Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
com/
Autism
http://aut.sagepub.com/content/15/4/397
The online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/1362361310387804
2011 15: 397 originally published online 31 March 2011 Autism
Neil Humphrey and Wendy Symes
(ASDs) in mainstream school settings
Peer interaction patterns among adolescents with autistic spectrum disorders
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
http://aut.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Reprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Permissions:
http://aut.sagepub.com/content/15/4/397.refs.html Citations:
What is This?
2
)
F
O
C
A
L
S
T
U
D
E
N
T
S
o
l
i
t
a
r
y
(
u
n
o
c
c
u
p
i
e
d
)
.
0
2
9
6
.
0
1
1
9
.
0
0
4
9
4
.
3
0
7
*
.
0
7
4
S
o
l
i
t
a
r
y
(
e
n
g
a
g
e
d
)
.
2
4
3
7
.
0
8
5
4
.
0
6
9
7
1
4
.
9
6
9
*
*
*
.
2
1
7
S
o
l
i
t
a
r
y
(
o
n
l
o
o
k
e
r
)
.
0
3
7
8
.
0
1
1
4
.
0
1
8
7
2
.
7
9
3
.
0
4
9
P
a
r
a
l
l
e
l
.
1
6
5
4
.
1
4
7
2
.
1
4
0
2
.
3
4
3
.
0
0
6
C
o
-
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
v
e
(
i
n
t
e
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
)
.
4
0
8
7
.
6
4
0
5
.
6
4
6
3
1
7
.
9
7
8
*
*
*
.
2
5
0
C
o
-
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
v
e
(
g
a
m
e
)
.
0
5
9
4
.
0
2
9
0
.
0
4
4
1
.
5
8
1
.
0
1
1
R
o
u
g
h
/
v
i
g
o
r
o
u
s
p
l
a
y
.
0
1
0
0
.
0
2
3
2
.
0
1
3
3
2
.
7
5
6
.
0
4
9
L
o
c
o
m
o
t
o
r
.
0
0
5
6
.
0
2
7
2
.
0
3
0
7
1
.
5
0
7
.
0
2
7
I
n
s
t
r
u
m
e
n
t
a
l
a
g
g
r
e
s
s
i
o
n
(
v
e
r
b
a
l
)
.
0
0
1
3
.
0
0
0
5
.
0
0
0
2
1
.
9
3
8
.
0
3
5
I
n
s
t
r
u
m
e
n
t
a
l
a
g
g
r
e
s
s
i
o
n
(
p
h
y
s
i
c
a
l
)
.
0
0
2
9
.
0
0
1
2
.
0
0
0
8
.
6
8
9
.
0
1
3
S
o
c
i
a
l
i
n
i
t
i
a
t
i
o
n
b
y
f
o
c
a
l
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
.
0
0
6
4
.
0
0
4
3
.
0
1
0
1
1
.
3
2
6
.
0
2
4
R
e
a
c
t
i
v
e
a
g
g
r
e
s
s
i
o
n
(
v
e
r
b
a
l
)
.
0
0
1
1
.
0
0
0
2
.
0
0
0
0
3
.
3
4
4
*
.
0
5
8
R
e
a
c
t
i
v
e
a
g
g
r
e
s
s
i
o
n
(
p
h
y
s
i
c
a
l
)
.
0
0
2
2
.
0
0
0
1
.
0
0
0
6
2
.
2
8
0
.
0
4
1
S
u
b
m
i
s
s
i
v
e
/
p
a
s
s
i
v
e
.
0
0
1
1
.
0
0
1
0
.
0
0
0
3
.
6
5
8
.
0
1
2
A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
o
f
s
o
c
i
a
l
i
n
i
t
i
a
t
i
o
n
b
y
p
e
e
r
.
0
0
5
0
.
0
0
3
4
.
0
0
2
6
.
9
6
4
.
0
1
8
P
E
E
R
(
S
)
S
o
c
i
a
l
i
n
i
t
i
a
t
i
o
n
b
y
p
e
e
r
.
0
0
7
2
.
0
0
4
3
.
0
0
3
3
1
.
6
9
9
.
0
3
1
I
n
s
t
r
u
m
e
n
t
a
l
a
g
g
r
e
s
s
i
o
n
(
v
e
r
b
a
l
)
.
