The Autism Society Event and Education Recordings Archive
Use this site to access recordings and presentations from National Conferences
Autism Society records most keynote and concurrent sessions at their annual conferences. You can see and hear those recordings by purchasing full online access, or individual recordings.
Files available
7 Blending Social Validity and Treatment Integrity to Enhance Behavioral Interventions for Students with Autism
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Mega Center (Pheasant Run Resort and Conference Center)
Current literature on Response to Intervention addresses the importance of monitoring and controlling for social validity and treatment integrity (Goss, Noltemeyer, & Devore, 2007). This poster will present social validity and treatment integrity results from a reinforcement-based DRO intervention. Social validity and treatment integrity measures were completed throughout the intervention to determine acceptability and resistance by classroom staff while evaluating treatment adherence. The poster will present results and a user-friendly framework for educators seeking to enhance classroom interventions.
Social validity. The idea of social validity emerged in 1978; resulting from the observation that nonacceptance of interventions can result in severe rejection of behavioral programming (Schwartz & Baer, 1991). Social validity refers to the social importance and acceptability of treatment goals, procedures, and outcomes (Armstrong, Ehrhardt, Cool, & Poling, 1997). Goals of the behavioral intervention and quantity of behavior change will be discussed throughout the poster presentation. Examples of social validity questions will be provided such as, “Are the behavioral goals socially significant? Are the procedures used socially acceptable to consumers? Are consumers satisfied with the outcome, including both predicted behavior change and unpredicted side effects?” (Fawcett, 1991; Miller, Lane, & Wehby, 2005; Wolf, 1978).
Schwartz and Baer (1991) discuss that social validity measures consider a consumer’s opinion (e.g., student, parents, classroom staff) and use the information to sustain practices when working with intensive behaviors. Social validity seeks to identify treatments that are appropriate while minimizing disruption to the student’s daily routine (Fawcett, 1991; Foster & Mash, 1999). Further, social validity assessments investigate whether the treatment is appropriate, fair, and reasonable with the understanding that acceptability is a complex construct influenced by several child and practitioner variables (Elliott, 1988). The assessment process is intended to provide information to ensure program survival (Schwartz & Baer, 1991).
Examining social validity prior to implementing the intervention will provide critical information needed when making treatment decisions. Heightened social validity has been found to influence intervention success and treatment integrity (Gresham, 2005). If social validity measures communicate that consumers are comfortable with intervention components and feel that the intervention will be feasible for use, then a strong potential exists for the intervention to be implemented as designed.
Treatment integrity. Individuals in the field of special education have verbalized a need for increased treatment integrity among behavioral interventions for students with disabilities (Kazdin, 1997). Additionally, Response to Intervention (RtI) encourages educators to consider treatment integrity when programming for challenging behaviors (Goss et al., 2007). Treatment integrity is defined as the degree to which an intervention is implemented as designed (Salend, 1984). Behavioral interventions, in particular, are vulnerable to violations of treatment integrity (Salend, 1984). Low treatment integrity levels indicate that the treatment being implemented is different or inconsistent from the original intention (Gresham, 2005).
Various components of interventions may increase or decrease the accuracy of implementation (Wilkinson, 2006). For example, if staff is reluctant to use the intervention because of ethical concerns or if the intervention is too complex, the intervention procedures are in jeopardy of being applied with low integrity. Evaluating treatment integrity enables a more consistent approach for students in need of sound intervention procedures.
This poster will discuss the importance of integrating social validity and treatment integrity measures into the intervention process. Results will be displayed from social validity and treatment integrity measures used throughout a DRO intervention for two students with autism. The results of the DRO intervention suggest that intermittent completion of measures enhances increased treatment acceptability while promoting strong treatment adherence. The results are important because the recent increase in autism diagnoses means that many public school educators will need to feasibly implement behavioral interventions for students with autism (Lerman, Vorndran, Addison, & Contrucci Kuhn, 2004).
Additionally, this poster will offer a sequential framework for when and how to gather information on social validity and treatment integrity. Best practices necessitate that measures are completed so that students receive interventions most appropriate for their individualized needs while providing information to ensure program survival (Schwartz & Baer, 1991). By promoting a user-friendly framework, educators will become more informed on the importance of social validity and treatment integrity when working among the autism population.
Schwartz and Baer (1991) discuss that social validity measures consider a consumer’s opinion (e.g., student, parents, classroom staff) and use the information to sustain practices when working with intensive behaviors. Social validity seeks to identify treatments that are appropriate while minimizing disruption to the student’s daily routine (Fawcett, 1991; Foster & Mash, 1999). Further, social validity assessments investigate whether the treatment is appropriate, fair, and reasonable with the understanding that acceptability is a complex construct influenced by several child and practitioner variables (Elliott, 1988). The assessment process is intended to provide information to ensure program survival (Schwartz & Baer, 1991).
Examining social validity prior to implementing the intervention will provide critical information needed when making treatment decisions. Heightened social validity has been found to influence intervention success and treatment integrity (Gresham, 2005). If social validity measures communicate that consumers are comfortable with intervention components and feel that the intervention will be feasible for use, then a strong potential exists for the intervention to be implemented as designed.
Treatment integrity. Individuals in the field of special education have verbalized a need for increased treatment integrity among behavioral interventions for students with disabilities (Kazdin, 1997). Additionally, Response to Intervention (RtI) encourages educators to consider treatment integrity when programming for challenging behaviors (Goss et al., 2007). Treatment integrity is defined as the degree to which an intervention is implemented as designed (Salend, 1984). Behavioral interventions, in particular, are vulnerable to violations of treatment integrity (Salend, 1984). Low treatment integrity levels indicate that the treatment being implemented is different or inconsistent from the original intention (Gresham, 2005).
Various components of interventions may increase or decrease the accuracy of implementation (Wilkinson, 2006). For example, if staff is reluctant to use the intervention because of ethical concerns or if the intervention is too complex, the intervention procedures are in jeopardy of being applied with low integrity. Evaluating treatment integrity enables a more consistent approach for students in need of sound intervention procedures.
This poster will discuss the importance of integrating social validity and treatment integrity measures into the intervention process. Results will be displayed from social validity and treatment integrity measures used throughout a DRO intervention for two students with autism. The results of the DRO intervention suggest that intermittent completion of measures enhances increased treatment acceptability while promoting strong treatment adherence. The results are important because the recent increase in autism diagnoses means that many public school educators will need to feasibly implement behavioral interventions for students with autism (Lerman, Vorndran, Addison, & Contrucci Kuhn, 2004).
Additionally, this poster will offer a sequential framework for when and how to gather information on social validity and treatment integrity. Best practices necessitate that measures are completed so that students receive interventions most appropriate for their individualized needs while providing information to ensure program survival (Schwartz & Baer, 1991). By promoting a user-friendly framework, educators will become more informed on the importance of social validity and treatment integrity when working among the autism population.