autism_sage.pdf

http://aut.sagepub.com/Autism

http://aut.sagepub.com/content/15/4/397The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/1362361310387804

2011 15: 397 originally published online 31 March 2011AutismNeil Humphrey and Wendy Symes

(ASDs) in mainstream school settingsPeer interaction patterns among adolescents with autistic spectrum disorders

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

The National Autistic Society

can be found at:AutismAdditional services and information for

http://aut.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://aut.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://aut.sagepub.com/content/15/4/397.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Mar 31, 2011 OnlineFirst Version of Record

- Jul 21, 2011Version of Record >>

by guest on March 9, 2012aut.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://aut.sagepub.com/

http://aut.sagepub.com/content/15/4/397

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://www.nas.org.uk

http://aut.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://aut.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://aut.sagepub.com/content/15/4/397.refs.html

http://aut.sagepub.com/content/15/4/397.full.pdf

http://aut.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/03/25/1362361310387804.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml


autism © 2011SAGE Publicationsand The National

Autistic SocietyVol 15(4) 397–419; 387804

1362-3613(2011)

Peer interaction patternsamong adolescents withautistic spectrum disorders(ASDs) in mainstreamschool settings

N E I L H U M P H R E Y School of Education, University ofManchester, Manchester, UK

W E N D Y S Y M E S School of Education, University of Manchester,Manchester, UK

A B S T R A C T The aim of the current study was to document the peerinteraction patterns of students with autistic spectrum disorders inmainstream settings. Structured observations of a group of 38 adoles-cents with ASD drawn from 12 mainstream secondary schools wereconducted over a two-day period and data compared with those ofschool, age, and gender matched comparison groups of 35 adolescentswith dyslexia and 38 with no identified special educational needs(the ASD and dyslexia groups were also matched on SEN provision).Frequency and duration of peer interaction behaviours were coded. Interms of duration, multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVAs) indi-cated that participants with ASD spent more time engaged in solitarybehaviours, less time engaged in co-operative interaction with peers,and more time engaging in reactive aggression towards peers than eithercomparison group. In terms of frequency, similar patterns emerged,but additionally participants with ASD engaged in fewer instances ofrough/vigorous play, and were subject to more instances of social initi-ation and instrumental verbal aggression by peers than either com-parison group. The findings of the current study support the authors’theoretical model of peer group interaction processes for individualswith ASD, and have implications for both social skills training and thedevelopment of peer awareness and sensitivity. Limitations are noted.

A D D R E S S Correspondence should be addressed to: N E I L H U M P H R E Y , School ofEducation, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UK. Email:[email protected]

K E Y W O R D S

inclusiveeducation,

peerinteraction

397Copyright © The Author(s), 2011. Reprints and permissions:http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalspermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/1362361310387804



Children and young people with autistic spectrum disorders (ASDs) experi-ence difficulties in communication, interaction and imagination. In linewith educational policy, they are increasingly likely to be educated in main-stream schools (Dybvik, 2004; Keen and Ward, 2004). However, concernsremain about the quality of their experiences in these settings (Humphreyand Lewis, 2008). Research in England indicates that students with ASDsare among the most likely to be excluded from school (Department forChildren, Schools and Families, 2009). Furthermore, teachers in main-stream schools often report that they do not have the necessary training andsupport to provide adequately for them (Robertson et al., 2003). Indeed,experts in the field argue that the learning styles and cognitive profile ofstudents with ASD challenge professional assumptions about teaching andlearning more so than other groups of learners (Jordan, 2005).

One key element of the inclusion process for students with ASD thathas come under close scrutiny in recent years is that of their peer relation-ships in mainstream schools. Notwithstanding the general importance anddevelopmental significance of positive peer relationships (Bierman, 2005),this has become a particularly pressing issue in relation to ASD becauseaffected students, by definition, experience particular difficulties in inter-acting with other people. The opportunity to interact with non-disabledpeers is often cited by advocates as one of the key benefits of includingstudents with ASD in mainstream schools. It is argued that through suchplacement, they can develop their social skills, while their peer group canlearn to become more accepting of children who are ‘different’ (Boutot andBryant, 2005; Kasari and Rotherham-Fuller, 2007). Indeed, this aspect oflife in school is considered to be so pivotal that it led Ochs and colleaguesto conclude,‘the practice of inclusion rests primarily on unaffected school-mates rather than teachers’ (2001: 399).

There is an increasing body of evidence to suggest that included studentswith ASD experience negative social outcomes. They are generally found tohave fewer friends (Cairns and Cairns, 1994), have more limited socialnetworks (Chamberlain et al., 2003), and experience more rejection fromtheir peers than other children (Symes and Humphrey, 2010). Further-more, they report receiving significantly less social support from their class-mates and friends, and are bullied more than students with other or nospecial educational needs (SEN) (Humphrey and Symes, 2010a). Whetherthey subsequently experience greater levels of loneliness than their peersis not clear. Bauminger and colleagues (2003) found this to be the case,but Chamberlain and colleagues (2003) did not – although this may be inpart due to a more limited understanding of the concepts of friendship andloneliness among students with ASD (Bauminger and Kasari, 2000).

A U T I S M 15(4)

398



Despite the above findings, the study of how students with ASD actuallyinteract with their peers in natural settings within school is somewhatlimited (Bauminger, 2002). In one of the few direct observational studiesin this area, Bauminger and colleagues (2003) found that students withASD spent less time engaged in social interaction than typically their devel-oping peers, and displayed less positive interaction behaviours (e.g. eyecontact, smiling, talking), despite demonstrating a good understandingof social interaction. Similar findings were reported by Lord and Magill-Evans (1995), Hauck et al. (1995), and Stone and Caro-Martinez (1990).However, these findings are somewhat limited in the context of the currentstudy as in all of the cited studies the participants with ASD were drawnfrom special education settings rather than mainstream schools. Althoughthere are a handful of peer interaction studies about students in mainstreamsettings, these relate to early years/primary school settings (Anderson et al.,2004; Owen-DeSchryer et al., 2008), or report on students with a rangeof developmental disabilities rather than ASD specifically, (e.g. Carter et al.,2008), or fail to include adequate experimental control (e.g. Blair et al.,2007; Downing, 1996). Furthermore, each of the aforementioned studiesmade use of extremely small sample sizes which naturally restricted statis-tical power and inference. Finally, with the exception of Anderson et al.(2004) (New Zealand), they were all conducted in the USA. We were un-able to find any published studies which examined the peer interactionpatterns of included students with ASD in secondary schools in the UK.

