This social validity study accompanied a 9-month randomized control trial that investigated the efficacy of an emergent literacy program, Early Literacy Skills Builder (ELSB), delivered in general education elementary classrooms to students with severe disabilities, including autism. The social validity research questions focused on (a) the social significance of the intervention goals; (b) the social, logistical, and cultural appropriateness of the intervention procedures; and (c) the importance of the effects of the intervention on social and academic growth and peer and adult attitudes and relationships. The findings from participating general and special educators, principals, and students explored perceptions of the benefits of ELSB for teaching and learning as well as affordances and constraints of the contexts in which ELSB was delivered. Results suggest that ELSB implementation in general education classrooms had high social validity for participants, with some mixed views on educator collaboration from teachers.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AgranM.JacksonL.KurthJ.RyndakD.BurnetteK.JamesonM.ZagonaA.FitzpatrickH.WehmeyerM. (2020). Why aren’t students with severe disabilities being placed in general education classrooms: Examining the relations among classroom placement, learner outcomes, and other factors. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 45(1), 4–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796919878134
2.
AgranM.SpoonerF.SingerG. H. (2017). Evidence-based practices: The complexities of implementation. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 42(1), 3–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796916685050
3.
ArtilesA. J.KozleskiE. B. (2017). Inclusive education’s promises and trajectories: Critical notes about future research on a venerable idea. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 24, 1–29. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.24.1919
BakerJ. N.SpoonerF.Ahlgrim-DelzellL.FlowersC.BrowderD. M. (2010). A measure of emergent literacy for students with severe developmental disabilities. Psychology in the Schools, 47(5), 501–513. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20486
6.
BrowderD.Ahlgrim-DelzellL.SpoonerF.MimsP. J.BakerJ. N. (2009). Using time delay to teach literacy to students with severe developmental disabilities. Exceptional Children, 75(3), 343–364. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290907500305
7.
CampbellJ. L.QuincyC.OssermanJ.PedersenO. K. (2013). Coding in-depth semistructured interviews: Problems of unitization and intercoder reliability and agreement. Sociological Methods and Research, 42(3), 294–320. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124113500475
8.
CarrE. G.DunlapG.HornerR. H.KoegelR. L.TurnbullA. P.SailorW.AndersonJ. L.AlbinR. W.KoegelL. K.FoxL. (2002). Positive behavior support: Evolution of an applied science. Journal of Positive Interventions, 4(1), 4–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/109830070200400102
9.
ChungY. C.CarterE. W. (2013). Promoting peer interactions in inclusive classrooms for students who use speech-generating devices. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 38(2), 94–109.
10.
CourtadeG. R.LingoA. S.KarpK. S.WhitneyT. (2013). Shared story reading: Teaching mathematics to students with moderate and severe disabilities. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 45(3), 34–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/004005991304500304
11.
CoyneM. D.CookB. G.TherrienW. J., (2016). Recommendations for replication research in special education: A framework of systematic, conceptual replications. Remedial and Special Education, 37(4), 244–253. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932516648463
12.
CrittendenK. S.HillR. J. (1971). Coding reliability and validity of interview data. American Sociological Review, 36(6), 1073–1080. https://doi.org/10.2307/2093766
13.
FeredayJ.Muir-CochraneE. (2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 80–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690600500107
14.
FishmanB. J.PenuelW. R.AllenA.-R.ChengB. H. (Eds.). (2013). Design-based implementation research: Theories, methods, and exemplars. National Society for the Study of Education yearbook. Teachers College Press.
15.
GreenwoodM.KendrickT.DaviesH.GillF. J. (2017). Hearing voices: Comparing two methods for analysis of focus group data. Applied Nursing Research, 35, 90–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apnr.2017.02.024
16.
HalleJ. (2019). Avoiding the Humdrum: Recommendations for improving how we conceptualize and assess social validity in ECSE. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 39(3), 139–143. https://doi.org/10.1177/0271121419873525
17.
