® PEERS
Social Skills Workshop
Dr. Elizabeth Laugeson Associate Clinical Professor Founder and Director, UCLA PEERS Clinic Training Director, UCLA Tarjan Center UCEDD Program Director, UCLA Autism Center of Excellence, Core D
Training Agenda
Research Collaborators
Acknowledgements Research Assistants
Fred Frankel, Ph.D., ABPP Andrew Leuchter, M.D. Alex Gantman, Psy.D. Catherine Mogil, Psy.D. Helena Johnson, Ph.D. Josh Mandelberg, M.D. Steven Kapp, Ph.D. Kaely Orenski, Psy.D. Mina Park, Ph.D. Enjey Lin, Ph.D. Jilly Chang, Ph.D. Jennifer Sanderson, Psy.D. Ruth Ellingsen, Ph.D. Aarti Nair, Ph.D. Vindia Fernandez, Ph.D. Courtney Bolton, Ph.D. Shannon Bates, Psy.D.
Administrative Support Yasamine Bolourian, Ph.D. Jessica Hopkins Lara Tucci, Psy.D. Ashley R. Dillon, Ph.D. Clare Gorospe Jessie Sanchez, M.A. Elina Veytsman Mera West James Yang, M.A. Morgan Joliffe, M.A. Nicole Rosen Niki Bahri Megan Hanson Steven Lograsso Haley Goodman Katherine Sung Nicky de Nocker Elizabeth Denluck
Georgia Yu, M.A. Dali Tung Jan Stolpe, M.A. Dawn Mitchell, M.A. Rosanna Rivero, M.A. Mary Goodarzi, Ph.D. Alex Friedman, M.A. Sarah Bohlman, M.A. Lindsay Henry, M.A. Summer Vilkins Maile Adolphson Horn, M.A. Michelle Jackson, Psy.D. Sarah Taylor, M.A. Melissa Wasserman, Psy.D. Lindsey Hughes, M.A. Ellie Mellon Daniel Janulaitis, M.A. Rohini Bagrodia, M.A. Kathryn Fitzpatrick Tiana Bayrami, M.A. Jason Tinero Elizabeth Shipley, Psy.D. Khadija Noorbhai Catherine Wallace Marlene Cabrera Renee Doe Alexandra Walsh Marina Avetisian Eugene Kutasevich, M.A. Maricella Campuzano, M.A. Leijing Zhang, M.A. Steven Scott Tricia Choy
Hira Asif Gozi Egbuonu Gozi Egbuonu Jin Lee, Psy.D. Amanda Lenvin Cordelia Ross Kristine McGlennen Jeff Rudie, M.D., Ph.D. Natalie Colich Dana Lieberman, Ph.D. Siena Whitham, Ph.D. Allison Vreeland Lucy Vo, Ph.D. Chloe Koeffler Alea Baron, Psy.D. Laura Knoll, M.A. Ahoo Karimian, M.A. Kathleen Jorgenson, M.A. Rebecca Fountain, M.A. Erin Cornack, M.A. Emily Chen, M.A. Kandyse Christopher Devi Beck-Pancer Ben Schwartman, Ph.D. Elan Javanfard, M.A. Meredith Kalies, M.A. Meagan Cronin, M.A. Lyndsay Brooks, M.A. David Diaz, M.A. Cecilia Costa, M.A. Crystal Ferrendelli, M.A. Erin Santos, M.A. Danielle Missler, M.A. Cara Lam Fernanda Samaia Angela Dahiya, M.A. Jennifer Majdick, M.A.
Victoria Boone Bethany Wu Victorya Jewett Sarah Tsai Ana Mendoza Yuan Zhang Rhideeta Jalal Flor Canales Ido Michaeli, SLP Leilani Forby Peggy Hsieh Allison Ganel Gabe Aviera Jordan Albright Eslin Saporta Caroline McDonough Sarah Tsai, MA Preston Johnson Jade-Remington Rebil Phoebe Josephson Noha Zaki Nicole Yeroushalmi Danielle Mund Brittany Murphy Juliette Lerner Simrina Dasar Isita Tripathi Leila Solouki Haripriya Dalmia Alex Gigler Jenny Rodstein Nick Senosky Christine Park Elsa Gay Vigen Tumoyan
Social Deficits Among Youth with ASD § Poor social communication
Photo of PEERS® courtesy of Associated Press
§ Problems with topic initiation § Use repetitive themes § Perseverate on restricted interests § Disregard the other person’s interests
§ One-sided conversations § Elicit fewer extended responses § Give fewer reciprocal responses § Fail to identify common interests
§ Difficulty providing relevant information § Make unexpected leaps in topics § Pedantic style of speaking § Poor speech prosody § Difficulty interpreting verbal and nonverbal social cues § § § §
Voice tone Sarcasm Gestures Social touch
(Volkmar & Klin, 1998; Bauminger & Kasari, 2000; Orsmond, Krauss, & Seltzer, 2004; Koning & Magill-Evans, 2001; LeCouteur et al., 1989; Marks, Schrader, Longaker, & Levine, 2000; Ghaziuddin & Gerstein, 1996; Twatchman-Cullen, 1998; Hemphill & Siperstein, 1990; Church, Alisanki, Amanullah, 2000; Constantino, 2005)
Social Deficits Among Youth with ASD § Poor social awareness § Poor eye-contact § Difficulty understanding social cues
§ Poor social motivation § Less involvement in social activities § Extra-curricular activities § Clubs § Sports
§ Lack of peer entry attempts § Fewer social initiations
§ Poor social cognition § Difficulty understanding the perspectives of others § Poor theory of mind § Lack of cognitive empathy
