Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 3 (2009) 232–251

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Research in Autism Spectrum

Disorders
Journal homepage: http://ees.elsevier.com/RASD/default.asp

The use of Social Stories by teachers and their perceived

efficacy
Georgina Reynhout *, Mark Carter
Macquarie University Special Education Centre, Macquarie University, NSW 2109, Australia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: Teachers working with children with autism spectrum disorders
Received 29 May 2008 were surveyed to determine the characteristics of children with
Accepted 13 June 2008 whom Social Stories are used, how extensively they are employed
and the types of behaviors targeted by teachers; how and why
Keywords: teachers use Social Stories (including the extent to which Social
Social Stories Stories conform to recommended construction); teacher’s per-
Autism spectrum disorders ceived acceptability, applicability and efficacy of Social Stories and
Behavioral interventions
how perceived efficacy varies across student characteristics, story
construction and implementation. Social Stories were widely used
to target a diversity of behaviors, with children of different ages
who demonstrated varying degrees of autism, a range of cognitive
ability and varying expressive and receptive language skills. The
teachers surveyed use Social Stories as an intervention because they
find them easy to construct and implement, and believe them to be
effective, although there are perceived issues with maintenance and
generalization. Cognitive ability and expressive language skills
appeared to affect the perceived efficacy of the intervention;
receptive language skills and level of autism did not. Sample Social
Stories provided by teachers often deviated from the recommended
guidelines. Social Stories that deviated from recommended con-
struction were rated more efficacious than those that did not.
Several directions for future research are discussed.
ß 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 2 0414617080; fax: +61 2 98508254.

E-mail address: georgina.reynhout@speced.sed.mq.edu.au (G. Reynhout).

1750-9467/$ – see front matter ß 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.rasd.2008.06.003
 G. Reynhout, M. Carter / Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 3 (2009) 232–251 233

Gray (2007) states that ‘‘A Social StoryTM describes a situation, skill, or concept in terms of relevant
social cues, perspectives, and common responses in a specifically defined style and format. The goal of
a Social StoryTM is to share accurate social information in a patient and reassuring manner that is easily
understood by its audience.’’. Several recent literature reviews have examined empirical research on
Social Stories (Ali & Frederickson, 2006; Reynhout & Carter, 2006; Rust & Smith, 2006; Sansosti,
Powell-Smith, & Kincaid, 2004). While we do now have a body of information about how Social Stories
are constructed and implemented in research studies, as well some insight into efficacy, there remains
a dearth of equivalent information on the use of this intervention by practitioners. Social Stories are
reported as being a widely employed intervention for children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD)
(Ali & Frederickson, 2006; Rust & Smith, 2006; Sansosti et al., 2004) so information on application of
the intervention in the field as well as correspondence with research findings is important.
One issue of concern in the existing research has been the lack of data provided in relation to study
participants (Reynhout & Carter, 2006; Sansosti et al., 2004). Participant descriptions are often very
limited, in some cases consisting of little more than an age and diagnostic label (Reynhout & Carter,
2006). Accurate participant description is essential in determining who might best benefit from a
given intervention. The lack of participant description in much extant research on Social Stories
complicates attempts at such determinations. In addition, some research findings are ambiguous. For
example, while it appears that Social Stories are considered an appropriate intervention for
individuals with either moderate levels of intellectual disability (Kuoch & Mirenda, 2003; Kuttler,
Myles, & Carlson, 1998) or communication impairments (Barry & Burlew, 2004), and individuals with
a combination of both moderate levels of cognitive ability and communication impairments (Gray &
Garand, 1993; Reynhout & Carter, 2007) research with these groups has been equivocal (Reynhout &
Carter, 2006, 2007, 2008). Thus, given the difficulties interpreting the research it is of interest to
determine with whom practitioners are applying Social Stories.
Several issues relating to the construction and implementation of Social Stories have been
identified in the research literature. For example, in relation to Social Story construction, reviewers
have established that the Social Stories used in research often fail to comply with recommended
construction (Ali & Frederickson, 2006; Reynhout & Carter, 2006; Rust & Smith, 2006; Sansosti et al.,
2004). This leads to the obvious question of whether Social Stories used by practitioners fare any
better with regard to guidelines for construction? There is wide variation in the implementation of
Social Story interventions described in the literature, particularly in regard to the use of
supplementary and comprehension strategies (Ali & Frederickson, 2006; Reynhout & Carter,
2006; Rust & Smith, 2006; Sansosti et al., 2004). Interpretations of extant studies are frequently
confounded by the use of Social Stories in combination with other well verified interventions, such as
prompting and operant reinforcement (Ali & Frederickson, 2006; Reynhout & Carter, 2006; Rust &
Smith, 2006; Sansosti et al., 2004). In addition, the use of strategies to assess comprehension have
varied widely (Reynhout & Carter, 2006). While we do know how researchers construct and
implement Social Stories, there appears to be no parallel data for practitioners. Maintaining the
integrity of an intervention can be a critical factor in its success in the field (Gresham, MacMillan,
Beebe-Frankenberger, & Bocian, 2000; Gresham, Sugai, & Horner, 2001; Sansosti et al., 2004) and
knowledge of how Social Stories are being constructed and used, and how this relates to practitioner
training, may provide important information for those responsible for planning education service
provision.
In available research, a number of quite different intervention areas have been targeted with Social
Stories, including teaching social skills, introducing changes/routines, reducing stereotypical
behaviors, and reducing inappropriate behaviors such as aggression and tantrums (Ali & Frederickson,
2006; Reynhout & Carter, 2006; Rust & Smith, 2006; Sansosti et al., 2004). Given this and the apparent
clinical popularity of the intervention, it is interesting that there appears to be no data on how
practitioners are using Social Stories in the field.
Conclusions of recent reviewers examining the efficacy of Social Stories have been guarded,
particularly noting the significant methodological issues identified in the body of research as a whole
(Ali & Frederickson, 2006; Reynhout & Carter, 2006; Rust & Smith, 2006; Sansosti et al., 2004). In
general, social validity in relation to Social Stories is rarely reported (Reynhout & Carter, 2006), thus
teacher’s perception of Social Stories effectiveness is unknown. It is of interest, therefore, to examine
234 G. Reynhout, M. Carter / Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 3 (2009) 232–251