Connecting peer interaction patterns with social outcomes (such aspopularity and bullying) for included students with ASD requires a theo-retical model that acknowledges the interplay between endogenous (withinthe child) and exogenous (within the peer group) factors. In Figure 1 wepresent such a model (herein referred to as the reciprocal effects peer inter-action model, or REPIM), derived from the previous research in this area.The authors have developed this model as a theoretical framework todevelop our understanding of how the various social outcomes that arewidely reported for included students with ASD originate and relate to oneanother. The model is an inductive one, developed as an ‘organizing idea’.Each component of the model is derived from the findings of at least onestudy carried out in this area (see below). The ‘missing link’ in the modelas currently presented is the quality and frequency of peer interactions. Itis this hypothesized reduced quality and frequency of peer interaction thatwe aimed to test in the current study, thus potentially confirming or refutingan important link in our inductive model.

P E E R I N T E R A C T I O N PAT T E R N S A M O N G A D O L E S C E N T S W I T H A S D S

399



The REPIM explained

Social outcomes for included students with ASD are proposed to originateprimarily at two levels. At the level of the student with ASD, while there isinitially the motivation for social interaction, problems in social cognitioncause a lack of appropriate skills to build positive relationships (Kasari etal., 2001; Wing, 1988). At the level of the peer group, a general lack ofawareness and understanding leads to reduced acceptance of difference(Campbell et al., 2004), particularly in relation to the poor social andcommunicative skills (Adler et al., 1992) and atypical behavioural traits(Robertson et al., 2003) associated with ASD.

The combination of these endogenous and exogenous factors is hypo-thesized to result in reduced quality and frequency of peer interactionamong included students with ASD (the focus of the current study). Shouldthis be borne out, the empirical findings already established in relation tothe peer relationships of included students with ASD – such as their limitedsocial networks (Chamberlain et al., 2003), fewer friends (Cairns and Cairns,

A U T I S M 15(4)

400

Figure 1 The reciprocal effects peer interaction model (REPIM) forunderstanding negative social outcomes among included students with autisticspectrum disorder (ASD)



1994), and lower levels of social support (Humphrey and Symes, 2010a)– are a logical next step, given that positive interactions feed the develop-ment of peer relationships (Bierman, 2005). In turn, students with poorpeer relationships are more vulnerable to bullying and social rejection –and, indeed, there is empirical evidence of both negative outcomes inrelation to those with ASD (Humphrey and Symes, 2010a; Symes andHumphrey, 2010). The final step in the model is increased isolation andloneliness, which Bauminger et al. (2003) have demonstrated in relationto young people with ASD.

These outcomes ultimately generate reciprocal effects at the level of thestudent with ASD and his/her peer group. At the level of the student withASD, the negative social outcomes reduce the motivation for further peerinteraction, creating a pattern of avoidance and solitary behaviour thatdoes not provide adequate opportunities for the development of social andcommunicative skills. At the level of the peer group, the reduced socialcontact with students with ASD limits the opportunities for the developmentof understanding and awareness, further accentuating feelings of differ-ence. The overall processes described in this model are usefully capturedby Bauminger (2002: 283–4):

These children are caught in a vicious circle of social isolation. On the onehand, they have the desire to be socially involved with their peers and expressloneliness and depression in the absence of such relationships. On the otherhand, they have poor friendships and do not know how to adequately inter-act with their peers due to limited social and emotional understanding andexperiences.

The current study: a rationale

At a general level, there have been calls for more research in the area ofinclusive education for students with ASDs (Humphrey and Parkinson,2006). In developing our rationale for this specific study, several issueswere considered pertinent. Research in this area has tended to focus onacademic rather than social outcomes (Frederickson et al., 2007), and asnoted above, the study of how students with ASD actually interact withtheir peers in natural settings within school is limited (Bauminger, 2002).The research that has been carried out has been informative, but limitedin its application to the context of inclusive education because participantswith ASD have thus far been drawn exclusively from special school settings.Furthermore, published studies have thus far focused on early (Kasari andRotherham-Fuller, in press) and middle childhood (Bauminger et al., 2003).Research examining peer interaction patterns of adolescents with ASD insecondary (high) school settings is sparse by comparison. The secondary


401



school years are of particular interest and significance in this context – peerrelationships have been shown to decline with age (Rotherham-Fuller,2005), perhaps as a result of social life becoming more complicated duringadolescence (Humphrey and Symes, 2010a). Furthermore, one couldsuggest that the typical secondary school environment – busy, bustling, andoften chaotic – provides a less stable base upon which to develop positivepeer relationships for students with ASD than the more settled and support-ive primary school setting, meaning that existing difficulties in peer inter-action could be accentuated.

In light of the above, the aim of the current study was to investigatethe type, duration, and frequency of peer interaction behaviours amongstudents with ASD in mainstream secondary schools, as compared withstudents with dyslexia and those with no SEN. Dyslexia1 was chosen as theSEN control condition because like ASD, it can be thought of as a broadspectrum of abilities and difficulties, and there is a similar proportion ofstudents whose needs are being met at the various stages of SEN assessmentand intervention (e.g. SA, SA+, SSEN)2 in English schools (Barnard et al.,2002; Woods, 2002). Furthermore, male:female ratios for dyslexia and ASDsare broadly similar (approximately 3:1 and 5:1, respectively – DyslexiaAction, 2009; Howlin, 1998), and estimated incidence rates are compara-ble (approximately 1.5% and 0.9%, respectively – Green et al., 2005;Vellutino et al., 2004). However, the difficulties experienced by studentswith dyslexia relate primarily to cognition and learning – providing a use-ful contrast to the primary difficulties in communication and interactionexperienced by students with ASD (Department for Education and Skills(DfES), 2001; Office for Public Management, 2006). This opportunity tocontrast the experiences of students with difficulties in such differentdomains is important. Current theorizing about the nature of SEN amonginfluential figures in England (e.g. Lewis and Norwich, 2005) emphasizesthe need to consider how group needs (e.g. cognition and learning versuscommunication and interaction) differentially affect outcomes for childrenand young people. Furthermore, since we know that all students identi-fied as having SEN are at an increased risk of social rejection by peers(Mitsopoulou, 2006), it was also important – from a research designperspective – to establish that any differences in peer interaction quality andfrequency evident among students were not simply as a result of them havingany SEN, but specifically ASD. Some recent studies in this area (e.g. Humphreyand Symes, 2010a) have used such a design to good effect (that is, theproduction of a robust research design with theoretically plausible results).Other SEN ‘groupings’ – such as social, emotional and behavioural difficul-ties – were rejected on the grounds of the lack of definitional clarity (Hardenet al., 2003) and the possible overlap with ASD (Wainscot et al., 2008).