(Volkmar & Klin, 1998; Bauminger & Kasari, 2000; Orsmond, Krauss, & Seltzer, 2004; Koning & Magill-Evans, 2001; LeCouteur et al., 1989; Marks, Schrader, Longaker, & Levine, 2000; Ghaziuddin & Gerstein, 1996; Twatchman-Cullen, 1998; Hemphill & Siperstein, 1990; Church, Alisanki, Amanullah, 2000; Constantino, 2005)
Consequences of Social Deficits for Youth with ASD § Social neglect and isolation § § § § §
Withdrawn Seen as shy by others Go unnoticed Not engaging others socially Anxious, depressed
Photo of PEERS® courtesy of Associated Press
§ Peer rejection § Teased and bullied § Unsuccessful attempts to socially engage others § Bad reputation § ADHD, impulse control disorders
§ Peer conflict § Arguments may result in termination of friendship
§ Lack of close reciprocal friendships § Poor friendship quality
(Volkmar & Klin, 1998; Bauminger & Kasari, 2000; Orsmond, Krauss, & Seltzer, 2004; Koning & Magill-Evans, 2001; LeCouteur et al., 1989; Marks, Schrader, Longaker, & Levine, 2000; Ghaziuddin & Gerstein, 1996; Twatchman-Cullen, 1998; Hemphill & Siperstein, 1990; Church, Alisanki, Amanullah, 2000)
Poor Quality of Friendships Among Youth with ASD • Poor overall quality of friendships – Less companionship – Less help from friends – Less security within friendships
• Greater loneliness
(Bauminger & Kasari, 2000)
Why Target Friendships? Having one or two close friends: • Predicts later adjustment in life • Can buffer the impact of stressful life events • Correlates positively with: – Self-esteem – Independence
• Correlates negatively with: – Depression – Anxiety
(Buhrmeister, 1990; Matson, Smiroldo, & Bamburg, 1998; Miller & Ingham, 1976)
Consequences of Peer Rejection Peer rejection is one of the strongest predictors of: • Mental health problems – Depression – Anxiety
• • • • •
Juvenile delinquency Poor academic performance Early withdrawal from school Substance abuse Suicidal ideation and attempts
(Buhrmeister, 1990; Matson, Smiroldo, & Bamburg, 1998; Miller & Ingham, 1976)
Risk Factors for Peer Rejection Among Teens with ASD High Risk Factors: • • •
Less socially competent Fewer friendships Less peer support
Protective Factors: • Friendships are known to protect against victimization
(Olweus,1973,1993; Rose et al., 2009; Dinkes et al., 2006; Poteat & Espelage, 2007; Nansel et al., 2001; Espelage & Swearer, 2003; Hawker & Boulton, 2000; Schwartz, 2010; Perry et al., 2001; Doren et al., 1996; Little, 2001, 2002; Montes & Halterman, 2007; van Roekel et al., 2010; Whitney et al., 1992, Martlew & Hodson, 1991; O’Moore & Hillery, 1989)
Categories of Peer Acceptance in Adolescence
Average (55%) Popular (15%) Peer Rejected (15%) Socially Neglected (15%)
The Science of Making Friends (Laugeson, 2013)
Social Skills Training • • • • • • • • •
Social skills training is very common for children with ASD Very few programs for adolescents and adults with ASD Most programs do not use evidencebased curricula Often fail to tailor teaching methods to the cognitive style of those with ASD Do not teach ecologically valid social skills Do not include homework assignments Skills do not generalize to other settings Do not include parents and/or teachers in the treatment Do not assess durability of treatment gains over time
Background about PEERS® •
International program – Developed at UCLA in 2004 – Adolescent program has been translated into over a dozen languages – Used in over 85 countries
•
Evidence-Based Social Skills Programs: – PEERS® for Preschoolers – PEERS® for Adolescents – PEERS® for Young Adults
• Research Programs: – PEERS® for Careers – PEERS® for Dating – PEERS® L-Dopa
Unique Aspects of PEERS® •
One of the only evidencebased social skills programs –
•
Parent or caregiver assisted –
•
Parents and other caregivers are trained as social coaches
Only teaches ecologically valid social skills –
•
ONLY evidence-based social skills program for teens and adults with ASD and other social challenges
Teaches rules and steps followed by socially successful people
Cross-culturally adapted across the globe –
Seven scientific papers published outside of the U.S.