the concordance between the conclusions drawn from systematic reviews of the research literature
and of practitioners in the field, with regard to the efficacy of Social Stories.
The maintenance and generalization of learned skills are important issues for individuals with ASD
(Greenway, 2000; Heflin & Alberto, 2001; Horner, Carr, Strain, Todd, & Reed, 2002; Strain & Schwartz,
2001). Reviewers have consistently noted that data on maintenance and generalization of Social
Stories is limited (Ali & Frederickson, 2006; Bernad-Ripoll, 2007; Reynhout & Carter, 2006; Rust &
Smith, 2006; Sanosti & Powell-Smith, 2006; Sansosti et al., 2004; Toplis & Hadwin, 2006). While
researchers have identified maintenance and generalization as issues of concern in the use of Social
Stories, it remains unknown whether practitioners implementing Social Stories perceived these issues
to be problematic based on their experiences.
There is little research literature that describes how Social Stories are actually employed by
practitioners working in schools. This article attempts to broaden the research base relating to Social
Story intervention providing results of a survey of teachers working with children with ASD in order to
determine the following: (1) the characteristics of children with whom Social Stories are used, how
extensively they are employed and the types of behaviors are targeted by teachers; (2) how and why
teachers use Social Stories (including the extent to which Social Stories conform to recommended
construction); (3) teacher’s perceived acceptability, applicability and efficacy of Social Stories; and (4)
how perceived efficacy varies across student characteristics, story construction and implementation
characteristics.

1. Method

1.1. Questionnaire Construction

The questionnaire directed to the teachers consisted of four parts, prefaced by an information and
consent form. A set of directions was provided that overviewed the purpose of the questionnaire. The
first part of the questionnaire consisted of 10 questions related to teacher demographics and
background information, including gender, current teaching position, qualifications in teaching and/or
special education, teaching experience in regular and special education settings and professional
development undertaken in relation to Social Story construction and implementation. The second part
consisted of 15 questions related to how and why teachers use Social Stories. This section included
questions about behaviors targeted; data collection before, during and after intervention; compliance
in construction and implementation in terms of recommended guidelines; the use of supplementary
and comprehension strategies; the number of Social stories used on average over the course of a year;
and reasons for the use of a Social Story option in preference to other interventions. The third part of
the questionnaire consisted of 13 statements designed to establish teacher’s opinions of Social Stories
in relation to their acceptability, appropriateness and efficacy. Participants were asked to respond to
statements on a Likert-type scale (where 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree). In the fourth
part of the questionnaire, teachers were asked to photocopy and provide to the researchers the two
most recent examples of Social Stories they had used with students, with any child identifying
information removed. Teachers were then asked to respond to questions specifically related to the
Social Stories they provided. These questions related to the teacher’s use of each of the two Social
Stories in terms of behaviors targeted, data collection before, during and after intervention and the use
of supplementary and comprehension strategies. The teacher was asked to answer questions that
would provide a profile of the student for whom each story was written. This included student age,
level of autistic behavior displayed, cognitive ability and receptive and expressive language abilities.
In addition the teacher was asked to rate the Social Story as ineffective, somewhat effective or very
effective. A copy of the questionnaire is available from the authors on request.

1.2. Sampling

The sampling was opportunistic. Autism Spectrum Australia (Aspect) was the largest provider of
specialist services to children with autism in New South Wales, Australia, and each of their schools
were approached. These schools provided a range of services including segregated programs, support
 G. Reynhout, M. Carter / Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 3 (2009) 232–251 235

classes in regular schools that aimed to facilitate transition into regular classes, and support for
children in regular classes. All six schools agreed to participate. In addition, staff from Catholic Special
Schools in Sydney, were approached at a meeting and it was established that Social Stories were in use
in these schools. Subsequently, six Catholic Special Schools were approached and all initially agreed to
participate, although one school later withdrew. Following initial contact with school principals by
telephone to determine the number of teachers who potentially used Social Stories, packages
containing letters to principals, information statements, consent forms and questionnaires together
with reply-paid envelopes were distributed by post. A total of 105 questionnaires were distributed, 97
to Aspect schools and 8 to Catholic Special Schools. Follow-up phone calls were made approximately
3 weeks later to schools that had not returned the consent forms and questionnaires, to prompt them
to do so.

1.3. Data analysis

A computer database was developed for questionnaires to facilitate summary and analysis of data.
Where short answer responses were required, responses were transcribed into the database verbatim.