A U T I S M 15(4)

402



On the basis of the REPIM model outlined above, we hypothesized thatstudents with ASD would spend more time engaged in solitary activities,less time in co-operative activities, make fewer attempts at social initiationand be approached less by their peers than students with dyslexia and thosewith no SEN. Furthermore, we predicted that students with ASD wouldexperience more episodes of negative social interaction (e.g. aggressiveverbal or physical behaviour) than either of the two control groups.

Method3

DesignA quasi-experimental design was adopted. The independent variable wasSEN group status (ASD, DYS (dyslexia), or CON (no identified special edu-cational needs)). The dependent variables were type, frequency, and dura-tion of peer interaction.

ParticipantsOur sample comprised 111 students4 (38 in the ASD group, 35 in the DYSgroup, and 38 in the CON group) drawn from 12 secondary mainstreamschools in the north-west of England (102 males, 9 females; mean age13y9m)5.This exceeded a target sample size of n = 30 in each group thatwould be needed to detect a large effect size at power = 0.80 and alpha =0.05 (Cohen, 1992). A matched-triad process was undertaken to ensurethat the groups were matched as closely as possible by age and gender. Aone-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) confirmed no statistically signifi-cant differences between the groups in age (p > .05). Furthermore, a chi-square test confirmed no statistically significant association between groupand gender (p > .05). Students in the ASD and DYS groups all had relevantconfirmed diagnoses and were on their school’s SEN register. In all casesdiagnoses had been made by an appropriately qualified professional (e.g.psychiatrist, psychologist) using established assessment techniques (e.g.Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule). A matched-pairs process wasundertaken in an attempt to ensure that these two groups were matchedby stage of the SEN code of practice (DfES, 2001 – see footnote 2 abovefor explanation of these stages). A chi-square test confirmed no statisticallysignificant association between group and SEN stage (p > .05). Table 1provides a brief overview of the demographic information for each group.

Consent was sought and received from the head-teacher at each school,from each participating student’s parents, and from the students themselves(see ‘Ethical considerations’ below).


403



Materials

Peer Interaction Observation Schedule (PIOS) The PIOS is a measureof the type, duration (how long each behaviour lasts) and frequency (howoften a behaviour is observed) of the interaction between a focal studentand their peers. Adapted from an observation schedule used by Pellegriniand Bartini (2000), the instrument consists of 22 observable behaviourcodes. 15 of these refer to behaviours exhibited by the focal student (e.g.‘social initiation by focal student’), while the remaining seven pertain tothe behaviours of their peers (e.g. ‘acceptance of social initiation by focalstudent’). A full list of the behaviour codes and their definitions can befound in Appendix 1.

To use the measure, researchers observe the focal student continuouslyfor the full length of the observation period. The recording schedule is splitinto one-minute intervals to make recording easier, and allow tracking ofhow patterns of interactions evolve chronologically (that is, behaviours canbe recorded in the sequence in which they occur). If a behaviour occursfor a minute or more, the appropriate boxes are marked with an X. If abehaviour changes during a one-minute interval, the approximate pro-portions of the old and new behaviour are recorded in seconds (e.g. 40seconds of co-operative interaction, followed by 20 seconds of solitaryengaged behaviour).

A frequency score for each behaviour is calculated by summing thedistinct episodes that occurred in that code during the observation period,and dividing that number by the total number of behaviours observedoverall. This gives the frequency score as a proportion of all the distinctbehaviours that were recorded. A duration score for each behaviour is calcu-lated by summing the time recorded in that code during the observationperiod, and dividing this by the overall observation time. This gives theduration score as a proportion of the total observation duration.

A U T I S M 15(4)

404

Table 1 Demographic information for participants in the current study

ASD (n = 38) DYS (n = 35) CON (n = 38)

Mean age 13y8m (SD = 1.54) 13y9m (SD = 1.57) 13y8m (SD = 1.53)

GenderMale, % 90 92 90Female, % 10 8 10

Level of SEN provisionStatement of SEN, % 60 43 N/ASchool action plus, % 32 43School action, % 8 14



Inter-rater reliability was established through a calibration exercise atthe beginning of the study. This involved discussion of each of the 22behaviour codes and their definitions. Written examples were provided andtest-coded to ensure agreement among raters.Where discrepancies occurredthese were discussed until agreement was reached.This process was repeateduntil inter-rater agreement on these sample behaviour examples was 100%.During fieldwork in schools, any ‘ambiguous’ behaviours observed (e.g.those where the observer was unsure of the correct behaviour code toapply) were noted by the researcher tracking a given student and thensubsequently discussed with at least two other researchers until agreementon a single code was reached (coding sheets were then amended accord-ingly). For example, consider a one-minute episode during a lunchtimeobservation in which a student engages in a behaviour which the observerfeels unable to attribute to a specific code (e.g. he/she cannot decide if itis ‘solitary engaged’ or ‘solitary onlooker’). In such a circumstance, theobserver would record the duration of that behaviour under a bespoke‘ambiguous’ code and make a detailed written note of behaviour engagedin by the student. Immediately after the end of the observational period,the episode would be shared with another researcher, and a final decisionwould be taken as to which code should apply (e.g. ‘solitary onlooker’).This would then be recorded in the appropriate section of the observationschedule.

ProcedureStudents were observed during two to four break and lunchtime sessions,ranging from approximately 15 to 45 minutes in length, over a two-dayperiod. A team of eight researchers – including the two authors of thispaper – conducted the observations (although each student was onlyobserved by one researcher). Students were followed as closely as possibleduring the observation periods, but the researchers tried not to directlyinteract with them. The mean total observation time was 61 minutes.

Ethical considerationsStandard ethical procedures for educational (British Educational ResearchAssociation, 2004) and psychological research (British Psychological Society,2004) were followed throughout the study. As mentioned above, consentwas sought and received from the head-teacher at each school, from eachparticipating student’s parents and from the students themselves. Partici-pating students were given a clear explanation of the purpose of the study,and informed that their data would be treated in confidence and that theywould remain anonymous. Their right to withdraw at any point was alsomade clear. The school special educational needs co-ordinator (SENCO)


405



confirmed consent at all three levels before the authors were introduced toparticipants. One school did not want their students to be observed. Thismeant that data for six students could not be collected. Furthermore, anadditional three students exercised their right to withdraw on the basis offeeling uncomfortable being observed, leading to a final sample of N = 111.

Results

Descriptive statistics pertaining to the average total observation duration andaverage total number of discrete behaviours observed for each group arepresented in Table 2.