PEERS® for Adolescents Weekly Parent-Assisted Manual (Laugeson & Frankel, 2010)
•
Parent-assisted – Concurrent parent and teen sessions – Parents are trained as social coaches
• • • • •
Appropriate for socially motivated teens Addresses core social deficits in ASD Focuses on relationship skills Teaches ecologically valid social skills 14-week curriculum – 90 minute weekly sessions
•
Evidence-based: – Teens in middle and high school with ASD – Teens with ADHD – Teens with FASD – Teens with ID
PEERS® for Adolescents Daily School-Based Curriculum (Laugeson, 2014)
• Teacher-facilitated in the school setting • 16-week curriculum • 30-60 minute daily lesson plans • Focuses on friendship skills • Strategies for handling peer rejection/conflict • Includes weekly comprehensive parent handouts – No parent group
• Evidence-based treatment for ASD – Middle school – High school
PEERS® for Young Adults Weekly Caregiver-Assisted Manual (Laugeson, 2017)
• Caregiver-assisted – Concurrent social coaching and young adult sessions
• Appropriate for socially motivated adults • Addresses core social deficits in ASD • Focuses on relationship skills • Friendships, dating, conflict, rejection
• Teaches ecologically valid social skills • 16-week curriculum – 90-minute weekly sessions – Library of video role play demonstrations
• Evidence-based: – Young adults (18-24 years of age) with ASD
Evidence-Based Methods for Teaching Social Skills §
Small group format §
§
Didactic instruction § § § §
§
Targeting social cognition
Performance feedback
In vivo homework assignments § §
§
Appropriate and inappropriate demonstrations
Behavioral rehearsal Social coaching §
§
Structured lessons Concrete rules / steps of social behavior Ecologically valid social skills Socratic method of teaching
Perspective taking questions §
§ §
Photo of PEERS courtesy of Associated Press
Role-playing / modeling §
§
8-10 adolescents
Parent-assistance Generalization to other settings
Parent-assistance § § §
Social coaching Expand social opportunities Maintenance of treatment gains
(Matson, 1984; Davies & Rogers, 1985; Fleming & Fleming, 1982; Mesibov, 1984; Gresham, Sugai, & Horner, 2001; Gralinski & Kopp, 1993; Rubin & Sloman, 1984, Frankel & Myatt, 2003; Rao, Beidel, & Murray, 2008; Laugeson et al., 2008)
Importance of Social Coaching • Practice newly learning skills • Provide feedback on emerging social skills during practice • Provide social coaching in the real world • Help to generalize skills to other social settings • Assist with finding potential sources of friends or romantic partners • Support efforts at arranging gettogethers and dates • Ensure that the program never ends and skills continue to be used
Importance of Intrinsic Social Motivation • Social skills training should be voluntary • Must consider the role of neurodiversity • Different – not less • Participants should be intrinsically motivated to learn the skills • Not ethical to force social skills on others • Social skills training should NOT be about changing a person • Social skills training should be about enhancing social interactions skills so others can appreciate who you already are
Photo of PEERS® courtesy of Associate Press
Development of PEERS® Rules and Steps of Social Behavior Photo of PEERS® courtesy of Associated Press
§ Ecologically valid social skills § DO’S
§ Common social errors committed by those with ASD § DON’TS
§ Create rules around ecologically valid skills and common social errors § Break steps down into concrete parts
Overview of PEERS® Intervention § Conversational skills
Photo of PEERS® courtesy of Associated Press
§ Trading information § Finding common interests § Having a reciprocal two-way conversation § Non-verbal communication
§ Electronic communication § Voicemail, email, IM, text messaging, social networking sites § Online safety
§ Choosing appropriate friends § Identifying a peer group / crowd § Identifying extracurricular activities
UCLA PEERS® Clinic http://www.semel.ucla.edu/peers/ (310)-26-PEERS
[email protected]
Overview of PEERS® Intervention § Appropriate use of humor § Paying attention to humor feedback
Photo of PEERS® courtesy of Associated Press
§ Peer entry strategies § Entering group conversations with potential friends
§ Peer exit strategies § Exiting conversations
§ Good sportsmanship § Playing nicely during games and sports
§ Get-togethers § Being a good host or guest during get-togethers with friends
UCLA PEERS® Clinic http://www.semel.ucla.edu/peers/ (310)-26-PEERS
[email protected]
Overview of PEERS® Intervention Photo of PEERS® courtesy of Associated Press
§ Peer conflict § Handling arguments with friends
§ Peer rejection § § § § § §
Handling teasing Utilizing embarrassing feedback Handling physical bullying Managing rumors and gossip Minimizing cyber bullying Changing a bad reputation
§ Graduation § Final review § Graduation party & ceremony
UCLA PEERS® Clinic http://www.semel.ucla.edu/peers/ (310)-26-PEERS
[email protected]
PEERS® Lesson Format: Adolescent In-Person Sessions 1.
Homework review (30 min) § Troubleshoot homework problems § Individualize treatment
2.
Didactic instruction (30 min) § Concrete rules / steps for social etiquette § Role-play / modeling
3.
Socialization activity (20 min) § Behavioral rehearsal § Performance feedback through coaching
4.
Reunification with parents (10 min) § Assign and negotiate homework
Photo of PEERS® courtesy of Associated Press
PEERS® Lesson Format: Adolescent Telehealth Sessions 1.
Homework review (15 min) * § Troubleshoot homework problems § Individualize treatment
2.
Didactic instruction (30 min) § Concrete rules / steps for social etiquette § Role-play / modeling
3.
Socialization activity (20 min) § Behavioral rehearsal § Performance feedback through coaching
4.
Reunification with parents (10 min) § Assign and negotiate homework
§ Individual checkout in breakout rooms (5 min) * * Different from in-person groups
PEERS® Lesson Format: Parent In-Person Sessions 1. Homework review (50-60 min) § Troubleshoot homework problems § Individualize treatment
2. Review of didactic lesson and homework assignments (20-30 min) § Parent handout is distributed § Troubleshoot potential homework problems
3. Reunification with adolescents (10 min) § Assign and negotiate homework
Photo of PEERS® courtesy of Associated Press
PEERS® Lesson Format: Parent Telehealth Sessions 1.
Homework review (45 min) * § Troubleshoot homework problems § Individualize treatment
2.
Review of didactic lesson and homework assignments (30 min) § Parent handout is distributed § Troubleshoot potential homework problems
3.