0
0
1
4
.
0
0
0
5
.
0
0
0
3
1
.
9
6
4
.
0
3
5
I
n
s
t
r
u
m
e
n
t
a
l
a
g
g
r
e
s
s
i
o
n
(
p
h
y
s
i
c
a
l
)
.
0
0
0
1
.
0
0
1
6
.
0
0
1
1
.
9
1
4
.
0
1
7
R
e
a
c
t
i
v
e
a
g
g
r
e
s
s
i
o
n
(
v
e
r
b
a
l
)
.
0
0
0
7
.
0
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
2
1
.
8
7
2
.
0
3
4
R
e
a
c
t
i
v
e
a
g
g
r
e
s
s
i
o
n
(
p
h
y
s
i
c
a
l
)
.
0
0
2
7
.
0
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
6
.
7
7
7
.
0
1
4
S
u
b
m
i
s
s
i
v
e
/
p
a
s
s
i
v
e
.
0
0
1
1
.
0
0
0
8
.
0
0
0
1
1
.
3
6
3
.
0
2
5
A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
o
f
s
o
c
i
a
l
i
n
i
t
i
a
t
i
o
n
b
y
f
o
c
a
l
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
.
0
0
6
4
.
0
0
6
3
.
0
1
2
6
1
.
2
5
3
.
0
2
3
O
V
E
R
A
L
L
G
R
O
U
P
E
F
F
E
C
T
F
=
1
.
6
9
7
(
4
2
)
*
*
*
p
=
<
.
0
5
,
*
*
p
=
<
.
0
1
,
*
*
*
p
=
<
.
0
0
1
.
by guest on March 9, 2012 aut.sagepub.com Downloaded from
No signicant group differences were found in the duration focal
students 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/passive
behaviour, and acceptance of social initiation by peers. In terms of peer
behaviour, no signicant differences were found in the duration of time
peers 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 behaviours
observed, MANOVA was performed. As predicted, a main effect of group
(F(1.488) = 5.20, p < .05,
2
= .260) was revealed. Results are displayed
in Table 4.
Analysis by type revealed that students with ASD engaged in solitary
behaviours (unoccupied, engaged, or onlooker) signicantly more fre-
quently and engaged in co-operative interaction less frequently than students
in the DSY or CON groups. Students with ASD were also signicantly less
likely to engage in rough/vigorous play, but more likely to display reactive
aggression (verbal) than either control group. Peers of students with ASD
were more likely to initiate social interaction with them, but were also
more likely to use instrumental aggression (verbal) than peers of students
in the DSY or CON groups.
No signicant differences were found in how frequently focal students
in 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/passive
behaviour or acceptance of social initiation by peers. In terms of peer beha-
viour, there were no signicant difference in how frequently peers of
students with ASD, DYS, or CON engaged in instrumental aggression (phys-
ical), reactive aggression (both verbal and physical), submissive/passive
behaviour, and acceptance of social initiation by the focal student.
Discussion
The main ndings of the current study were that included students with
ASD spent more time engaged in solitary behaviours, less time engaged in
co-operative interaction with peers, and more time engaging in reactive
aggression towards peers than either comparison group. In terms of fre-
quency of observed behaviours, similar patterns emerged, but additionally
AUT I S M 15(4)
408
by guest on March 9, 2012 aut.sagepub.com Downloaded from
P E E R I NT E R AC T I ON PAT T E R NS A MONG A D OL E S C E NT S WI T H A S D S
409
T
a
b
l
e
4
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
o
f
p
e
e
r
i
n
t
e
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
b
e
h
a
v
i
o
u
r
s
a
m
o
n
g
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
i
n
t
h
e
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
s
t
u
d
y
A
S
D
D
Y
S
C
O
N
A
N
O
V
A
(
d
f
=
2
)
P
a
r
t
i
a
l
e
t
a
s
q
u
a
r
e
d
(
2
)
F
O
C
A
L
S
T
U
D
E
N
T
S
o
l
i
t
a
r
y
(
u
n
o
c
c
u
p
i
e
d
)
.
0
3
2
4
0
.
1
0
4
.
0
0
5
4
7
.
0
3
2
*
*
*
.