1.4. Coding and analysis of sample Social Stories

Each of the sample Social Stories provided by teachers was coded for sentence types. Gray (2000)
defines specific types of sentences to be used in Social Story construction and recommends they be
used in a specific ratio. The Social Story examples provided by the teachers were analysed to
determine frequency of sentence type (i.e., descriptive, perspective, affirmative, directive, control and
cooperative) using the guidelines provided by Gray (2000). One sentence type not described by Gray
(2000) was also coded. Sentences were coded as to whether they specified a consequence of the actions
of the target individual or others (e.g., ‘‘When I share my toys, my friends will want to play with me
again’’). With the exception of perspective sentences, sentences were coded in multiple categories
where this was considered appropriate. In the case of perspective sentences taking the format of ‘‘I feel
sad when . . .’’ information provided in the second part of the sentence was considered to be supporting
the first and was not coded elsewhere in terms of Gray’s (2000) classification. Where perspective
sentences were employed, they also were coded as to whether they took the perspective of the target
individual and/or that of others. The percentage of stories containing a particular sentence type was
calculated as were the mean number of sentence types per story. In addition the percentage of
sentence types per story was calculated. For the purpose of coding and analysis of the sample Social
Stories provided by teachers a sentence was demarked by a full stop or completed phrase. Six of the 81
sample Social Stories provided consisted of a series of visuals without phrases or sentences; these
were thus uncodable.
According to the ratios and types of sentences present, Gray (2000) defines Social Stories as either
‘‘basic’’ or ‘‘complete’’. A basic Social Story has a ratio of two to five descriptive, perspective and/or
affirmative sentences for every directive sentence. A complete Social Story has a ratio of zero to one
directive or control sentences to between two and five descriptive, perspective, affirmative and/or co-
operative sentences. Two Social Story types not described by Gray (2000) were also coded. Social
Stories where the ratio of descriptive, perspective and/or affirmative sentences was more than two to
five for every directive sentence were coded as ‘‘appropriately modified’’ and Social Stories where the
ratio of descriptive, perspective, and/or affirmative sentences was less than two to five for every
directive sentence were coded as ‘‘inappropriately modified’’.

1.5. Interrater reliability

Reliability for classification of sentence types was examined. Only 75 of the 81 Social Stories were
coded according to sentence types; 6 comprised each only a series of visuals without phrases or
sentences and were uncodable. The first six stories with sentences that were received were used
for training until reliability was at least 80%. A further 18 stories (24%) were independently coded for
interrater reliability. An agreement was recorded when both raters indicated the presence of a
236 G. Reynhout, M. Carter / Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 3 (2009) 232–251

particular coding category for a sentence and a disagreement was recorded when only one rater coded
the category. Reliability was calculated by dividing agreements by the total of agreements and
disagreements and multiplying by 100. Interrater reliability was 85.5% for descriptive sentences,
82.9% for perspective sentences, 50% for affirmative sentences, 86.2% for directive sentences, 80% for
cooperative sentences and 83.3% for consequence sentences. No control sentences were identified.
Where raters agreed on the presence of perspective sentence, agreements on whose perspective was
taken was 96.9%. The low interrater reliability achieved for affirmative sentences (50%) was due to the
low frequency of occurrence of these sentences (there were only 2).

2. Results

2.1. Return rate

There were 105 questionnaires sent out and 45 of these questionnaires were returned, thus a
return rate of 43% was achieved. Of the 45 respondents who returned completed questionnaires, 9
were able to provide only one example of Social Stories they had recently used, thus a total of 81
sample Social Story examples were obtained.

2.2. Demographics of teacher respondents

A summary of the respondents including details of their qualifications and teaching experience,
current teaching position, and in-service training, including that relating to Social Story professional
development was constructed and is presented in Table 1. The majority of teachers who completed the
survey were females (89%) working with infants/primary-aged children (84%) in special school
settings (76%). Most had over 9 years experience in teaching (67%) and over 9 years teaching in special
education (42%). Over half had a formal qualification in special education (58%). Nearly three-quarters
(71%) had received Social Story training.

2.3. How and why do teachers use Social Stories?

The second part of the questionnaire addressed how and why teachers use Social Stories. Table 2
provides a summary of teacher’s general reported use of Social Stories from Part 2 of the questionnaire
in terms of behaviors targeted; data collection before, during and after intervention; compliance in
construction and implementation in terms of recommended guidelines; and the use of
supplementary, comprehension and fading strategies.
Teachers reported that they generally use Social Stories to target a wide range of behaviors
including the teaching of social skills (91%), the reduction of inappropriate behaviors (91%) and the
introduction of changes/new routines (87%). The Social Stories were reported as being implemented in
a range of settings. All teachers (100%) reported using Social Stories in the classroom. Almost one-third
(29%) of teachers reported using Social Stories in settings other than school and home; these settings
were always described as relating to community access (e.g., local library). Many teachers reported
collecting data before (78%), during (49%) and after (58%) intervention although the nature of this data
collection was not ascertained. Most teachers (96%) reported that they always wrote Social Stories
specifically for a particular student, but one-third (31%) also reported that they sometimes used
generic Social Stories. This information appears to conflict but it is possible that, in some instances, a
generic Social Story was used as a template for a Social Story that was then adapted specifically for a
particular student. Only 4% of teachers reported that they always adhered to Gray’s (2000) guidelines
regarding Social Story construction and over one third (36%) did not know whether they adhered to
these guidelines. A roughly corresponding number (29%) of the teachers reported that had never
received Social Story training.
All of the teachers reported that they always (60%) or sometimes (40%) used a Social Story in
conjunction with other interventions, for example, positive reinforcement. The use of reinforcers
included edibles (e.g., lollies), preferred activities (e.g., computer time), tangibles (e.g., special toy),
privileges, generalized reinforcers (tokens, stickers, stamps), and social reinforcers (verbal praise,
 G. Reynhout, M. Carter / Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 3 (2009) 232–251 237

Table 1
Summary of demographic data

Demographic n % (rounded)

Gender
Male 5 11
Female 40 89

Current position
Teacher 41 91
Deputy principal (teaching) 3 7
Principal (teaching) 0 0
Uncodable 0 0

Institution
School for specific purposes 34 77
Support unit 9 20
Other 7
Uncodable 0 0

Qualification in special education

No formal qualification 19 42
Diploma 7 16
Bachelor 12 27
Coursework master 7 16
Research degree 0 0
Uncodable 0 0

When completed
N/A 19 42
Last 2 years 4 9
3–4 years 7 16
5–6 years 5 11
7–8 years 0 0
9+ years 10 22
Uncodable 0 0

Total years teaching

>2 years 8 18
3–4 years 5 11
5–6 years 2 4
7–8 years 0 0
9+ years 30 67
Uncodable 0 0