Descriptive statistics for the frequency and duration of each behaviourcode are presented in Tables 3 and 4. Mean scores are proportional, as outlinedabove. Higher scores therefore indicate that a behaviour was engaged inmore frequently, or for a longer period of time. Looking at Table 3, forexample, we can see that students with ASD engaged in solitary (unoccu-pied) behaviour for 3.24% of the total number of behaviours they engagedin. Likewise, looking at Table 4, students with ASD engaged in solitary(unoccupied) behaviour for 2.96% of the total amount of time they werebeing observed.

DurationTo explore group differences in duration of behaviours observed, a multi-variate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was performed. As predicted a maineffect of group (F(1.697) = .572, p < .01, η2 = .286) was revealed. Resultsare displayed in Table 3.

Analysis by type revealed that students with ASD spent significantlymore time in solitary activities (unoccupied and engaged) and less time inco-operative interaction than students in the DSY or CON groups. Theyalso spent more time engaging in reactive aggression (verbal) than eithercontrol group.

A U T I S M 15(4)

406

Table 2 Mean total observation duration and frequency of discrete behavioursin the current study

ASD DSY CON

Duration (seconds) 4051.58 3744 3513.16(SD = 1665.79) (SD = 1872.89) (SD = 2030.81)

Frequency 35.3 36.6 34.84(SD = 19.99) (SD = 33.70) (SD = 27.75)




407

Tabl

e 3

Dur

atio

n o

f pee

r in

tera

ctio

n be

havi

our

s am

ong

stu

dent

s in

the

cur

rent

stud

y

ASD

DYS

CON

ANO

VA (d

f = 2

)Pa

rtia

l eta

squ

ared

(η2 )

FOC

AL S

TUD

ENT

Solit

ary

(uno

ccup

ied)

.029

6.0

119

.004

94.

307*

.074

Solit

ary

(eng

aged

).2

437

.085

4.0

697

14.9

69**

*.2

17So

litar

y (o

nloo

ker)

.037

8.0

114

.018

72.

793

.049

Para

llel

.165

4.1

472

.140

2.3

43.0

06C

o-op

erat

ive

(inte

ract

ion)

.408

7.6

405

.646

317

.978

***

.250

Co-

oper

ativ

e (g

ame)

.059

4.0

290

.044

1.5

81.0

11R

ough

/vig

orou

s pl

ay.0

100

.023

2.0

133

2.75

6.0

49Lo

com

otor

.005

6.0

272

.030

71.

507

.027

Inst

rum

enta

l agg

ress

ion

(ver

bal)

.001

3.0

005

.000

21.

938

.035

Inst

rum

enta

l agg

ress

ion

(phy

sica

l).0

029

.001

2.0

008

.689

.013

Soci

al in

itiat

ion

by fo

cal s

tude

nt.0

064

.004

3.0

101

1.32

6.0

24R

eact

ive

aggr

essi

on (

verb

al)

.001

1.0

002

.000

03.

344*

.058

Rea

ctiv

e ag

gres

sion

(ph

ysic

al)

.002

2.0

001

.000

62.

280

.041

Subm

issi

ve/p

assi

ve.0

011

.001

0.0

003

.658

.012

Acc

epta

nce

of s

ocia

l ini

tiatio

n by

pee

r.0

050

.003

4.0

026

.964

.018

PEER

(S)

Soci

al in

itiat

ion

by p

eer

.007

2.0

043

.003

31.

699

.031

Inst

rum

enta

l agg

ress

ion

(ver

bal)

.001

4.0

005

.000

31.

964

.035

Inst

rum

enta

l agg

ress

ion

(phy

sica

l).0

001

.001

6.0

011

.914

.017

Rea

ctiv

e ag

gres

sion

(ve

rbal

).0

007

.000

0.0

002

1.87

2.0

34R

eact

ive

aggr

essi

on (

phys

ical

).0

027

.000

0.0

006

.777

.014

Subm

issi

ve/p

assi

ve.0

011

.000

8.0

001

1.36

3.0

25A

ccep

tanc

e of

soc

ial i

nitia

tion

by fo

cal s

tude

nt.0

064

.006

3.0

126

1.25

3.0

23

OVE

RALL

GRO

UP

EFFE

CTF

= 1

.697

(42

)**

*p=

<.0

5,**

p=

<.0

1,**

*p

= <

.001

.



No significant group differences were found in the duration focalstudents in the three groups spent in the following behaviours: solitary(onlooker), parallel behaviour, co-operative (game), rough/vigorous play,locomotor, instrumental aggression (both verbal and physical), social initi-ation by focal student, reactive aggression (physical), submissive/passivebehaviour, and acceptance of social initiation by peers. In terms of peerbehaviour, no significant differences were found in the duration of timepeers of students in the three groups spent in the following behaviours:social initiation by peer, instrumental aggression (verbal and physical),reactive aggression (verbal and physical), submissive/passive, and accep-tance of social initiation by focal student.

Frequency To explore group differences in frequency of behavioursobserved, MANOVA was performed. As predicted, a main effect of group(F(1.488) = 5.20, p < .05, η2 = .260) was revealed. Results are displayedin Table 4.

Analysis by type revealed that students with ASD engaged in solitarybehaviours (unoccupied, engaged, or onlooker) significantly more fre-quently and engaged in co-operative interaction less frequently than studentsin the DSY or CON groups. Students with ASD were also significantly lesslikely to engage in rough/vigorous play, but more likely to display reactiveaggression (verbal) than either control group. Peers of students with ASDwere more likely to initiate social interaction with them, but were alsomore likely to use instrumental aggression (verbal) than peers of studentsin the DSY or CON groups.

No significant differences were found in how frequently focal studentsin the ASD, DSY, or CON groups engaged in parallel behaviour, co-operative(game), locomotor, instrumental (both verbal and physical), social initia-tion by the focal student, reactive aggression (physical), submissive/passivebehaviour or acceptance of social initiation by peers. In terms of peer beha-viour, there were no significant difference in how frequently peers ofstudents with ASD, DYS, or CON engaged in instrumental aggression (phys-ical), reactive aggression (both verbal and physical), submissive/passivebehaviour, and acceptance of social initiation by the focal student.

Discussion

The main findings of the current study were that included students withASD spent more time engaged in solitary behaviours, less time engaged inco-operative interaction with peers, and more time engaging in reactiveaggression towards peers than either comparison group. In terms of fre-quency of observed behaviours, similar patterns emerged, but additionally

A U T I S M 15(4)

408




409

Tabl

e 4

Freq

uenc

y o

f pee

r in

tera

ctio

n be

havi

our

s am

ong

stu

dent

s in

the

cur

rent

stu

dy

ASD

DYS

CON

ANO

VA (d

f = 2

)Pa

rtia

l eta

squ

ared

(η2 )

FOC

AL S

TUD

ENT

Solit

ary

(uno

ccup

ied)

.032

40.