1
1
5
S
o
l
i
t
a
r
y
(
e
n
g
a
g
e
d
)
.
1
5
8
6
.
0
8
4
0
.
0
7
2
3
7
.
3
3
5
*
*
*
.
1
2
0
S
o
l
i
t
a
r
y
(
o
n
l
o
o
k
e
r
)
.
0
4
4
0
.
0
1
4
7
.
0
2
6
2
3
.
0
8
5
*
.
0
5
4
P
a
r
a
l
l
e
l
.
1
6
1
4
.
1
7
4
3
.
1
8
0
0
.
1
7
1
.
0
0
3
C
o
-
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
v
e
(
i
n
t
e
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
)
.
3
4
0
9
.
4
4
1
6
.
4
3
4
3
7
.
4
3
8
*
*
*
.
1
2
1
C
o
-
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
v
e
(
g
a
m
e
)
.
0
2
2
6
.
0
1
6
4
.
0
2
6
3
.
4
8
6
.
0
0
9
R
o
u
g
h
/
v
i
g
o
r
o
u
s
p
l
a
y
.
0
1
9
8
.
0
5
6
4
.
0
3
7
8
3
.
5
7
4
*
.
0
6
2
L
o
c
o
m
o
t
o
r
.
0
0
8
3
.
0
3
1
3
.
0
2
9
2
1
.
1
4
2
.
0
2
1
I
n
s
t
r
u
m
e
n
t
a
l
a
g
g
r
e
s
s
i
o
n
(
v
e
r
b
a
l
)
.
0
0
8
2
.
0
0
4
3
.
0
0
1
4
1
.
8
7
8
.
0
3
4
I
n
s
t
r
u
m
e
n
t
a
l
a
g
g
r
e
s
s
i
o
n
(
p
h
y
s
i
c
a
l
)
.
0
0
3
2
.
0
0
9
5
.
0
0
4
1
.
6
2
3
.
0
1
1
S
o
c
i
a
l
i
n
i
t
i
a
t
i
o
n
b
y
f
o
c
a
l
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
.
0
3
8
1
.
0
3
2
6
.
0
4
6
3
.
6
9
5
.
0
1
3
R
e
a
c
t
i
v
e
a
g
g
r
e
s
s
i
o
n
(
v
e
r
b
a
l
)
.
0
0
8
2
.
0
0
2
2
.
0
0
0
4
3
.
8
1
1
*
.
0
6
6
R
e
a
c
t
i
v
e
a
g
g
r
e
s
s
i
o
n
(
p
h
y
s
i
c
a
l
)
.
0
0
4
0
.
0
0
2
5
.
0
1
0
1
.
7
1
0
.
0
1
3
S
u
b
m
i
s
s
i
v
e
/
p
a
s
s
i
v
e
.
0
0
5
4
.
0
0
4
5
.
0
0
2
7
.
4
1
4
.
0
0
8
A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
o
f
s
o
c
i
a
l
i
n
i
t
i
a
t
i
o
n
b
y
p
e
e
r
.
0
3
1
6
.
0
2
4
5
.
0
1
6
4
1
.
7
9
5
.
0
3
2
P
E
E
R
(
S
)
S
o
c
i
a
l
i
n
i
t
i
a
t
i
o
n
b
y
p
e
e
r
.
0
5
3
8
.
0
3
2
2
.
0
2
1
2
3
.
3
2
7
*
.
0
5
8
I
n
s
t
r
u
m
e
n
t
a
l
a
g
g
r
e
s
s
i
o
n
(
v
e
r
b
a
l
)
.
0
0
8
6
.
0
0
1
6
.
0
0
2
6
3
.
1
3
9
*
.
0
5
5
I
n
s
t
r
u
m
e
n
t
a
l
a
g
g
r
e
s
s
i
o
n
(
p
h
y
s
i
c
a
l
)
.
0
0
1
6
.
0
0
6
9
.
0
1
0
9
.
8
2
5
.
0
1
5
R
e
a
c
t
i
v
e
a
g
g
r
e
s
s
i
o
n
(
v
e
r
b
a
l
)
.
0
0
3
8
.
0
0
0
0
.
0
0
1
4
2
.
6
1
7
.