Reunification with adolescents (10 min) § Assign and negotiate homework
§ Individual checkouts in breakout rooms (5 mins) * * Different from in-person groups
Daily Lesson Format: School Setting Mondays •
Homework Review
Tuesdays • •
Didactic Lesson Role Play
Wednesdays • • • • •
Lesson Review Role Play Behavioral Rehearsal Homework Assignment Distribute parent handout
Thursdays & Fridays • • •
Didactic Summary Teen Activity Homework Assignment
PEERS® Research Evidence within the United States
PEERS® Research Evidence Outside of the United States
Randomized Controlled Trial: PEERS® for Adolescents with ASD (Laugeson, Frankel, Mogil, & Dillon 2009) Random Assignment N=33 Pre-Testing (T1) Treatment n=17
Waitlist n=16
Post-Testing (T2)
Demographics (Laugeson, Frankel, Mogil, & Dillon 2009)
Treatment (n=17)
Waitlist (n=16)
Age
M = 14.75
M = 14.40
Gender
Male = 13 Female = 4
Male = 14 Female = 2
White = 6 African American = 3 Asian = 2 Hispanic/Latino = 3 Middle Eastern = 2 Other = 1
White = 9 African American = 0 Asian = 2 Hispanic/Latino = 2 Middle Eastern = 1 Other = 2
General = 8 SPED = 5 Other = 4
General = 9 SPED = 4 Other = 3
Ethnicity
School Placement
Randomized Controlled Trial: PEERS® for Adolescents with ASD (Laugeson, Frankel, Mogil, & Dillon 2009)
SSRS-P Social Skills (Standard Scores) p < 0.05
Mean Change in Scores
Improvement in Social Skills 12 10 8
Treatment
6
Waitlist
4 2 0 Condition
Randomized Controlled Trial: PEERS® for Adolescents with ASD (Laugeson, Frankel, Mogil, & Dillon 2009)
TASSK
FQS
Social Skills Knowledge p < 0.01
Friendship Quality p < 0.05 Friendship Quality 0.5
7 6 5 4
Treatment
3
Waitlist
2 1 0
Mean Change in Scores
Mean Change in Scores
Teen Social Skills Knowledge
0 -0.5
Treatment Waitlist
-1 -1.5 -2
Condition
Condition
Randomized Controlled Trial: PEERS® for Adolescents with ASD (Laugeson, Frankel, Mogil, & Dillon 2009)
QSQ
SSRS-T
Hosted Get-togethers p < 0.05
Social Skills (Standard Scores) p = 0.07 (trend)
Hosted Get-togethers
Improvement in Social Skills
2 1.5
Treatment Waitlist
1 0.5 0 Condition
Mean Change in Scores
Mean Change in Scores
2.5
12 10 8
Treatment
6
Waitlist
4 2 0 Condition
Second Clinical Trial: PEERS® for Adolescents with ASD (Laugeson, Frankel, Gantman, Dillon, & Mogil 2012)
N=28
Treatment Group n=14
Waitlist Group n=14
14 week intervention
Wait 14 weeks
14 week follow-up
14 week intervention
Baseline Demographics (Laugeson, Frankel, Gantman, Dillon, & Mogil 2012)
Treatment (n=14)
Waitlist (n=14)
Age
M = 14.3
M = 15.0
Grade
M = 8.8
M = 9.4
Percent Male
M = 85.7
M = 78.6
Percent Caucasian
M = 57.1
M = 42.9
Percent Mainstreamed
M = 64.3
M = 50.0
KBIT-2 IQ Composite
M = 94.1
M = 104.5
VABS-2 Composite
M = 72.0
M = 75.4
PEERS® Research Snapshot: Parent-Assisted for Teens with ASD (Laugeson, Frankel, Gantman, Dillon, & Mogil 2012) Mean Change in Scores
Improv e me nt in Social Skills 12 10 8 Treatm ent
6
Waitlis t
4 2 0 Condition
Mean Change in Scores
Improvement in Social Responsiveness (Total) 14 12 10 8
Treatment
6
Waitlist
4 2 0 Condition
Hosted Get-togethers
Mean Change in Scores
5 4 3
Treatm ent Waitlis t
2 1 0 Condition
PEERS® Research Snapshot: Parent-Assisted for Teens with ASD 14-week Follow-up (Laugeson, Frankel, Gantman, Dillon, & Mogil 2012) Social Skills Scale T1-T3 (p < 0.01)
Social Responsiveness Scale T1-T3 (p < 0.01)
Mean Scores
90 85
Treatment Group
80 75 70 T1
T2
85 80 75 70 65 60
Treatment Group
T1
T3
T2 Testing Time
Testing Tim e
Hosted Get-Togethers - Adolescent Report T1-T3 (p < 0.05) 5
Mean Scores
Mean Scores
95
4 3
Treatment Group
2 1 0 T1
T2 Testing Tim e
T3
T3
PEERS® Research Snapshot: Parent-Assisted for Teens with ASD New Findings at 14-week Follow-up (Laugeson, Frankel, Gantman, Dillon, & Mogil 2012) Parent Report