104

.005

47.

032*

**.1

15So

litar

y (e

ngag

ed)

.158

6.0

840

.072

37.

335*

**.1

20So

litar

y (o

nloo

ker)

.044

0.0

147

.026

23.

085*

.054

Para

llel

.161

4.1

743

.180

0.1

71.0

03C

o-op

erat

ive

(inte

ract

ion)

.340

9.4

416

.434

37.

438*

**.1

21C

o-op

erat

ive

(gam

e).0

226

.016

4.0

263

.486

.009

Rou

gh/v

igor

ous

play

.019

8.0

564

.037

83.

574*

.062

Loco

mot

or.0

083

.031

3.0

292

1.14

2.0

21In

stru

men

tal a

ggre

ssio

n (v

erba

l).0

082

.004

3.0

014

1.87

8.0

34In

stru

men

tal a

ggre

ssio

n (p

hysi

cal)

.003

2.0

095

.004

1.6

23.0

11So

cial

initi

atio

n by

foca

l stu

dent

.038

1.0

326

.046

3.6

95.0

13R

eact

ive

aggr

essi

on (

verb

al)

.008

2.0

022

.000

43.

811*

.066

Rea

ctiv

e ag

gres

sion

(ph

ysic

al)

.004

0.0

025

.010

1.7

10.0

13Su

bmis

sive

/pas

sive

.005

4.0

045

.002

7.4

14.0

08A

ccep

tanc

e of

soc

ial i

nitia

tion

by p

eer

.031

6.0

245

.016

41.

795

.032

PEER

(S)

Soci

al in

itiat

ion

by p

eer

.053

8.0

322

.021

23.

327*

.058

Inst

rum

enta

l agg

ress

ion

(ver

bal)

.008

6.0

016

.002

63.

139*

.055

Inst

rum

enta

l agg

ress

ion

(phy

sica

l).0

016

.006

9.0

109

.825

.015

Rea

ctiv

e ag

gres

sion

(ve

rbal

).0

038

.000

0.0

014

2.61

7.0

46R

eact

ive

aggr

essi

on (

phys

ical

).0

016

.000

0.0

031

.894

.016

Subm

issi

ve/p

assi

ve.0

082

.009

1.0

110

.044

.001

Acc

epta

nce

of s

ocia

l ini

tiatio

n by

foca

l stu

dent

.035

9.0

410

.054

0.7

12.0

13

OVE

RALL

GRO

UP

EFFE

CTF

= 1

.488

(42

)*

*p=

<.0

5,**

*p=

<.0

01



participants with ASD engaged in less instances of rough/vigorous play, andwere subject to more instances of social initiation and instrumental verbalaggression by peers than either comparison group. These findings broadlysupport the REPIM model introduced earlier in this article (although thereis one exception, which is discussed below) and that of other authors, whohave consistently found that such students find interacting with their peersdifficult, and have fewer friends, more limited social networks, and lesspeer social support as a result (e.g. Cairns and Cairns, 1994; Humphrey andSymes, 2010a; Kasari and Rotherham-Fuller, in press). In this section weaddress each of our key findings and consider the implications for ourtheoretical model and practice in this area.

The finding that included students with ASD spent more time engagedin solitary behaviours and less time engaged in co-operative interaction withpeers than the two control groups resonates with Bauminger and colleagues’(2003) finding that such students spent less time engaged in social inter-action than typically their developing peers. This is also broadly in line withthe conclusions of Lord and Magill-Evans (1995), Hauck et al. (1995), andStone and Caro-Martinez (1990) (although as noted before these studiesreported on students in special school settings). The predictions of theREPIM model are also borne out here. Importantly, students with ASD spentaround 25% less of their time engaged in co-operative interaction andaround 17–20% more of their time engaged in solitary behaviour than theparticipants in the two control groups (see Table 3). This obviously placeslimits on the opportunities to practise and develop social and communica-tive skills that are so vital in the development of positive peer relationships.

Another key finding was that peers of students with ASD engaged inverbal instrumental aggression more frequently than the peers of studentsin the other two groups. This is also in line with the REPIM model andprevious research in this area, which demonstrated that these students areat a higher risk of bullying than other groups of learners (e.g. Humphreyand Symes, 2010a; National Autistic Society, 2006). The finding could alsohelp to explain why they are less likely to report that they are being bullied(National Autistic Society, 2006). If bullying is verbal rather than physicalin nature, the social impairments that characterize ASD may prevent themfrom interpreting what is happening to them as bullying (Moore, 2007).Such a finding has important implications for intervention. Includedstudents with ASD could be taught, for example, how to recognize whenthey are being bullied verbally through the use of social stories (e.g.Reynhout and Carter, 2006; Rowe, 1999).

The fact that students with ASD were significantly more likely to engagein reactive verbal aggression than either control group can perhaps beexplained as a direct response to the greater proportion of instrumental

A U T I S M 15(4)

410



verbal aggression from their peers. Again, this has important implications.Reactive aggression is unlikely to be a successful strategy for dealing withbullying, and may exacerbate existing difficulties. Thus, it is essential thatstudents with ASD are equipped with other strategies to use when theyencounter instrumental aggression from peers, such as reporting incidentsto a teacher or other member of staff. It is known that students with ASDare more likely to seek help when they are being bullied if they feel thatthe person they confide in can be trusted and will help them (Humphreyand Symes, 2010b). Therefore, clear procedures would need to be in place,and followed by the school, if the use of reactive aggression as a responseto bullying is to be reduced.

One finding that did not directly support the REPIM model was thatthat peers of students with ASD engaged in significantly more frequentinstances of social initiation (e.g. asking a student to join their game oractivity) than the peers of students in the other two groups. Similarly, ourinitial data exploration revealed a direct match between the duration of timestudents with ASD spent in social initiation and the length of time peersspent accepting this initiation (indicating that in those instances wherestudents with ASD did initiate social approaches, these were accepted bypeers). These findings do not reflect past research (e.g. Adler et al., 1992),which has suggested that acceptance of social initiations is determinedlargely by popularity factors that are deemed to be important within thestratified social order (which, in boys, include several factors that wouldplace students with ASD near the bottom of the social hierarchy, e.g. athleticability, coolness, savoir-faire). However, students with ASD did not alwaysaccept the social advances of their peers – indeed, this is evidenced by thelack of difference in acceptance of social initiation by peers across the threegroups, in spite of the increased frequency of such initiations towardstudents in the ASD group.