0
4
6
R
e
a
c
t
i
v
e
a
g
g
r
e
s
s
i
o
n
(
p
h
y
s
i
c
a
l
)
.
0
0
1
6
.
0
0
0
0
.
0
0
3
1
.
8
9
4
.
0
1
6
S
u
b
m
i
s
s
i
v
e
/
p
a
s
s
i
v
e
.
0
0
8
2
.
0
0
9
1
.
0
1
1
0
.
0
4
4
.
0
0
1
A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
o
f
s
o
c
i
a
l
i
n
i
t
i
a
t
i
o
n
b
y
f
o
c
a
l
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
.
0
3
5
9
.
0
4
1
0
.
0
5
4
0
.
7
1
2
.
0
1
3
O
V
E
R
A
L
L
G
R
O
U
P
E
F
F
E
C
T
F
=
1
.
4
8
8
(
4
2
)
*
*
p
=
<
.
0
5
,
*
*
*
p
=
<
.
0
0
1
by guest on March 9, 2012 aut.sagepub.com Downloaded from
participants with ASD engaged in less instances of rough/vigorous play, and
were subject to more instances of social initiation and instrumental verbal
aggression by peers than either comparison group. These ndings broadly
support the REPIM model introduced earlier in this article (although there
is one exception, which is discussed below) and that of other authors, who
have consistently found that such students nd interacting with their peers
difcult, and have fewer friends, more limited social networks, and less
peer social support as a result (e.g. Cairns and Cairns, 1994; Humphrey and
Symes, 2010a; Kasari and Rotherham-Fuller, in press). In this section we
address each of our key ndings and consider the implications for our
theoretical model and practice in this area.
The nding that included students with ASD spent more time engaged
in solitary behaviours and less time engaged in co-operative interaction with
peers than the two control groups resonates with Bauminger and colleagues
(2003) nding that such students spent less time engaged in social inter-
action than typically their developing peers. This is also broadly in line with
the conclusions of Lord and Magill-Evans (1995), Hauck et al. (1995), and
Stone and Caro-Martinez (1990) (although as noted before these studies
reported on students in special school settings). The predictions of the
REPIM model are also borne out here. Importantly, students with ASD spent
around 25% less of their time engaged in co-operative interaction and
around 1720% more of their time engaged in solitary behaviour than the
participants in the two control groups (see Table 3). This obviously places
limits 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 nding was that peers of students with ASD engaged in
verbal instrumental aggression more frequently than the peers of students
in the other two groups. This is also in line with the REPIM model and
previous research in this area, which demonstrated that these students are
at a higher risk of bullying than other groups of learners (e.g. Humphrey
and Symes, 2010a; National Autistic Society, 2006). The nding could also
help to explain why they are less likely to report that they are being bullied
(National Autistic Society, 2006). If bullying is verbal rather than physical
in nature, the social impairments that characterize ASD may prevent them
from interpreting what is happening to them as bullying (Moore, 2007).
Such a nding has important implications for intervention. Included
students with ASD could be taught, for example, how to recognize when
they 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 signicantly more likely to engage
in reactive verbal aggression than either control group can perhaps be
explained as a direct response to the greater proportion of instrumental
AUT I S M 15(4)
410
by guest on March 9, 2012 aut.sagepub.com Downloaded from
verbal aggression from their peers. Again, this has important implications.
Reactive aggression is unlikely to be a successful strategy for dealing with
bullying, and may exacerbate existing difculties. Thus, it is essential that
students with ASD are equipped with other strategies to use when they
encounter instrumental aggression from peers, such as reporting incidents
to a teacher or other member of staff. It is known that students with ASD
are more likely to seek help when they are being bullied if they feel that
the person they conde in can be trusted and will help them (Humphrey
and Symes, 2010b). Therefore, clear procedures would need to be in place,
and followed by the school, if the use of reactive aggression as a response
to bullying is to be reduced.
