| Title |
Evaluation of a Decision-Making Curriculum for Teaching Adolescents with Disabilities to Resist Negative Peer Pressure
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, March 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10803-016-2770-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ishita Khemka, Linda Hickson, Sarah B. Mallory |
| Abstract |
This study was designed to assess the impact of a decision-making curriculum (PEER-DM) on the social peer relationship knowledge and self-protective decision-making skills of adolescents with disabilities in hypothetical situations involving negative peer pressure. A randomized design was used to assign students with disabilities from self-contained special education classes to an intervention group (n = 22) or a wait-list control group (n = 20). ANCOVA analyses, using pretest scores as covariates, indicated that students who were trained on PEER-DM had significantly higher effective decision-making action and correct risk perception scores, relative to participants in the control group. This study provides supporting evidence that PEER-DM is a promising intervention for students with disabilities, including those with identified autism spectrum disorders, during transition years to help them develop a better understanding of positive and negative peer relationships and learn systematic decision-making skills for improved handling of social situations in the school and community, especially situations involving negative peer pressure. The study adds credence to using systematic, strategy-based decision making interventions designed to address the cognitive, emotional and motivational processes underlying adolescent decision making in sensitive interpersonal situations involving peer pressure. The study points to the lack of preparedness to handle situations of negative peer pressure as a serious social and health risk for adolescents with disabilities that deserves urgent and concerted attention in transition services programming. Implications for future curriculum-development efforts and replication of treatment findings are discussed. Future research examining disability-specific patterns of decision-making in peer situations and comparisons with typically developing populations is recommended. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 222 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 222 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 31 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 28 | 13% |
| Researcher | 22 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 18 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 17 | 8% |
| Other | 45 | 20% |
| Unknown | 61 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 51 | 23% |
| Social Sciences | 26 | 12% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 23 | 10% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 7% |
| Unspecified | 9 | 4% |
| Other | 24 | 11% |
| Unknown | 73 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 November 2016.
All research outputs
#8,647,454
of 25,654,806 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders
#2,994
of 5,484 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#115,002
of 316,033 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders
#44
of 71 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,654,806 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,484 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.4. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 316,033 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 71 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.