): 415-433.
- Bellini S (2016) Building Social Relationships 2: A Systematic Approach to Teaching Social Interaction Skills to Children and Adolescents with Autism Spectrum Disorders and other Social Difficulties. Shawnee Mission, KS: Autism AspergerPublishing.
- Bellini S (2020) The preliminary results of the manualized version of the Building Social Relationships Program (BSR-M). Manuscript in preparation.