One nding that did not directly support the REPIM model was that
that peers of students with ASD engaged in signicantly more frequent
instances of social initiation (e.g. asking a student to join their game or
activity) than the peers of students in the other two groups. Similarly, our
initial data exploration revealed a direct match between the duration of time
students with ASD spent in social initiation and the length of time peers
spent accepting this initiation (indicating that in those instances where
students with ASD did initiate social approaches, these were accepted by
peers). These ndings do not reect past research (e.g. Adler et al., 1992),
which has suggested that acceptance of social initiations is determined
largely by popularity factors that are deemed to be important within the
stratied social order (which, in boys, include several factors that would
place students with ASD near the bottom of the social hierarchy, e.g. athletic
ability, coolness, savoir-faire). However, students with ASD did not always
accept the social advances of their peers indeed, this is evidenced by the
lack of difference in acceptance of social initiation by peers across the three
groups, in spite of the increased frequency of such initiations toward
students in the ASD group.
The above nding potentially has important practical implications.
Having peers who are committed to developing positive relationships can
be a crucial step forward for improving the social outcomes of included
students with ASD, and may serve to reduce feelings of distrust of other
children and young people expressed in recent studies (see Humphrey and
Lewis, 2008; Humphrey and Symes, 2010b). If some peers of students with
ASD are willing to interact and engage with them socially, then perhaps
more explicit guidance is required to enable such students to understand
when a social initiation has been made, and how to respond appropriately
in this situation. The involvement of peers would also be vital, as they can
learn to make social advances more explicit and tangible (e.g. by saying the
name of the student when they greet them), thus rendering them more
ASD-friendly. Similar modications to conversational language have also
P E E R I NT E R AC T I ON PAT T E R NS A MONG A D OL E S C E NT S WI T H A S D S
411
by guest on March 9, 2012 aut.sagepub.com Downloaded from
been recommended for teachers see Humphrey, (2008). Such strategies
could usefully be integrated into a broader effort among schools to raise
awareness and understanding of ASD among typically developing peers.
Limitations
This study strove to build upon existing knowledge about the social worlds
of included students with ASD and, in particular, to develop understand-
ing of their peer interaction patterns. Observing students matched on a
number of key variables in natural social settings using trained researchers
and a structured observation schedule strengthened the validity of our
ndings. However, like all studies, there are some limitations that need to
be considered.
Firstly, although a strength of this study was that it involved the obser-
vation of behaviour in natural settings, the importance of gaining informed
consent from the participants meant that there were always aware they were
being watched covert observation was not an option here. This will un-
doubtedly have inuenced the behaviour of participants. For example, a
minority of students attempted to run away and hide from the researchers,
while others made social approaches. Alongside this, peers of the focal
students may also have been aware that they were being watched and
changed their behaviour accordingly, such as being less likely to engage in
acts of physical aggression towards the focal students (given this, the
increased peer verbal aggression outlined above is all the more striking).
Efforts were made to minimize the inuence of the researchers presence,
such as observing students from a reasonable distance, but the inuence of
this artefact of the study methodology cannot be discounted.
While the PIOS observation schedule used is well established and has
been used in other published studies (e.g. Pellegrini and Bartini, 2000), it
is not completely exhaustive and therefore we do not claim that it is able to
capture 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 make
eye contact during social interaction than their typically developing peers).
That said, the PIOSs strength is that it captures a broader range of macro
behaviours than other schedules that have been used in this area, and as
such was considered an ideal instrument for testing the predictions of the
REPIM model.
A further limitation of the study reported in this article was the lack of
independent diagnostic conrmation using a single instrument for parti-
AUT I S M 15(4)
412
by guest on March 9, 2012 aut.sagepub.com Downloaded from
cipants in the ASD group. However, while this would have increased the
internal validity of our research, the time and expense that would be
incurred in undertaking such a procedure made it infeasible especially
given that all participants with ASD already had relevant conrmed diag-
noses (in addition to the fact that they were each in receipt of SEN provi-
sion in relation to difculties associated with ASD). Thus, we were happy
to include participants in the study on the basis of professional judgements
that had already been made.
A nal limitation to be considered in relation to the current study is
the fact that we were unable to perform blind observations (that is, each
researcher knew the group status ASD, DYS, or CON of the students
they were observing). While performing blind observations would have
greatly strengthened the robustness and validity of our ndings, it was prac-
tically impossible in the real world setting of the research, especially given
that the observations were conducted as part of a wider study, during
which each of the students with ASD had already been introduced to the
researchers. Non-blind observations in a context such as that of the current
study obviously carry with them the risk of expectancy/typing effects,
wherein the ratings of the observer are inuenced by his/her knowledge
of the characteristics of the individuals under study. However, the observa-
tions were all carried out by trained researchers with guidance given to
focus purely upon the specic patterns of behaviour exhibited by partici-
pants, irrespective of their group status.