Total years teaching special education

> 2 years 11 24
3–4 years 8 18
5–6 years 6 13
7–8 years 1 2
9+ years 19 42
Uncodable 0 0

Grades taught
Infants/primary 84
Secondary 6 13
Both 4 9
Uncodable 4 2

Completed in-service program

Last 6 months 38 80
Last year 5 11
Last 2 years 2 4
Nil 2 4
Uncodable 0 0

Social Story training

Yes-agency 27 60
Yes-self 3 7
238 G. Reynhout, M. Carter / Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 3 (2009) 232–251

Table 1 (Continued )
Demographic n % (rounded)

Yes-other 6 13
No 1341 29
Uncodable 0 0

written praise, ‘‘high 5’s’’). In general, teachers provided very little detail about the other
interventions.
Most (85%) of the teachers surveyed reported that they always (36%) or sometimes (49%) included a
comprehension session as a component of the intervention, and the majority of teachers (73%)
reported that they always (13%) or sometimes (60%) systematically faded Social Story intervention.
Teachers were asked to describe how systematic fading was done. Examples of the systematic fading
strategies described by teachers included: pairing Social Story a with reward, fading the reward, then
fading Social Story use over time; reducing the reading of the Social Story from reading everyday to
only when the behavior was predicted to occur; deciding with the child how often the Social Story was
required; replacing the Social story with verbal prompts. Most teachers (80%) also reported that they
always (13%) or sometimes (67%) attempted generalization with Social Stories.
Teachers were asked open-ended questions regarding the number of Social Stories they developed.
The number of stories reported by teachers as being developed and used, on average, over the course of
a year was variable. Most teachers (87%) provided numerical data, in the form of a range. The figures
given ranged from 1 to 100+ per annum. Of those teachers who provided numerical data, 85% reported
that the number of Social Stories that they developed and used on average, over the course of a year,
was in the range of 1 to 25. The number of Social Stories developed and used on average, per student
taught, over the course of a year was also provided as a range by most (84%) teachers. The minimum
number of stories per student was 1 and the maximum was 15. Of those teachers who provided
numerical data, 71% reported that the number of Social Stories that they developed and used on
average, per student, over the course of a year, was in the range of 1 to 5. One teacher noted that one
student in particular had Social Stories for almost all activities. A few teachers (13%) entered a
comment in response to this question. Comments included ‘‘Too many to count’’, ‘‘Hard to say’’,
‘‘Haven’t done enough to know’’, ‘‘Lots and lots’’ and ‘‘Depends on class and individuals’’.
In the final question in Part 2 of the questionnaire, teachers were presented with an open-ended
question regarding why they choose Social Stories in preference to other interventions. Reasons given
were wide ranging. Some teachers gave a number of reasons for their preference (e.g., ‘‘They are
prescriptive, specific to the student, tailored to their understanding, transient across contexts, visual,
they work with many of these students.’’), whereas other teachers gave only one reason (e.g., ‘‘They
work.’’ Some reasons for preference related to the efficacy of Social Stories including e.g., ‘‘. . .have had
success’’; . . .effective immediately’’; ‘‘sometimes this is the only effective method’’ and ‘‘. . .nothing
else worked’’). Nearly one-third (29%) teachers surveyed made specific comments in relation to the
visual components of Social Stories such as ‘‘Children are visual learners’’; ‘‘Visual constancy’’; ‘‘Visual
impact, usually quick result’’; ‘‘Explains appropriate behaviors visually’’; and ‘‘. . . a visual reminder’’. A
number of teachers made comments in relation to Social Stories increasing social understanding (e.g.,
‘‘explains social skills that are not obvious to children’’ and ‘‘. . . provide a ‘mantra’ for student for what
to do or think (or feel) in a certain situation’’). In responding to the open ended question regarding why
they choose Social Stories in preference to other interventions some teachers (16%) noted in their
responses that that they used Social Stories in conjunction with other interventions (e.g.,
reinforcement) as opposed to in preference to other interventions. One teacher wrote, ‘‘. . .because
research shows they are effective particularly in relation to autism’’. Almost all the teachers described
the Social Stories as being either very effective (51%) or somewhat effective (47%).

2.4. Perceived acceptability, applicability and efficacy of Social Stories

The third part of the questionnaire addressed issues related to teacher’s views regarding the
acceptability, applicability and efficacy of Social Stories, and a summary of responses is provided in
 G. Reynhout, M. Carter / Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 3 (2009) 232–251 239

Table 2
Teacher’s reported use of Social Stories

n % (rounded)

Targeted behavior
Teach social skills 41 91
Introduce changes/new routines 39 87
Explain other’s behavior 19 42
Reduce stereotypical behaviors 19 42
Reduce inappropriate behaviors 41 91
Teach academic skills 11 24
Other 24 18
Uncodable 0 0

Data collection before intervention

Yes 35 78
No 10 22
Uncodable 0 0

Data collection during intervention

Yes 22 49
No 22 49
Uncodable 1 2

Data collection after intervention

Yes 26 58
No 19 42
Uncodable 0 0

Setting
Classroom 45 100
Playground 39 87
Home 32 71
Other 13 29
Uncodable 0 0

Origin of Social Story—generic

Always 0 0
Sometimes 14 31
Never 31 69
Uncodable 0 0

Origin of Social Story—written specifically for student

Always 43 96
Sometimes 2 4
Never 0 0
Uncodable 0 0

Adherence to Gray’s guidelines re: Social Story construction

Always 2 4
Sometimes 24 53
Never 3 7
Don’t know 16 36
Uncodable 0 0

Illustrations—photos
Always 17 38
Sometimes 23 51
Never 5 11
Uncodable 0 0

Illustrations—line drawings
Always 2 4
Sometimes 24 53
Never 18 40
Uncodable 1 2

Illustrations—symbols
Always 14 31
240 G. Reynhout, M. Carter / Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 3 (2009) 232–251