Teacher Report
116 114 112 110 108 106 104 102
Social SKills Scale T1-T3 (p < 0.03) * 110
Treatment Group
M e an Scor es
Mean Scores
Problem Behaviors Scale T1-T3 (p < 0.01) *
105 100 Treatment Group
95 90 85 80
T1
T2 Testing Time
T3
T1
T2 Testing Time
T3
School Based PEERS® for Adolescents with ASD (Laugeson, Ellingsen, Sanderson, Tucci, & Bates 2014)
School Based PEERS® for Adolescents with ASD (Laugeson, Ellingsen, Sanderson, Tucci, & Bates 2014)
N = 73
PEERS® Treatment Group n = 40
Active Treatment Control Group n = 33
Pre-test
Pre-test
Post-test
Post-test
Active Treatment Control Group (Laugeson, Ellingsen, Sanderson, Tucci, & Bates 2014)
§ Super Skills – Fundamental skills: • Eye contact • Voice volume
– Social initiation skills: • Starting a conversation
– Getting along with others: • Acknowledging others and following directions
– Social response skills: • Reciprocity (Coucouvanis, 2005)
Baseline Demographics (Laugeson, Ellingsen, Sanderson, Tucci, & Bates 2014)
PEERS® Research Snapshot: School-Based Curriculum for Teens with ASD (Laugeson, Ellingsen, Sanderson, Tucci, & Bates 2014)
(p < .01)
PEERS® Research Snapshot: School-Based Curriculum for Teens with ASD (Laugeson, Ellingsen, Sanderson, Tucci, & Bates 2014)
Mean Change in Scores
Improvement in Social Motivation
5 4 3 2 1 0 -1
(p < .03)
(p < .03)
PEERS Super Skills
Condition
Decrease in Autistic Mannerisms
4 3 2 1 0 -1 -2
(p < .03)
PEERS Super Skills
Condition
Mean Change in Scores
Mean Change in Scores
Improvement in Social Awareness
4 3 2 1 0 -1 -2 -3
(p < .02)
Condition
PEERS Super Skills
PEERS® Research Snapshot: School-Based Curriculum for Teens with ASD
3 2 1 0 -1 -2 -3
10 5 0 -5
(p < .01)
PEERS Super Skills
Number of Invited Get-togethers in Previous Month
3 2 1 0 -1 -2 -3
(p < .02)
Condition
Condition
Social Anxiety
Adolescent Social Skills Knowledge
(p < .06, trend)
PEERS Super Skills
Condition
Mean Change in Scores
Mean Change in Scores
Mean Change in Scores
Number of Hosted Get-togethers in Previous Month
Mean Change in Scores
(Laugeson, Ellingsen, Sanderson, Tucci, & Bates 2014)
8 6 4 2 0
(p < .01)
Condition
PEERS Super Skills
PEERS Super Skills
Randomized Controlled Trial: PEERS® for Young Adults with ASD (Gantman, Kapp, Orenski, & Laugeson 2012)
N = 17 Treatment Group n=9
Waitlist Group n=8
16 week intervention
Wait 16 weeks
16 week intervention
Baseline Demographics (Gantman, Kapp, Orenski, & Laugeson 2012)
PEERS® Research Snapshot: Caregiver-Assisted for Young Adults with ASD (Gantman, Kapp, Orenski, & Laugeson 2012) Improvement in Overall Social Skills
(p < .01)
Mean Change in Scores
10 5
Treatmen t Waitlist
0
-5
-10 Condition
Improvement in Social Responsiveness (Total)
(p < .04)
Mean Change in Scores
20 15 10 5 0 -5 -10
Treatmen t
Waitlist
Condition
Mean Change in Scores
Improvement in Empathy (p < .04)
10 5
Treatment Waitlist
0
-5 Condition
PEERS® Research Snapshot: Caregiver-Assisted for Young Adults with ASD (Gantman, Kapp, Orenski, & Laugeson 2012) Frequency of Invited Get-Togethers
Frequency of Hosted Get-Togethers
1
Treatment Waitlist
0.5 0 Condition
Mean Change in Scores
Mean Change in Scores
(p < .05)
1.5
1 0.5
-0.5 Condition
Treatment Waitlist
Me an Change in Scores
Mean Change in Scores
Social Skills Knowledge
(p < .05)
Condition
Treatment Waitlist
0
Decrease in Loneliness
10 5 0 -5 -10 -15
(p < .03)
8 6 4 2 0
(p < .01)
Treatment Waitlist
Condition
Second Randomized Controlled Trial with Young Adults with ASD (Laugeson, Gantman, Kapp, Orenski, & Ellingsen 2015)
Second Randomized Controlled Trial with Young Adults with ASD (Laugeson, Gantman, Kapp, Orenski, & Ellingsen 2015)
!
