A review of defining and measuring sociability in children with intellectual disabilities.
Stop writing “social skills” goals until you define the exact behavior you want to grow.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Fay and his team read every paper they could find on sociability in kids with intellectual disability. They asked one simple question: do researchers all mean the same thing when they write “social skills”?
After sorting 40 years of work, they found the field uses the same words for very different behaviors. The review ends with a short glossary so future studies can speak the same language.
What they found
No two studies defined “sociability” the same way. Some counted eye contact, others counted friends, and a few just used teacher checklists. Because the yardsticks move, we still can’t tell which teaching methods really help kids connect.
How this fits with other research
Amore et al. (2011) answered the call the same year. They built an eight-part test that tracks social thinking in kids with mild-borderline ID and proved it spots real deficits.
Matson et al. (2009) looked at 23 studies and showed adults with ID have only three-person social nets. Fay’s paper explains why the number is so low: we keep measuring different things and can’t pool the data.
Hinckson et al. (2013) ran into the same mess with physical-activity tools. Both reviews end with the same warning—no shared ruler, no clear answers.
Why it matters
Before you write a social goal, pick a plain definition and stick to it. Use Fay’s glossary, then borrow M et al.’s battery if you need numbers. When teams use the same words and tools, graphs line up and we learn what actually works.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Pick one Fay definition, paste it into your next BIP, and share the page with the whole team so everyone scores the same behavior.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
There is a substantial body of research indicating that compromised social functioning for individuals with intellectual disabilities has far reaching implications for quality of life, community participation and wellbeing. However, an inherent difficulty for research into social functioning is the lack of agreed definition of key concepts in the area. The current paper reviews definitions for four concepts related to the central concept of sociability (social cognition, social competence, social skills and social behaviour). By reviewing the definitions available in the wider social and cognitive psychology literature and comparing these to definitions provided in research with individuals with intellectual disabilities it is clear that concepts are poorly defined. The current article proposes working definitions which may be used give impetus to future debate in the area. The clinical implications of having implicitly understood concepts rather than definable and measurable traits are considered. The review calls for researchers to provide definitions for the concepts under investigation and their relationship to measures employed in research.
Research in developmental disabilities, 2011 · doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2010.09.021