Table 2 (Continued )
n % (rounded)

Sometimes 27 60
Never 3 7
Uncodable 1 2

Reader—teacher
Always 28 62
Sometimes 17 38
Never 0 0
Uncodable 0 0

Reader—student
Always 21 47
Sometimes 20 44
Never 2 4
Uncodable 2 4

Reader—peer
Always 0 0
Sometimes 18 40
Never 25 56
Uncodable 2 4

Reader—parent
Always 8 18
Sometimes 30 67
Never 6 13
Uncodable 1 2

Reader—teacher’s aide
Always 3 7
Sometimes 8 8
Never 30 67
Uncodable 4 9

Social Story in conjunction with other intervention

Always 27 60
Sometimes 18 40
Never 0 0
Uncodable 0 0

Comprehension session included

Always 16 36
Sometimes 22 49
Never 6 13
Uncodable 1 2

Social Story left accessible through the day

Always 31 69
Sometimes 12 27
Never 2 4
Uncodable 0 0

Generalization attempted
Always 6 13
Sometimes 30 67
Never 9 20
Uncodable 0 0

Systematic fading
Always 6 13
Sometimes 27 60
Never 11 24
Uncodable 1 2
 G. Reynhout, M. Carter / Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 3 (2009) 232–251 241

Table 3
Teacher’s opinion of Social Story intervention

Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Uncodable

disagree agree

I consider the Social Stories to be an 0 0 0 26.7 73.3 0

acceptable intervention
Social Stories are acceptable to parents and families 0 0 2.2 48.9 48.9 0
Social Stories are acceptable to the 0 0 11.1 46.7 42.2 0
children with whom they are used
I consider the Social Stories to be an 2.2 2.2 2.2 46.7 46.7 0
effective intervention
I would suggest the use of Social 0 2.2 0 44.4 53.3 0
Stories to other teachers
Social Stories do not result in negative 0 6.7 33.3 40 20 0
side effects for the child
Social Stories are appropriate for a wide 0 8.9 13.3 46.7 31.1 0
variety of children
Social Stories are appropriate for a wide 0 2.2 4.4 62.2 31.1 0
variety of behaviors and skills
Social Stories can be easily implemented in a wide 0 2.2 4.4 40 53.3 0
variety of places (classroom, playground,
home, community)
Social Stories maintain well (any behavior change 0 4.4 40 51.1 2.2 2.2
continues after Social Story intervention stops)
Social Stories result in generalized behavior change 2.2 15.6 35.6 35.6 8.9 2.2
(e.g., across people or places)
Social Stories are complementary to other 0 0 0 60 40
interventions that I use
Social Stories are easy to implement 0 0 11.1 62.2 26.7

Table 3. The teacher’s surveyed agree that Social Stories are an acceptable (100%) and effective
intervention (93%), appropriate for a wide variety of children (78%), behaviors and skills (93%), that can
be easily implemented in a wide variety of settings (93%), and that are complementary to other
interventions (100%). In contrast, a minority of teachers (45%) agreed that Social Stories result in
generalized behavior change (e.g., across people or places) and only 53% agreed that Social Stories
maintain well (i.e., the behavior change continues after the teaching stops).

2.5. Sample Social Stories

2.5.1. Use of sample stories

Where teachers provided a copy of a Social Story they had used, they were also asked to provide a
range of information relevant to the story. Table 4 provides a summary of teacher’s reported use of
Social Stories based on the 81 sample Social Stories provided. The table includes behavior(s) targeted,
demographics of students with whom the Social Stories were used (age, level of autistic behavior,
cognitive ability, and receptive and expressive language abilities) and implementation of the Social
Story (e.g., use of supplementary and comprehension strategies).
The sample Social Stories were written for and used with children ranging from below 6 years of
age to above 17 years of age, with more children (40%) being in the 6–8-year group than any other. The
children were described as having levels of autism ranging from non-autistic to severely autistic, with
the largest number being moderately autistic (44%). The reported cognitive ability of the children
ranged from above average to severe cognitive impairment; 10% of students were reported as being
average or above while 40% were reported having mild cognitive impairment. Interestingly, 31% were
reported as having moderate cognitive impairment or greater. In terms of their receptive and
expressive language abilities the children mostly understood simplified short sentences (48%) or
general conversation (38%) and generally used words or symbols to speak in full sentences (41%) or
simplified short sentences (40%). The sample Social Stories were used to target a wide range of
behaviors including the teaching of social skills (56%), the reduction of inappropriate behaviors (65%)
242 G. Reynhout, M. Carter / Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 3 (2009) 232–251

Table 4
Teacher’s use of sample Social Stories (N = 81)

n % (rounded)

Targeted behavior
Teach social skills 45 56
Introduce changes/new routines 36 44
Explain other’s behavior 4 5
Reduce stereotypical behaviors 1 1
Reduce inappropriate behaviors 53 65
Teach academic skills 0 0
Other 3 4
Uncodable 0 0

Age of student
 6 years 18 22
6–8 years 32 40
9–11 years 13 16
12–14 years 15 19
15–17 years 1 1
17+ years 2 3
Uncodable 0 0

Level of autistic behavior

None 9 11
Mild 20 25
Moderate 36 44
Severe 12 15
Uncodable 4 5

Cognitive ability
Above average 8 9
Average 12 15
Mild cognitive impairment 32 40
Moderate cognitive impairment 21 26
Severe cognitive impairment 4 5
Uncodable 4 5

Receptive language ability

Generally understands conversation 31 39
Generally understands simplified short sentences 39 48
Generally understands single words or symbols 11 14
Does not understand single words or symbols 0 0
Uncodable 0 0