Baseline Demographics (Laugeson, Gantman, Kapp, Orenski, & Ellingsen 2015)
PEERS® Research Snapshot: Caregiver-Assisted for Young Adults with ASD (Laugeson, Gantman, Kapp, Orenski, & Ellingsen 2015)
PEERS® Research Snapshot: Caregiver-Assisted for Young Adults with ASD (Laugeson, Gantman, Kapp, Orenski, & Ellingsen 2015)
PEERS® Research Snapshot: Caregiver-Assisted for Young Adults with ASD (Laugeson, Gantman, Kapp, Orenski, & Ellingsen 2015)
PEERS® Research Snapshot: Caregiver-Assisted for Young Adults with ASD (Laugeson, Gantman, Kapp, Orenski, & Ellingsen 2015)
PEERS® Research Snapshot: Long-term Follow-up Study (Mandelberg, Laugeson, Cunningham, Ellingsen, Bates, & Frankel 2013)
•
Data was collected 1-5 years post-treatment – T1 – Pre-test – T2 – Post-test – T3 – 1-5 year follow-up
•
53 of 82 potential subjects – 64% response rate
•
No significant differences between participants and non-participants at baseline
•
Mean age at follow-up: – 17.5 years old – 11.4 grade level
•
Mean time to follow-up: – 29 months
PEERS® Research Snapshot: Long-term Follow-up Study (Mandelberg, Laugeson, Cunningham, Ellingsen, Bates, & Frankel 2013)
PEERS® Research Snapshot: Long-term Follow-up Study (Mandelberg, Laugeson, Cunningham, Ellingsen, Bates, & Frankel 2013)
PEERS® Research Snapshot: Long-term Follow-up Study (Mandelberg, Laugeson, Cunningham, Ellingsen, Bates, & Frankel 2013)
PEERS® Research Snapshot: Long-term Follow-up Study (Mandelberg, Laugeson, Cunningham, Ellingsen, Bates, & Frankel 2013)
PEERS® Research Snapshot: Long-term Follow-up Study (Mandelberg, Laugeson, Cunningham, Ellingsen, Bates, & Frankel 2013)
PEERS® Research Snapshot: Long-term Follow-up Study (Mandelberg, Laugeson, Cunningham, Ellingsen, Bates, & Frankel 2013)
PEERS® Research Snapshot: Long-term Follow-up Study (Mandelberg, Laugeson, Cunningham, Ellingsen, Bates, & Frankel 2013)
Cross Cultural Validation and Replication of PEERS®
UCLA PEERS® for Careers Research Study • College to career transition program • 20-week program for college students with ASD THURSDAYS 5:00 – 7:30 PM
UCLA PEERS® for Dating Research Study • 16-week program • Dating skills for young adults with ASD TUESDAYS 5:30 – 7:00 PM
UCLA PEERS® L-Dopa Research Study Return Start Date: February 2021
Proposed Future Research •
PEERS with Peers – Peer mediated intervention for teens with ASD
•
PEERS for Teens with Intellectual Disabilities – Parent-assisted intervention for teens with IQ < 70
•
PEERS for Parenting – Parenting classes
•
PEERS for Independence – Life skills training
•
Camp PEERS – Two-week topical camps for teens: • • •
•
Conversational skills Friendship Handling bullying
PEERS Boot Camps – Two-day topical boot camps for families
PEERS® Boot Camps at UCLA CLA PEE
CLINIC
BOOT CAMPS ARE HELD AT THE UCLA SEMEL INSTITUTE FOR NEUROSCIENCE AND HUMAN BEHAVIOR IN LOS ANGELES
BOO CAMP ARE HELD A HE CLA EMEL IN I E FOR NE RO CIENCE AND H MAN BEHA IOR IN LO ANGELE
PRESENTER: DR. ELIZABETH LAUGESON
T
Parents attend for FREE!*
Parents Attend for FREE! *
To ic Co e ed
SAT S N DATE TBD
alid fo
a en
accom an ing hei child o
• Two-day intensive topical boot camps: – Saturday 9 AM – 3PM – Sunday 9 AM – 3 PM
o ng ad l .
*Offe onl
alid fo pa en
accompan ing hei een o
• Offered 4 times per year at UCLA around the topics of: – – – –
e ed e ai e ai ic
Parents Attend for FREE!*
. emel. cla.ed /pee * Plea e no e no ce ifica ion i p o ided *
*Offe onl
ic C
Sa i ga de ei gc Mai ai i g eci cal c T adi g i f ai A ia e c e ai E ii gc e ai A ia e e f h Elec ic c ica i
Dating Friendship Handling Bullying Conversational Skills
o ng ad l
UCLA PEERS® Virtual Boot Camp
• 35 episodes • Covers ALL the skills taught in PEERS® • Go at your own pace • Available on the UCLA PEERS YouTube Channel • Access never expires
UCLA PEERS® Clinical Programs
Adolescent Groups • Middle and high school • Wednesdays 4:30 – 6:00 PM • Wednesdays 6:30 – 8:00 PM – Autism Spectrum Disorder, ADHD, depression, anxiety, and other social challenges
UCLA PEERS® Adolescent Telehealth Groups WEDNESDAYS 4:30–6:00 PM PST 6:30–8:00 PM PST
UCLA PEERS® Clinical Programs
Young Adult Groups • Mondays 4:30 – 6:00 PM • Mondays 6:30 – 8:00 PM – 18-35 years of age – Autism Spectrum Disorder, ADHD, anxiety, depression, and other social challenges
UCLA PEERS® Young Adult Telehealth Groups MONDAYS 4:30–6:00 PM PST 6:30–8:00 PM PST
UCLA PEERS® Educational Classes • • •
16-week program Teen group and young adult group Available for participants across the globe TUESDAYS 4:30 – 6:00 PM PST 6:30 – 8:00 PM PST
UCLA PEERS® Clinical Programs
Preschool Groups • Tuesdays 3:30 – 5:00 PM – Children 4-6 years of age – Autism Spectrum Disorder, ADHD, and other social challenges – Return: TBD
www.semel.ucla.edu/peers/
[email protected] 310-26-PEERS Facebook, Twitter, Instagram: UCLA PEERS
Conversational Topics QUESTION: What do people talk about with their friends?
Common Conversational Topics
(Laugeson 2017)
Conversational Skills QUESTION: What are the rules for having a good conversation?
PEERS® Rules for Trading Information § Ask the other person questions § Answer your own questions § Find common interests § Common interests are the foundation of friendships
§ Share the conversation § Ask follow-up questions § Ask open-ended questions
PEERS® Rules for Trading Information § Don’t be repetitive § Listen to your friend § Don’t be brutally honest § Don’t interrupt (Laugeson & Frankel 2010; Laugeson 2013; Laugeson 2014; Laugeson 2017)
Trading Information and Maintaining Conversations QUESTION: What are some social errors made during conversations?