The above finding potentially has important practical implications.Having peers who are committed to developing positive relationships canbe a crucial step forward for improving the social outcomes of includedstudents with ASD, and may serve to reduce feelings of distrust of otherchildren and young people expressed in recent studies (see Humphrey andLewis, 2008; Humphrey and Symes, 2010b). If some peers of students withASD are willing to interact and engage with them socially, then perhapsmore explicit guidance is required to enable such students to understandwhen a social initiation has been made, and how to respond appropriatelyin this situation. The involvement of peers would also be vital, as they canlearn to make social advances more explicit and tangible (e.g. by saying thename of the student when they greet them), thus rendering them more‘ASD-friendly’. Similar modifications to conversational language have also


411



been recommended for teachers – see Humphrey, (2008). Such strategiescould usefully be integrated into a broader effort among schools to raiseawareness and understanding of ASD among typically developing peers.

Limitations

This study strove to build upon existing knowledge about the social worldsof included students with ASD and, in particular, to develop understand-ing of their peer interaction patterns. Observing students matched on anumber of key variables in natural social settings using trained researchersand a structured observation schedule strengthened the validity of ourfindings. However, like all studies, there are some limitations that need tobe considered.

Firstly, although a strength of this study was that it involved the obser-vation of behaviour in natural settings, the importance of gaining informedconsent from the participants meant that there were always aware they werebeing watched – covert observation was not an option here. This will un-doubtedly have influenced the behaviour of participants. For example, aminority of students attempted to run away and hide from the researchers,while others made social approaches. Alongside this, peers of the focalstudents may also have been aware that they were being watched andchanged their behaviour accordingly, such as being less likely to engage inacts of physical aggression towards the focal students (given this, theincreased peer verbal aggression outlined above is all the more striking).Efforts were made to minimize the influence of the researchers’ presence,such as observing students from a reasonable distance, but the influence ofthis artefact of the study methodology cannot be discounted.

While the PIOS observation schedule used is well established and hasbeen used in other published studies (e.g. Pellegrini and Bartini, 2000), itis not completely exhaustive and therefore we do not claim that it is able tocapture the full variety of student peer interaction behaviours. For instance,the codes used (see Appendix 1) do not capture the ‘micro’ behaviours(such as eye contact) that may be important in social interaction, particu-larly in relation to the behaviour of students with ASD (for instance,Bauminger et al. (2003) found that such students were less likely to makeeye contact during social interaction than their typically developing peers).That said, the PIOS’s strength is that it captures a broader range of ‘macro’behaviours than other schedules that have been used in this area, and assuch was considered an ideal instrument for testing the predictions of theREPIM model.

A further limitation of the study reported in this article was the lack ofindependent diagnostic confirmation using a single instrument for parti-

A U T I S M 15(4)

412



cipants in the ASD group. However, while this would have increased theinternal validity of our research, the time and expense that would beincurred in undertaking such a procedure made it infeasible – especiallygiven that all participants with ASD already had relevant confirmed diag-noses (in addition to the fact that they were each in receipt of SEN provi-sion in relation to difficulties associated with ASD). Thus, we were happyto include participants in the study on the basis of professional judgementsthat had already been made.

A final limitation to be considered in relation to the current study isthe fact that we were unable to perform ‘blind’ observations (that is, eachresearcher knew the group status – ASD, DYS, or CON – of the studentsthey were observing). While performing blind observations would havegreatly strengthened the robustness and validity of our findings, it was prac-tically impossible in the ‘real world’ setting of the research, especially giventhat the observations were conducted as part of a wider study, duringwhich each of the students with ASD had already been introduced to theresearchers. Non-blind observations in a context such as that of the currentstudy obviously carry with them the risk of expectancy/typing effects,wherein the ratings of the observer are influenced by his/her knowledgeof the characteristics of the individuals under study. However, the observa-tions were all carried out by trained researchers with guidance given tofocus purely upon the specific patterns of behaviour exhibited by partici-pants, irrespective of their group status.

Conclusion

The current study is the first comparative study to report on the peer inter-action patterns of students with ASD in secondary mainstream settings usingobservational techniques. Our main findings were that, in terms of dura-tion, participants with ASD spent more time engaged in solitary behaviours,less time engaged in co-operative interaction with peers, and more timeengaging in reactive aggression towards peers than either comparison group.In terms of frequency, similar patterns emerged, but additionally partici-pants with ASD engaged in less instances of rough/vigorous play, andwere subject to more instances of social initiation and instrumental verbalaggression by peers than either comparison group. These findings alignwell with previous research in this area and provide support for our theo-retical model of the relationship between peer interaction patterns andsocial outcomes for students with ASD (see Figure 1) – although there isa clear need for this inductive model to be more rigorously tested in asingle, large scale study where the various components can be tested simul-taneously and subjected to appropriate analysis (such as structural equation


413



modelling). The study has also yielded a number of practical implications,including the need for intervention for included students with ASD todevelop their social and communicative skills in specific areas such asunderstanding when a social initiation has been made (and how to respondappropriately in this situation) and how to recognize and respond effec-tively to bullying. Among peers, sensitively handled approaches to raisingawareness and understanding of ASD (e.g. Gus, 2000), along with the pro-vision of clear guidance around how to communicate in an ‘ASD-friendly’manner, will most likely be beneficial in increasing acceptance of differ-ence. The use of a two-pronged approach, which targets both includedstudents with ASD and their peers, is preferable in that it acknowledges theendogenous and exogenous factors at play in the development of socialrelationships.

Notes1 Dyslexia is defined as being ‘evident when fluent and accurate word identification

(reading) does not develop, or does so very incompletely’ (British PsychologicalSociety, 1999).

2 Students identified as having SEN in schools in England are classified according tothe nature and level of additional provision they receive as a result of theirdifficulties. Thus, they can be at School Action (SA), School Action Plus (SAP) or inreceipt of a Statement of SEN (SSEN). Students at SA have their special needs metwithin their school’s normal resources. Those at SAP are likely to have additionalsupport from an external agency (e.g. educational psychologist). Finally, studentswhose needs have not been met at either SA or SAP will typically undergo a fullstatutory assessment of their needs, resulting in the production of an SSEN, whichlegally secures a particular level of resources that can be used to support thestudent.

3 All of the data reported in this article were collected during the execution of alarger project on inclusive education for students with ASD funded by theEconomic and Social Research Council (grant reference RES-061-25-0054).