Expressive language ability

Generally uses words or symbols to speak in full sentences 33 41
Generally uses words or symbols to speak in simplified short sentences 32 40
Generally uses single words to sentences 12 15
Does not generally communicate with words or symbols 4 5
Uncodable 0 0

Data collection before intervention

Yes 41 51
No 40 49
Uncodable 0 0

Data collection during intervention

Yes 36 44
No 45 56
Uncodable 0 0

Data collection after intervention

Yes 37 46
No 43 53
Uncodable 0 0

Setting(s) implemented
Classroom 68 84
 G. Reynhout, M. Carter / Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 3 (2009) 232–251 243

Table 4 (Continued )
n % (rounded)

Playground 30 37
Home 24 30
Other 20 25
Uncodable 0 0

Social Story
Generic 1 1
Written specifically for student 80 99
Uncodable 0 0

Illustrations—photos
Yes 44 54
No 37 46
Uncodable 0 0

Illustrations—line drawings
Yes 68 84
No 13 16
Uncodable 0 0

Illustrations—symbols
Yes 68 84
No 13 16
Uncodable 0 0

Reader—teacher
Yes 77 95
No 4 5
Uncodable 0 0

Reader—student
Yes 68 84
No 13 16
Uncodable 0 0

Reader—peer
Yes 19 23
No 62 77
Uncodable 0 0

Reader—parent
Yes 41 50
No 40 50
Uncodable 0 0

Reader—teacher’s aide
Yes 13 16
No 68 84
Uncodable 0 0

Social Story in conjunction with other intervention

Yes 70 86
No 11 14
Uncodable 0 0

Comprehension session included

Yes 53 65
No 28 35
Uncodable 0 0

Social Story left accessible through the day

Yes 76 94
No 5 6
Uncodable 0 0

Generalization attempted
Yes 36 44
No 45 56
244 G. Reynhout, M. Carter / Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 3 (2009) 232–251

Table 4 (Continued )
n % (rounded)

Uncodable 0 0

Systematic fading
Yes 32 40
No 49 60
Uncodable 0 0

Efficacy of Social Story

Very effective 41 51
Somewhat effective 38 47
Ineffective 2 3
Uncodable 0 0

and the introduction of changes/new routines (44%). The sample Social Stories were implemented in a
range of settings; some were used in more than one setting. For the sample Social Stories teachers
reported collecting data before (51%), during (44%) and after (46%) intervention, although, again, the
nature of this data collection was not ascertained. Almost all of the sample Social Stories (99%) were
written specifically for a particular student, only one (1%) of the sample Social Stories were generic.
The great majority of the sample Social Stories (86%) were used in conjunction with another
intervention and for two-thirds (65%) of the sample Social Stories a comprehension session was
included as part of the intervention. Attempts to generalize the targeted behavior was reported in less
than half (44%) of the sample Social Stories. Almost all the Social Stories (95%) were used in
conjunction with some form of visual support.
While it must be emphasised that the Social Stories provided represented only a sample of those
used by the teachers, it is interesting to note that there was some discrepancy between the
corresponding general reported data on Social Story use in Part 2 of the questionnaire and the data
relating to the sample Social Stories. For example, 91% of teacher’s reported using Social Stories to
reduce inappropriate behavior whereas only 65% of the sample Social Stories provided targeted such
behaviors. A total of 24% of teacher’s stated they used Social Stories to teach academic skills whereas
none of the sample Social Stories was used for this purpose. Almost half (42%) of the teacher’s reported
that they used Social Stories to explain other’s behavior but this was targeted in only 5% of the stories
provided. The same number (42%) also reported that they used Social Stories to reduce stereotypical
behaviors yet 65% of the sample Social Stories targeted such behaviors. In addition over three-quarters
(85%) of the teachers surveyed reported that they always (36%) or sometimes (49%) included a
comprehension session as a component of the intervention, however, in the sample Social Stories only
65% of the teachers actually did this. The majority (73%) of teachers claimed they always (13%) or
sometimes (60%) systematically faded Social Story intervention however with the sample Social
Stories, systematic fading was actually undertaken with only 40% of them. When using Social Stories
data, collection was generally reported by teachers as being carried out before (78%), during (49%) and
after (58%) intervention. When using the sample Social Stories teachers reported data collection as
being only carried out before (51%), during (44%) and after (46%) intervention. One-third (31%) of
teachers reported that they sometimes used generic Social Stories; of the samples provided all but one
of them (99%) were specifically written for the student.

2.5.2. Analysis of sample stories

When coded in terms of the format described by Gray (2000), 20% of the sample were ‘‘basic’’ Social
Stories, 0% were ‘‘complete’’ Social Stories, 14% were appropriately modified, 59% were
inappropriately modified and 7% were uncodable (i.e., visuals only). The inappropriately modified
stories either contained too many directive and/or control sentences to meet Gray’s (2000) criteria.
The mean number of sentences per story was 9.5 (range 1–41) and the mean number of words per
sentence was 8.2 (range 1 to 25). The percentage of sample Social Stories containing a particular
sentence type and the mean number of sentences per story are presented in Table 5. It is interesting to
note that nearly all (96%) of the sample stories contained directive sentences, and that on average over
 G. Reynhout, M. Carter / Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 3 (2009) 232–251 245

Table 5
Sample Social Stories sentence analysis

Sentence type* Percentage of stories Mean percentage of sentence

containing sentence type type per story (range)

Descriptive 84 35 (0–100)
Perspective 64 23 (0–100)
Affirmative 24 3 (0–38)
Directive 96 52 (7–100)
Control 0 0
Cooperative 12 1 (0–14)
Consequence 64 21 (0–100)

Note: All percentages are rounded.