HeinrichS.CollinsB. C.KnightV.SpriggsA. D. (2016). Embedded simultaneous prompting procedure to teach STEM content to high school students with moderate disabilities in an inclusive setting. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 51(1), 41–54. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26420363
18.
HornerR. H.CarrE. G.HalleJ.McGeeG.OdomS.WoleryM. (2005). The use of single-subject research to identify evidence-based practice in special education. Exceptional Children, 71(2), 165–179. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290507100203
19.
HudsonM. E.BrowderD. M.WoodL. A. (2013). Review of experimental research on academic learning by students with moderate and severe intellectual disability in general education. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 38(1), 17–29. https://doi.org/10.2511/027494813807046926
20.
HuntP.KozleskiE. B.LeeJ.FlemingD.HicksT.MortierK.StepaniukI.BalasubramanianL.LeuG.BrossL.DunlapK.OhY. (2020). Implementing comprehensive emergent literacy instruction for students with severe disabilities in general education classrooms. Exceptional Children, 86(3), 330–347. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402919880156
21.
KozleskiE. B. (2017). The uses of qualitative research: Powerful methods to inform evidence-based practice in education. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 42(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1540796916683710
22.
KozleskiE. B.WaitollerF. R. (2010). Teacher learning for inclusive education: Understanding teaching as a cultural and political practice. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 14(7), 655–666. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603111003778379
23.
KruegerR. A. (2000). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (3rd ed.). Sage.
24.
KuntzE. M.CarterE. W. (2019). Review of interventions supporting secondary students with intellectual disability in general education classes. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 44(2), 103–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796919847483
25.
KurthJ.MorningstarM.KozleskiE. (2014). The persistence of highly restrictive special education placements for students with low-incidence disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 39(3), 227–239. https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796914555580
26.
LapadatJ. (2000). Problematizing transcription: Purpose, paradigm and quality. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 3(3), 203–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570050083698
27.
LekoM. M. (2014). The value of qualitative methods in social validity research. Remedial and Special Education, 35(5), 275–286. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932514524002
28.
MacGinitieR.MariaK.DreyerL. G. (2000). Gates–MacGinitie Reading Tests. Riverside.
29.
MorningstarM. E.KurthJ. A.JohnsonP. E. (2017). Examining national trends in educational placements for students with significant disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 38(1), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0741932516678327
30.
RyanJ.JamesonJ. M.ColemanO. F.EichelbergerC.BowmanJ. A.ConradiL. A.JohnsonS. S.McDonnellJ. (2019). Inclusive social studies content instruction for students with significant intellectual disability using structured inquiry-based instruction. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 54(4), 420–436.
31.
SailorW. (2018). Equity as a basis for inclusive educational systems change. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 41(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1017/jse.2016.12
32.
SaldañaJ. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). Sage.
33.
StaffordL.MartsonG.BeatsonA.Chamorro-KocM.DrennanJ. (2019). Interpretative accounts of work capacity assessment policy for young adults with disabilities, Disability & Society, 34(6), 885–903. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2018.1561356
34.
TaylorD. B.Ahlgrim-DelzellL.FlowersC. (2010). A qualitative study of teacher perceptions on using an explicit instruction curriculum to teach early reading skills to students with significant developmental disabilities. Reading Psychology, 31(6), 524–545. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702710903256569
35.
ToewsS. G.KurthJ. A. (2019). Literacy instruction in general education settings: A call to action. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 44, 135–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796919855373
36.
WehmeyerM. L.ShogrenK. A.KurthJ. A.MorningstarM. E.KozleskiE. B.AgranM.JacksonL.JamesonJ. M.McDonnellJ.RyndakD. L. (2016). Including students with extensive and pervasive support needs. Advances in Special Education, 31, 129–155. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0270-401320160000031009
37.
WolfM. M. (1978). Social validity: The case for subjective measurement or how applied behavior analysis is finding its heart. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11(2), 203–214. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1978.11-203
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