4 Our original sample comprised 40 students in each group (total N = 120), butlack of school and/or student consent meant that 9 students (2 in the ASD group,5 in the DYS group and 2 in the CON group) did not participate in theobservational strand of the larger study (see ‘Ethical considerations’).

5 Note: This male:female ratio does not match the aforementioned populationestimates of 3:1/5:1. Aside from being a peculiarity of our sample, this mayindicate that the male:female ratios for ASD incidence in mainstream schools differfrom the population of individuals with ASD.

ReferencesAdler, P.A., Kless, S.J. & Adler, P. (1992) ‘Socialization to Gender Roles: Popularity

among Elementary School Boys and Girls’, Sociology and Education 65: 169–87.Anderson, A., Moore, D., Godfrey, R. & Fletcher-Flinn, C. (2004) ‘Social Skills

Assessment of Children with Autism in Free-Play Situations’, Autism 8: 1362–3613.

A U T I S M 15(4)

414



Barnard, J., Broach, S., Prior D. & Potter, A. (2002) Autism in Schools: Crisis or Challenge?London: NAS.

Bauminger, N. (2002) ‘The Facilitation of Social-Emotional Understanding and SocialInteraction in High-Functioning Children with Autism: Intervention Outcomes.Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 32: 283–98.

Bauminger, N. & Kasari, C. (2000) ‘Loneliness and Friendship in High-FunctioningChildren with Autism’, Child Development 71: 447–56.

Bauminger, N., Shulman, C. & Agam, G. (2003) ‘Peer Interaction and Loneliness inHigh-Functioning Children with Autism’, Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders33: 489–507.

Bierman, K.L. (2005) Peer Rejection: Developmental Processes and Intervention Strategies. New York,NY: Guilford Press.

Blair, K.C., Umbrelt, J., Dunlap, G. & Jung, G. (2007) ‘Promoting Inclusion and PeerParticipation through Assessment-Based Intervention’, Topics in Early Childhood SpecialEducation 27: 134–47.

Boutot, A. & Bryant, D.P. (2005) ‘Social Integration of Students with Autism inInclusive Settings’, Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities 40: 14–23.

British Educational Research Association (2004) Revised Ethical Guidelines for EducationalResearch. Southwell, Notts: BERA.

British Psychological Society (1999) Dyslexia, Literacy and Psychological Assessment. Report of aWorking Party of the Division of Educational and Child Psychology. Leicester: BPS.

British Psychological Society (2004) Code of Conduct, Ethical Principles and Guidelines.Leicester: BPS.

Cairns, R.B. & Cairns, B.D. (1994) Lifelines and Risks: Pathways of Youth in Our Time. NewYork, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Campbell, J.M., Ferguson, J.E, Herzinger, C.V., Jackson, J.N. & Marino, C. (2004)‘Combined Descriptive and Explanatory Information Improves Peers’ Perceptionsof Autism’, Research in Developmental Disabilities 25: 321–9.

Carter, E.W., Sisco, L.G., Brown, L., Brickham, D. & Al-Khabbaz, Z.A. (2008) ‘PeerInteractions and Academic Engagement of Youth with Developmental Disabilitiesin Inclusive Middle and High School Classrooms’, American Journal on Mental Retardation113: 479–94.

Chamberlain, B., Kasari, C. & Rotherham-Fuller, E. (2003) ‘Involvement or isolation?The Social Networks of Children with Autism in Regular Classrooms’, Journal ofAutism and Developmental Disorders 37: 230–42.

Cohen, J. (1992) ‘A Power Primer’, Psychological Bulletin 112: 155–9.Department for Children, Schools and Families (2009) Children with Special Educational

Needs 2009: An Analysis. Nottingham: DCSF Publications.Department for Education and Skills (2001) Special Educational Needs: Code of Practice.

Nottingham: DfES.Downing, J. (1996) ‘The Process of Including Elementary Students with Autism and

Intellectual Impairments in their Typical Classrooms’, paper presented at theAnnual Convention of the Council for Exceptional Children, Orlando, FL: April1996.

Dybvik, A.C. (2004) Autism and the Inclusion Mandate. Education Next 4: 42–9.Dyslexia Action (2009) What is Dyslexia? Available at: www.dyslexiaaction.org.uk

(accessed March 2009).Frederickson, N., Simmonds, E., Evans, L. & Soulsby, C. (2007) Assessing the Social

and Affective Outcomes of Inclusion. British Journal of Special Education 42: 105–15


415



Green, H., McGinnity, A., Meltzer, H., Ford,T. & Goodman, R. (2005) Mental Health ofChildren and Young People in Great Britain, 2004. London: Office for National Statistics.

Gus, L. (2000) ‘Autism: Promoting Peer Understanding’, Educational Psychology in Practice16: 461–8.

Harden, A.,Thomas, J., Evans, J., Scanlon, M. & Sinclair, J. (2003) Supporting Pupils withEmotional and Behavioural Difficulties (EBD) in Mainstream Primary Schools: A Systematic Review ofRecent Research on Strategy Effectiveness. London: Institute of Education.

Hauck, M., Fein, D.,Waterhouse, L. & Feinstein, C. (1995) ‘Social initiations byautistic children to adults and other children’, Journal of Autism and DevelopmentalDisorders 25: 579–95.

Howlin, P. (1998) Children with Autism and Asperger Syndrome. London:Wiley.Humphrey, N. (2008) ‘Including Pupils with Autistic Spectrum Disorders in

Mainstream Schools’, Support for Learning 23: 41–7.Humphrey, N. & Lewis, S. (2008) ‘“Make Me Normal”: The Views and Experiences of

Pupils on the Autistic Spectrum in Mainstream Secondary Schools’, Autism: AnInternational Journal of Research and Practice 12: 39–62.

Humphrey, N. & Parkinson, G. (2006) ‘Research on Interventions for Children andYoung People on the Autistic Spectrum: A Critical Perspective’, Journal of Research inSpecial Educational Needs 6: 76–86.

Humphrey, N. & Symes,W. (2010a) ‘Perceptions of Social Support and Experience ofBullying among Pupils with Autistic Spectrum Disorders in Mainstream SecondarySchools’, European Journal of Special Needs Education 25: 77–91.

Humphrey, N. & Symes,W. (2010b) Responses to Bullying and Use of Social Supportamong Pupils with Autistic Spectrum Disorders in Mainstream Schools: AQualitative Study’, Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs 10: 1–10.

Jordan, R. (2005) ‘Autistic Spectrum Disorders’, in Lewis, A. & Norwich, B. (eds)Special Teaching for Special Children? Buckingham: Open University Press, 110–22.