*Some sentences were coded as being more than one sentence type.

one-half of all the sentences used in the stories were directive sentences (mean percentage of 52% per
story). A total of 64% of the stories contained perspective sentences, with a mean percentage of 23% per
story. In contrast with Gray’s (2000) recommendation that perspective sentences should only
occasionally be written from the viewpoint of the person with autism, 54% were written from the
point of view of the person for whom the story was written, 38% were written from the viewpoint of
another, and 8% were written from the viewpoint of both persons. A total of 64% of the stories
contained consequence sentences.

2.5.3. Perceived efficacy

Of the 81 sample Social Stories provided, 79 (98%) were rated by teachers as being either very
effective or somewhat effective. In an attempt to determine any relationship between child-related
variables and the perceived efficacy of the intervention, child-related variables were further analysed
by teacher effectiveness rating. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 6. In relation to the
participant level of autism (ranging from none to severe autism) there appeared to be little difference

Table 6
Effectiveness of sample Social Stories in relation to student characteristics

Characteristic Level Number of Social Story Social Story Social story

students (n) rated very rated somewhat rated
effective (%) effective (%) ineffective (%)

Autism None 9 44 56 0
Mild 20 45 55 0
Moderate 36 55 42 3
Severe 12 50 42 8
Uncodable 4 50 50 0

Cognitive ability Above average 8 75 25 0

Average 12 50 50 0
Mild 32 56 38 6
Moderate 21 38 62 0
Severe 4 25 75 0
Uncodable 4 50 50 0

Receptive language Conversations 31 52 42 6

understands: Simplified short sentences 39 51 49 0
Single words or symbols 11 45 55 0
No single words or symbols 0
Uncodable 0

Expressive language Full sentences 33 61 33 6

Short sentences 32 47 53 0
Single words 12 42 58 0
No single words or symbols 4 25 75 0
Uncodable 0
246 G. Reynhout, M. Carter / Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 3 (2009) 232–251

Table 7
Effectiveness of sample Social Stories in relation to construction and implementation

Social story construction/implementation Number of Social Story Social Story Social story
Social Stories rated very rated somewhat rated
(n) effective (%) effective (%) ineffective (%)

Construction (based on sentence ratios)

Basic 17 41 59 0
Complete 0 0 0 0
Appropriately modified 9 22 66 11
Inappropriately modified 49 55 43 2
Uncodable 6 83 17 0

Illustrated with:
Photographs 38 53 45 2
Line drawings 67 52 46 2
Symbols 68 54 44 2

Implementation
Social Story used in conjunction 70 47 50 3
with other intervention
Social Story used in conjunction 53 51 47 2
with comprehension session
Social Story left accessible for 76 50 47 3
student to access
Generalization attempted 36 50 50 0
with Social Story

in the percentage of Social Stories rated as being very effective. In relation to participant cognitive level
a pattern emerged in the data whereby the perceived efficacy decreased as the cognitive ability
decreased. In relation to participant’s receptive language skills (ranging from ‘‘understanding
conversations’’ to ‘‘understanding no single words or symbols’’) there appeared to be little difference
in the percentage of Social Stories rated as being very effective. However, in relation to participant
expressive language skills (ranging from ‘‘generally uses full sentences’’ to ‘‘does not generally
communicate with word or symbols’’), again a pattern emerged whereby the percentage of Social
Stories rated as very effective decreased as the participant’s expressive language skills decreased.
A similar analysis was conducted for variables relating to Social Story construction and
implementation (see Table 7). In relation to Social Story construction, the highest percentage (83%) of
Social Stories rated as being very effective were uncodable (i.e., they consisted of visuals only, without
phrases or sentences) although this was based on only a sample of six stories and should be treated
with extreme caution. Of the Social Stories that did consist of phrases or sentences, the majority (55%)
of Social Stories that were rated as being very effective were inappropriately modified. There was little
disparity between Social Stories described as very effective in terms whether they were used in
conjunction with other interventions (47%), whether they were implemented with a comprehension
session as part of the intervention (51%), whether they were left for the student to access (50%) or
whether generalization was attempted with the Social Story (50%).
Social Story construction and reported efficacy was further examined in terms of percentage of
sentence types used. For each Social Story, the number of each sentence type was calculated as a
percentage of the total number of sentences. Stories were then grouped in terms of the percentage of
each type in Table 7. For example, in relation to descriptive sentences, 12 stories had no descriptive
sentences; 33% of these were rated by teachers as very effective and 67% as somewhat effective. A total
of 7 stories had 67% or more directive sentences and these were rated as very effective by 57% of
teachers and somewhat effective by 43%. There was evidence of a small absolute increase in perceived
efficacy with an increasing proportion of descriptive sentences with a plateau in the upper range and a
large absolute increase in perceived efficacy with increasing proportion of directive sentences, again
with plateau in the upper range. In contrast, there was a moderate absolute decrease in perceived
efficacy with increasing use of perspective sentences with a plateau in the lower range. The pattern
with regard to consequence sentences was not clear with higher levels of perceived efficacy associated
with both no consequence sentences and heavy use of consequence sentences (67% and above),
 G. Reynhout, M. Carter / Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 3 (2009) 232–251 247

Table 8
Effectiveness of sample Social Stories in relation to sentence types

Sentence type Percentage of Number of Social Story Social Story Social story
sentence type stories rated very rated somewhat rated
effective (%) effective (%) ineffective (%)

Descriptive 0 12 33 67 0
1–33 26 42 54 4
34–66 30 57 40 3
67–100 7 57 43 0

Perspective 0 27 56 44 0
1–33 27 52 48 0
34–66 16 38 50 13
67–100 5 20 80 0

Directive 0 3 0 100 0
1–33 24 38 58 4
34–66 26 58 38 4
67–100 22 55 45 0

Affirmative 0 57 49 47 4
3–38 18 44 56 0

Cooperative 0 66 47 45 2
4–20 9 56 33 11

Consequence 0 26 62 38 0
1–33 30 33 60 7
34–66 16 44 56 0
67–100 3 100 0 0

although there were few examples of the latter. For both affirmative and cooperative sentences,
perceived efficacy was much higher when the sentences were not present than when they were but
they tended to be employed relatively infrequently (Table 8).