Conclusion
The current study is the rst comparative study to report on the peer inter-
action patterns of students with ASD in secondary mainstream settings using
observational techniques. Our main ndings 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 time
engaging 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, and
were subject to more instances of social initiation and instrumental verbal
aggression by peers than either comparison group. These ndings align
well with previous research in this area and provide support for our theo-
retical model of the relationship between peer interaction patterns and
social outcomes for students with ASD (see Figure 1) although there is
a clear need for this inductive model to be more rigorously tested in a
single, large scale study where the various components can be tested simul-
taneously and subjected to appropriate analysis (such as structural equation
P E E R I NT E R AC T I ON PAT T E R NS A MONG A D OL E S C E NT S WI T H A S D S
413
by guest on March 9, 2012 aut.sagepub.com Downloaded from
modelling). The study has also yielded a number of practical implications,
including the need for intervention for included students with ASD to
develop their social and communicative skills in specic areas such as
understanding when a social initiation has been made (and how to respond
appropriately in this situation) and how to recognize and respond effec-
tively to bullying. Among peers, sensitively handled approaches to raising
awareness 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 benecial in increasing acceptance of differ-
ence. The use of a two-pronged approach, which targets both included
students with ASD and their peers, is preferable in that it acknowledges the
endogenous and exogenous factors at play in the development of social
relationships.
Notes
1 Dyslexia is dened as being evident when uent and accurate word identication
(reading) does not develop, or does so very incompletely (British Psychological
Society, 1999).
2 Students identied as having SEN in schools in England are classied according to
the nature and level of additional provision they receive as a result of their
difculties. Thus, they can be at School Action (SA), School Action Plus (SAP) or in
receipt of a Statement of SEN (SSEN). Students at SA have their special needs met
within their schools normal resources. Those at SAP are likely to have additional
support from an external agency (e.g. educational psychologist). Finally, students
whose needs have not been met at either SA or SAP will typically undergo a full
statutory assessment of their needs, resulting in the production of an SSEN, which
legally secures a particular level of resources that can be used to support the
student.
3 All of the data reported in this article were collected during the execution of a
larger project on inclusive education for students with ASD funded by the
Economic and Social Research Council (grant reference RES-061-25-0054).
4 Our original sample comprised 40 students in each group (total N = 120), but
lack 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 the
observational strand of the larger study (see Ethical considerations).
5 Note: This male:female ratio does not match the aforementioned population
estimates of 3:1/5:1. Aside from being a peculiarity of our sample, this may
indicate that the male:female ratios for ASD incidence in mainstream schools differ
from the population of individuals with ASD.
References
Adler, P.A., Kless, S.J. & Adler, P. (1992) Socialization to Gender Roles: Popularity
among Elementary School Boys and Girls, Sociology and Education 65: 16987.
Anderson, A., Moore, D., Godfrey, R. & Fletcher-Flinn, C. (2004) Social Skills
Assessment of Children with Autism in Free-Play Situations, Autism 8: 13623613.
AUT I S M 15(4)
414
by guest on March 9, 2012 aut.sagepub.com Downloaded from
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 Social
Interaction in High-Functioning Children with Autism: Intervention Outcomes.
Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 32: 28398.
Bauminger, N. & Kasari, C. (2000) Loneliness and Friendship in High-Functioning
Children with Autism, Child Development 71: 44756.
Bauminger, N., Shulman, C. & Agam, G. (2003) Peer Interaction and Loneliness in
High-Functioning Children with Autism, Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders
33: 489507.
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 Peer
Participation through Assessment-Based Intervention, Topics in Early Childhood Special
Education 27: 13447.
Boutot, A. & Bryant, D.P. (2005) Social Integration of Students with Autism in
Inclusive Settings, Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities 40: 1423.
British Educational Research Association (2004) Revised Ethical Guidelines for Educational
Research. Southwell, Notts: BERA.
British Psychological Society (1999) Dyslexia, Literacy and Psychological Assessment. Report of a
Working 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. New
York, 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 Perceptions
of Autism, Research in Developmental Disabilities 25: 3219.