Kasari, C., Chamberlain, B. & Bauminger, N. (2001) ‘Social Emotions and SocialRelationships: Can Children with Autism Compensate?’, in Burack, J. & Charman,T.(eds) The Development of Autism: Perspectives from Theory and Research. Mahwah, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum Associates, 309–23.

Kasari, C. & Rotheram-Fuller, E. (2007) ‘Peer Relationships of Children with Autism:Challenges and Interventions’, in Hollander, E. & Anagnostou, E. (eds) Clinical Manualfor the Treatment of Autism. Arlington,VA: American Psychiatric Publishing, 235–58.

Keen, D. & Ward, S. (2004) ‘Autistic Spectrum Disorder: A Child Population Profile’,Autism 8: 39–48.

Lewis, A. & Norwich, B. (eds) (2005) Special Teaching for Special Children? Buckingham:Open University Press.

Lord, C. & Magill-Evans, J. (1995) ‘Peer Interactions of Autistic Children andAdolescents’, Development and Psychopathology 7: 611–26.

Mitsopoulou, E. (2006) ‘An Investigation of the Attitudes of Year 7 Pupils towardsTheir Classmates Who Are Identified as Having Special Educational Needs’,Psychology of Education Review 30: 39–51.

Moore, C. (2007) ‘Speaking as a Parent: Thoughts about Educational Inclusion forAutistic Children’, in Cigman, R. (ed.) Included or Excluded? The Challenge of Mainstream forsome SEN Children. London: Routledge, 34–41.

National Autistic Society (2006) B is for Bullied. London: NAS.Ochs, E., Kremer-Sadlik,T., Solomon, O. & Sirota, K.G. (2001) Inclusion as Social

Practice: Views of Children with autism. Social Development 10: 399–419.

A U T I S M 15(4)

416



Office for Public Management (2006) The Equalities Review: Issues Paper on 5–19 Age Group.London: OPM.

Owen-DeSchryer, J.S., Carr, E.G., Cale, S.I. & Blakeley-Smith, A. (2008) ‘PromotingSocial Interactions between Students with Autism Spectrum Disorders and TheirPeer in Inclusive School settings’, Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities 23:15–28.

Pellegrini, A.D. & Bartini, M. (2000) ‘A Longitudinal Study of Bullying,Victimization,and Peer Affiliation during the Transistion from Primary to Middle School’,American Educational Research Journal 37: 699–725.

Reynhout, G. & Carter, M. (2006) ‘Social Stories for Children with Disabilities’, Journalof Autism and Developmental Disorders 36: 445–69.

Robertson, K., Chamberlain, B. & Kasari, C. (2003) ‘General Education Teachers’Relationships with Included Students with Autism’, Journal of Autism and DevelopmentalDisorders 33: 123–30.

Rotherham-Fuller, E.J. (2005) ‘Age-Related Changes in the Social Inclusion ofChildren with Autism in General Education Classrooms’, unpublished thesis,University of California.

Rowe, C. (1999) ‘Do Social Stories Benefit Children with Autism in MainstreamPrimary Schools?’, British Journal of Special Education 26: 12–14.

Stone,W.L. & Caro-Martinez, L.M. (1990) ‘Naturalistic Observations of SpontaneousCommunication in Autistic Children’, Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 20:437–53.

Symes,W. & Humphrey, N. (2010) ‘Peer-Group Indicators of Social Inclusion amongPupils with Autistic Spectrum Disorders (ASD) in Mainstream Secondary Schools:A Comparative Study’, School Psychology International 31: 478–494.

Vellutino, F.R., Fletcher, J.M., Snowling, M.J. & Scanlon, D.M. (2004) ‘SpecificReading Disability (Dyslexia): What Have We Learned in the Past Four Decades?’,Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 45: 2–40.

Wainscot, J.J., Naylor, P., Sutcliffe, P.,Tantam, D. & Williams, J. (2008) ‘Relationshipswith Peers and Use of the School Environment of Mainstream Secondary SchoolPupils with Asperger Syndrome (High-Functioning Autism): A Case ControlStudy’, International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy 8: 25–38.

Wing, L. (1988) ‘The Continuum of Autistic Disorders’, in Schopler, E. &Mesihov, G.M. (eds) Diagnosis and Assessment In Autism. New York, NY: Plenum, 91–110.

Woods, K.A. (2002) ‘What Do We Mean When We Say Dyslexia and What DifferenceDoes It Make Anyway?’, In Ainscow, M. & Farrell, P. (eds) Making Special EducationInclusive. London: Fulton, 139–50.


417



Appendix 1: Behaviour codes: definitions

Focal student (FS)

1 Solitary unoccupied FS alone and not looking at others,e.g. daydreaming

2 Solitary engaged FS alone but engaged with somekind of activity, e.g. reading a book

3 Solitary onlooker FS watching, but not interactingwith, another student/s

4 Parallel FS is next to another student, bothengaged in an activity, but not interacting

5 Co-operative interaction FS is engaged in reciprocal interaction with another student

6 Co-operative game e.g. playing conkers

7 Rough/vigorous play e.g. play fighting or wrestling

8 Locomotor e.g. running around – but not aspart of a game with rules (for this,code as co-op game)

9 Instrumental aggression verbal not in reaction to aggression bypeer, e.g. telling another student to‘F*** off’ without provocation

10 Instrumental aggression not in reaction to aggression byphysical peer, e.g. pushing another student

without provocation

11 Social initiation by focal for instance, offers invitation to playstudent chess

12 Reactive aggression verbal as above but in reaction toaggression by peer

13 Reactive aggression physical as above but in reaction toaggression by peer

14 Submissive/passive no retaliation, shows pain, cries,submission, tries to leave

15 Acceptance of social initiation demonstrates positive social by peer behaviour, either verbal (e.g. says

‘OK’) or physical (e.g. smiles), inreaction to social initiation

A U T I S M 15(4)

418



Peer(s)

16 Social initiation by peer for instance, offers invitation to playchess

17 Instrumental aggression verbal not in reaction to aggression bypeer, e.g. telling focal student to‘F*** off’ without provocation

18 Instrumental aggression not in reaction to aggression by physical peer, e.g. pushing focal student

without provocation

19 Reactive aggression verbal as above but in reaction toaggression by focal student

20 Reactive aggression physical as above but in reaction toaggression by focal student

21 Submissive/passive no retaliation, shows pain, cries,submission, tries to leave

22 Acceptance of social initiation demonstrates positive social by FS behaviour, either verbal (e.g. says

‘OK’) or physical (e.g. smiles) inreaction to social initiation


419



autism_sage.pdf

Documents

Transcript of autism_sage.pdf