Review of PEERS® Rules for Trading Information • • • • • •
Don’t be a conversation hog Don’t be an interviewer Don’t police Don’t tease Don’t get too personal at first Avoid risky topics: – – – –
Politics Religion Sex Money
(Laugeson & Frankel 2010; Laugeson 2013; Laugeson 2014; Laugeson 2017)
Review of PEERS® Rules for Trading Information § Don’t brag § Don’t be argumentative § Use good volume control § Not too loud § Not too quiet
§ Use good body boundaries § Not too close § Not too far
§ Use good eye contact § Not too little § Not too much (staring)
(Laugeson & Frankel 2010; Laugeson 2013; Laugeson 2014; Laugeson 2017)
Starting and Entering Conversations
QUESTION What are most people told to do to meet new people?
Assessing Interest During In-Person Conversations QUESTION How can you tell when you’re accepted into a conversation in-person?
Assessing Interest During In-Person Conversations § Eye contact: § Are they looking at you? § GOOD: Smiling, nodding, making eye contact § BAD: Look confused, making faces, rolling eyes, no eye contact
§ Body language: § Are they facing you? § GOOD: OPEN the circle, turn toward you § BAD: CLOSE the circle, give the cold shoulder, turn away
§ Verbal signs: § Are they talking to you? § GOOD: Talking nicely, asking you questions § BAD: Giving short answers, not asking you questions
(Laugeson & Frankel 2010; Laugeson 2013; Laugeson 2014; Laugeson 2017)
Starting In-Person Individual Conversations (Bad Role Play) QUESTIONS: What are most people told to do to start individual conversations in-person? What are some social errors people make to start individual conversations in-person?
Role play videos: www.semel.ucla.edu/peers/resources
PEERS® Steps for Starting In-Person Individual Conversations (Good Role Play) 1. 2. 3. 4.
Casually look over Use a prop Find a common interest Mention the common interest – Make a comment – Ask a question – Give a compliment
5. 6.
Trade information Assess interest – – –
7.
Are they looking at you? Are they facing you? Are they talking to you?
Introduce yourself (optional)
Role play videos: www.semel.ucla.edu/peers/resources
Starting Individual Conversations Online (Bad Role Play) QUESTIONS How do you start an individual conversation online? What are some social errors for starting individual conversations online?
PEERS® Modified Steps for Starting Individual Conversations Online (Good Role Play) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Casually look over Find a common interest Mention the common interest Trade information Assess interest – –
6.
Are they attending to you? Are they talking to you?
Introduce yourself (optional)
(Laugeson & Frankel 2010; Laugeson 2013; Laugeson 2014; Laugeson 2017)
Entering In-Person Group Conversations (Bad Role Play) QUESTIONS How do you enter group conversations inperson? What are some social errors for entering group conversations inperson?
Role play videos: www.semel.ucla.edu/peers/resources
PEERS® Steps for Entering In-Person Group Conversations (Good Role Play) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
Listen to the conversation Watch from a distance Use a prop Identify the topic Find a common interest Move closer Wait for a pause Mention the topic – Make a comment – Ask a question – Give a compliment
9.
Assess interest – Are they looking at you? – Are they facing you? – Are they talking to you?
10. Introduce yourself (optional)
Role play videos: www.semel.ucla.edu/peers/resources
PEERS® Simplified Steps for Entering In-Person Group Conversations 1. Watch and listen – Use a prop – Identify the topic – Find a common interest
2. 3. 4. 5.
Move closer Wait for a pause Mention the topic Introduce yourself (optional)
(Laugeson & Frankel 2010; Laugeson 2013; Laugeson 2014; Laugeson 2017)
Entering Group Conversations Online (Bad Role Play) QUESTIONS How do you enter group conversations online? What are some social errors for entering group conversations online?
PEERS® Modified Steps for Entering Group Conversations Online (Good Role Play) 1. Watch and listen – –
Identify the topic Find a common interest
2. Wait for a pause 3. Mention the topic 4. Assess interest – –
Are they attending to you? Are they talking to you?
5. Introduce yourself (optional)
(Laugeson & Frankel 2010; Laugeson 2013; Laugeson 2014; Laugeson 2017)
Defining Bullying • Subtype of aggression • Negative actions directed at a person or groups of people that are either: – Repetitive – Chronic – Characterized by power imbalance
(Olweus,1973,1993; Rose et al., 2009; Dinkes et al., 2006; Poteat & Espelage, 2007; Nansel et al., 2001; Espelage & Swearer, 2003; Hawker & Boulton, 2000; Schwartz, 2010; Perry et al., 2001; Doren et al., 1996; Little, 2001, 2002; Montes & Halterman, 2007; van Roekel et al., 2010; Whitney et al., 1992, Martlew & Hodson, 1991; O’Moore & Hillery, 1989)
Types of Bullying • Verbal – Teasing in person – Name calling in person
• Physical – – – – – –
Hitting Kicking Pushing Tripping Stealing Pranking
• Relational / Social – Rumors and gossip
• Electronic – Cyber bullying
(Olweus,1973,1993; Rose et al., 2009; Dinkes et al., 2006; Poteat & Espelage, 2007; Nansel et al., 2001; Espelage & Swearer, 2003; Hawker & Boulton, 2000; Schwartz, 2010; Perry et al., 2001; Doren et al., 1996; Little, 2001, 2002; Montes & Halterman, 2007; van Roekel et al., 2010; Whitney et al., 1992, Martlew & Hodson, 1991; O’Moore & Hillery, 1989)
Teasing QUESTIONS: What are most young people told to do in response to teasing? Do those strategies usually work? What does the teaser want you to do?