Carter, E.W., Sisco, L.G., Brown, L., Brickham, D. & Al-Khabbaz, Z.A. (2008) Peer
Interactions and Academic Engagement of Youth with Developmental Disabilities
in Inclusive Middle and High School Classrooms, American Journal on Mental Retardation
113: 47994.
Chamberlain, B., Kasari, C. & Rotherham-Fuller, E. (2003) Involvement or isolation?
The Social Networks of Children with Autism in Regular Classrooms, Journal of
Autism and Developmental Disorders 37: 23042.
Cohen, J. (1992) A Power Primer, Psychological Bulletin 112: 1559.
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 the
Annual Convention of the Council for Exceptional Children, Orlando, FL: April
1996.
Dybvik, A.C. (2004) Autism and the Inclusion Mandate. Education Next 4: 429.
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: 10515
P E E R I NT E R AC T I ON PAT T E R NS A MONG A D OL E S C E NT S WI T H A S D S
415
by guest on March 9, 2012 aut.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Green, H., McGinnity, A., Meltzer, H., Ford, T. & Goodman, R. (2005) Mental Health of
Children and Young People in Great Britain, 2004. London: Ofce for National Statistics.
Gus, L. (2000) Autism: Promoting Peer Understanding, Educational Psychology in Practice
16: 4618.
Harden, A., Thomas, J., Evans, J., Scanlon, M. & Sinclair, J. (2003) Supporting Pupils with
Emotional and Behavioural Difculties (EBD) in Mainstream Primary Schools: A Systematic Review of
Recent Research on Strategy Effectiveness. London: Institute of Education.
Hauck, M., Fein, D., Waterhouse, L. & Feinstein, C. (1995) Social initiations by
autistic children to adults and other children, Journal of Autism and Developmental
Disorders 25: 57995.
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: 417.
Humphrey, N. & Lewis, S. (2008) Make Me Normal: The Views and Experiences of
Pupils on the Autistic Spectrum in Mainstream Secondary Schools, Autism: An
International Journal of Research and Practice 12: 3962.
Humphrey, N. & Parkinson, G. (2006) Research on Interventions for Children and
Young People on the Autistic Spectrum: A Critical Perspective, Journal of Research in
Special Educational Needs 6: 7686.
Humphrey, N. & Symes, W. (2010a) Perceptions of Social Support and Experience of
Bullying among Pupils with Autistic Spectrum Disorders in Mainstream Secondary
Schools, European Journal of Special Needs Education 25: 7791.
Humphrey, N. & Symes, W. (2010b) Responses to Bullying and Use of Social Support
among Pupils with Autistic Spectrum Disorders in Mainstream Schools: A
Qualitative Study, Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs 10: 110.
Jordan, R. (2005) Autistic Spectrum Disorders, in Lewis, A. & Norwich, B. (eds)
Special Teaching for Special Children? Buckingham: Open University Press, 11022.
Kasari, C., Chamberlain, B. & Bauminger, N. (2001) Social Emotions and Social
Relationships: Can Children with Autism Compensate?, in Burack, J. & Charman, T.
(eds) The Development of Autism: Perspectives from Theory and Research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, 30923.
Kasari, C. & Rotheram-Fuller, E. (2007) Peer Relationships of Children with Autism:
Challenges and Interventions, in Hollander, E. & Anagnostou, E. (eds) Clinical Manual
for the Treatment of Autism. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing, 23558.
Keen, D. & Ward, S. (2004) Autistic Spectrum Disorder: A Child Population Prole,
Autism 8: 3948.
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 and
Adolescents, Development and Psychopathology 7: 61126.
Mitsopoulou, E. (2006) An Investigation of the Attitudes of Year 7 Pupils towards
Their Classmates Who Are Identied as Having Special Educational Needs,
Psychology of Education Review 30: 3951.
Moore, C. (2007) Speaking as a Parent: Thoughts about Educational Inclusion for
Autistic Children, in Cigman, R. (ed.) Included or Excluded? The Challenge of Mainstream for
some SEN Children. London: Routledge, 3441.
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: 399419.
AUT I S M 15(4)
416
by guest on March 9, 2012 aut.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Ofce for Public Management (2006) The Equalities Review: Issues Paper on 519 Age Group.