PEERS® Rules for Handling Teasing § § § §
Do not walk away, ignore the person, or tell an adult Don’t show you’re upset or tease back Act like what the person said did not bother you Provide a SHORT COMEBACK that shows what the person said was lame: § § § § § § § § § § §
Whatever! Anyway… So what? Big deal! Who cares? Yeah and? And your point is? Am I supposed to care? Is that supposed to be funny? (Shrug shoulders) * (Roll eyes)*
§ Then walk away or remove yourself
* Not everyone can do this
(Laugeson & Frankel 2010; Laugeson 2013; Laugeson 2014; Laugeson 2017)
PEERS® Rules for Handling Teasing § Be prepared with a few comebacks § Comebacks need to make sense § Comebacks also work with friendly banter § Males and females use the same comebacks § Different ways of using comebacks: § Have an attitude § Sound bored
(Laugeson & Frankel 2010; Laugeson 2013; Laugeson 2014; Laugeson 2017)
PEERS® Rules for Handling Teasing § The teaser may try harder at first § Expect the teaser to try again in the future § Don’t use teasing comebacks with physically aggressive bullies § Don’t use comebacks with people in authority (Laugeson & Frankel 2010; Laugeson 2013; Laugeson 2014; Laugeson 2017)
Handling Teasing (Good Example: Having an Attitude)
Role play videos: www.semel.ucla.edu/peers/resources
Handling Teasing (Good Example: Sounding Bored)
Role play videos: www.semel.ucla.edu/peers/resources
Embarrassing Feedback QUESTIONS: What are some of the things that young people get teased about? What could we do differently if we didn’t want to be teased about these things?
Responding to Embarrassing Feedback
(Laugeson 2017)
Handling Disagreements QUESTIONS: Do people get into disagreements with their friends? Do disagreements have to end your friendship if they’re not too frequent and not too explosive?
Responding to Disagreements QUESTIONS: How should you RESPOND to a disagreement if your friend or partner is upset? What would be the WRONG way to RESPOND to a disagreement?
PEERS® Steps for Responding to Disagreements 1. Keep your cool 2. Listen to the other person 3. Repeat what they said •
“It sounds like you’re upset.”
4. Explain your side using “I” statements 5. Say you’re sorry • •
“I’m sorry you’re upset.” “I’m sorry this happened.”
6. Try to solve the problem • Tell them what you’ll do differently • Ask them what they want you to do • Suggest what you want them to do
(Laugeson & Frankel 2010; Laugeson 2013; Laugeson 2014; Laugeson 2017)
PEERS® Rules for Responding to Disagreements • Additional rules for responding to disagreements: § Keep your cool if you can’t solve the problem § Agree to disagree § Make sure to follow ALL the steps
(Laugeson & Frankel 2010; Laugeson 2013; Laugeson 2014; Laugeson 2017)
Bringing up Disagreements QUESTIONS: How do you BRING UP a disagreement? What would be the WRONG way to BRING UP a disagreement?
PEERS® Steps for Bringing Up Disagreements 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
Wait for the right time and place Keep your cool Ask to speak privately Explain your side using “I” statements Listen to the other person Repeat what they said Tell them what you need them to do Try to solve the problem • Tell them what you’ll do differently • Ask them what they want you to do • Suggest what you want them to do
(Laugeson & Frankel 2010; Laugeson 2013; Laugeson 2014; Laugeson 2017)
PEERS® Rules for Bringing Up Disagreements • Additional rules for bringing up disagreements: § Keep your cool if you can’t solve the problem § Agree to disagree § Remember that friendship is a choice
(Laugeson & Frankel 2010; Laugeson 2013; Laugeson 2014; Laugeson 2017)
PEERS® for Young Adults Teleconferences for Professionals • Certified Teleconferences at UCLA: – April 19-21, 2021
• 16-week curriculum • Weekly 90-minute young adult sessions and caregiver sessions • Social coaching handouts • Addresses core deficits for ASD • Focuses on friendship and relationships skills and handling peer rejection and conflict • Teaches ecologically valid social skills
PEERS® for Adolescents Teleconferences for Professionals • Certified Teleconferences at UCLA: – February 3-5, 2021
• 14-week curriculum • Weekly 90-minute teen sessions and parent sessions • Parent handouts • Addresses core deficits for ASD • Focuses on friendship skills and handling peer rejection and conflict • Teaches ecologically valid social skills
PEERS® for Adolescents School-Based Certified Training • Certified Trainings at UCLA – June 23-25, 2021
• • • •
Teacher-facilitated curriculum 16-week program Daily lesson plans Focuses on friendship skills and strategies for handling peer rejection and conflict • Includes weekly comprehensive parent handouts
The Science of Making Friends: Helping Socially Challenged Teens and Young Adults (Laugeson, 2013)
• • • •
Parent book Friendship skills Handling peer rejection and conflict Parent section – Narrative lessons – Social coaching tips
• • •
Chapter summaries for teens and young adults Chapter exercises / homework Companion DVD – Role-play videos
•
Mobile App: FriendMaker – Virtual social coach
Role-Play Video Library www.semel.ucla.edu/peers/resources www.routledge.com/cw/laugeson
www.semel.ucla.edu/peers/
[email protected] 310-26-PEERS Facebook, Twitter, Instagram: UCLA PEERS