London: OPM.
Owen-DeSchryer, J.S., Carr, E.G., Cale, S.I. & Blakeley-Smith, A. (2008) Promoting
Social Interactions between Students with Autism Spectrum Disorders and Their
Peer in Inclusive School settings, Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities 23:
1528.
Pellegrini, A.D. & Bartini, M. (2000) A Longitudinal Study of Bullying, Victimization,
and Peer Afliation during the Transistion from Primary to Middle School,
American Educational Research Journal 37: 699725.
Reynhout, G. & Carter, M. (2006) Social Stories for Children with Disabilities, Journal
of Autism and Developmental Disorders 36: 44569.
Robertson, K., Chamberlain, B. & Kasari, C. (2003) General Education Teachers
Relationships with Included Students with Autism, Journal of Autism and Developmental
Disorders 33: 12330.
Rotherham-Fuller, E.J. (2005) Age-Related Changes in the Social Inclusion of
Children with Autism in General Education Classrooms, unpublished thesis,
University of California.
Rowe, C. (1999) Do Social Stories Benet Children with Autism in Mainstream
Primary Schools?, British Journal of Special Education 26: 1214.
Stone, W.L. & Caro-Martinez, L.M. (1990) Naturalistic Observations of Spontaneous
Communication in Autistic Children, Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 20:
43753.
Symes, W. & Humphrey, N. (2010) Peer-Group Indicators of Social Inclusion among
Pupils with Autistic Spectrum Disorders (ASD) in Mainstream Secondary Schools:
A Comparative Study, School Psychology International 31: 478494.
Vellutino, F.R., Fletcher, J.M., Snowling, M.J. & Scanlon, D.M. (2004) Specic
Reading Disability (Dyslexia): What Have We Learned in the Past Four Decades?,
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 45: 240.
Wainscot, J.J., Naylor, P., Sutcliffe, P., Tantam, D. & Williams, J. (2008) Relationships
with Peers and Use of the School Environment of Mainstream Secondary School
Pupils with Asperger Syndrome (High-Functioning Autism): A Case Control
Study, International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy 8: 2538.
Wing, L. (1988) The Continuum of Autistic Disorders, in Schopler, E. &
Mesihov, G.M. (eds) Diagnosis and Assessment In Autism. NewYork, NY: Plenum, 91110.
Woods, K.A. (2002) What Do We Mean When We Say Dyslexia and What Difference
Does It Make Anyway?, In Ainscow, M. & Farrell, P. (eds) Making Special Education
Inclusive. London: Fulton, 13950.
P E E R I NT E R AC T I ON PAT T E R NS A MONG A D OL E S C E NT S WI T H A S D S
417
by guest on March 9, 2012 aut.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Appendix 1: Behaviour codes: denitions
Focal student (FS)
1 Solitary unoccupied FS alone and not looking at others,
e.g. daydreaming
2 Solitary engaged FS alone but engaged with some
kind of activity, e.g. reading a book
3 Solitary onlooker FS watching, but not interacting
with, another student/s
4 Parallel FS is next to another student, both
engaged 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 ghting or wrestling
8 Locomotor e.g. running around but not as
part of a game with rules (for this,
code as co-op game)
9 Instrumental aggression verbal not in reaction to aggression by
peer, e.g. telling another student to
F*** off without provocation
10 Instrumental aggression not in reaction to aggression by
physical peer, e.g. pushing another student
without provocation
11 Social initiation by focal for instance, offers invitation to play
student chess
12 Reactive aggression verbal as above but in reaction to
aggression by peer
13 Reactive aggression physical as above but in reaction to
aggression 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), in
reaction to social initiation
AUT I S M 15(4)
418
by guest on March 9, 2012 aut.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Peer(s)
16 Social initiation by peer for instance, offers invitation to play
chess
17 Instrumental aggression verbal not in reaction to aggression by
peer, 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 to
aggression by focal student
20 Reactive aggression physical as above but in reaction to
aggression 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) in
reaction to social initiation
P E E R I NT E R AC T I ON PAT T E R NS A MONG A D OL E S C E NT S WI T H A S D S
419
by guest on March 9, 2012 aut.sagepub.com Downloaded from