3. Discussion

The present study was designed to examine issues relating to the use of Social Stories by teachers as
to date there is little research literature that describes how Social Stories are actually employed by
practitioners working in schools. In providing results of a survey of teachers working with children
with ASD an attempt was made to broaden the research base relating to Social Story intervention.
Through analysis of teacher responses and sample Social Stories provided by teachers, the
characteristics of children with whom Social Stories are used, how extensively they are employed
and the types of behaviors targeted by teachers, were identified. In addition, how and why teachers
use Social Stories in preference to, or combination with other interventions, was investigated. Sample
Social Stories were analysed to find out the extent to which Social Stories conform to recommended
construction. Teacher’s perceived acceptability, applicability and efficacy of Social Stories was also
determined and, more importantly, how this perceived efficacy varies across student characteristics,
story construction and implementation was reported upon. Issues related to each of the research
questions will now be addressed seriatim.
The first research question addressed the characteristics of children with whom Social Stories are
used, extent of use and types of behaviors targeted by teachers. Examination of the findings indicates
that Social Stories are widely used by the teachers who were surveyed. The sample Social Stories were
written for children of different ages, with a range of cognitive ability. The children varied in their
expressive and receptive language skills, and displayed varying degrees of autism. That Social Stories
may be used to address a broad range of behaviors (Ali & Frederickson, 2006; Rust & Smith, 2006;
Sansosti et al., 2004) would appear to be confirmed by the teachers surveyed, who reported using
Social Stories to target behaviors relating to social skills, to introduce changes/new routines, explain
248 G. Reynhout, M. Carter / Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 3 (2009) 232–251

other’s behavior, reduce stereotypical behaviors, reduce inappropriate behavior and to teach academic
skills.
The second issue of concern was how and why teachers use Social Stories. Teachers chose Social
Stories in preference to other interventions for a number of reasons, including the fact that they are
relatively easy to construct and implement. Teachers also find them applicable to a wide range of
behaviors and, perhaps most importantly, teachers believe Social Stories to be effective.
Analysis and classification of the sample Social Stories provided by teacher’s show that many of
them bear little resemblance in terms of their construction and implementation to the Social Stories
described by Gray (2000). Several factors may account for this finding. First, 29% of the teachers
participating in the survey had never received any form of Social Story training Second, in the most
recent guidelines on Social Stories, Gray (2003) has noted that a complete description of the Social
Story guidelines ‘‘appear in relatively few resources’’ (p.2), and, thus, teachers may not have ready
access. Third, despite the claim that the guidelines have ‘‘changed very little since their introduction’’
(Gray, 2003, p. 2), there has been considerable revision over the years (Ali & Frederickson, 2006). This
has occurred with very little, if any, theoretical rationale or research-based evidence driving these
changes, and this may be source of confusion for practitioners. For example, early guidelines described
the inclusion of a comprehension component as a mandatory part of the intervention (Gray & Garand,
1993); later guidelines make no mention of such a comprehension component. Early guidelines
advised against the use of illustrations as ‘‘. . .they may be distracting, or a student may make an
inaccurate interpretation of the situation based on the illustration’’ (Gray & Garand, 1993, p. 4). This
guideline was subsequently revised and the use of illustrations was recommended (Gray, 2000). A
final possible explanation is that some practitioners may simply not find the prescriptive guidelines
for construction and implementation to be particularly useful in practice.
Interestingly, the deviation from the recommended guidelines for construction of social stories
seen in this survey of practitioners is also seen in research studies. In conducting a meta-analysis
Reynhout and Carter (2006) found that a number of Social Stories deviated considerably from the
construction prescribed by Gray (2000).
The third research question concerned the perceived acceptability, applicability and efficacy of
Social Stories. In general teachers appear to view Social Stories in a very positive way, albeit
constructing and implementing them in ways that differ greatly from the recommended guidelines
(see Gray, 2000, 2003). Teachers clearly viewed Social Stories as inherently attractive, as has been
widely discussed in the literature (Ali & Frederickson, 2006; Reynhout & Carter, 2006; Rust & Smith,
2006; Sansosti et al., 2004). Nevertheless, clinical popularity does not necessarily equate with efficacy
(Dawson & Watling, 2000; Elder, 2002; Kasari, 2002; Kerrin, Murdock, Sharpton, & Jones, 1998;
McWilliam, 1999). Most teachers perceived Social Stories to be effective but there was less confidence
regarding maintenance and generalization, issues that are critical for children with ASD (Greenway,
2000; Heflin & Alberto, 2001; Horner et al., 2002; Strain & Schwartz, 2001). In fact, a number of
reviewers examining research on Social Stories (Ali & Frederickson, 2006; Bernad-Ripoll, 2007;
Reynhout & Carter, 2006; Rust & Smith, 2006; Sanosti & Powell-Smith, 2006; Sansosti et al., 2004;
Toplis & Hadwin, 2006) have raised specific concerns regarding maintenance and generalization,
supporting the perceptions of teachers with regard to these matters.
The final research question concerned how perceived efficacy varies across student characteristics,
story construction and implementation. In order to address this question, sample stories were
obtained from respondents and these stories were subject to analysis. The level of autism of the
student did not seem to affect the efficacy of the intervention as rated by teachers, a somewhat
surprising finding. The cognitive ability of the students did appear to affect the efficacy of the
intervention as perceived by teachers, with stories written for students of above average cognitive
ability rated as the most effective. In terms of language skills, surprisingly, the receptive language
skills of the students did not seem to affect the efficacy of the intervention as rated by teachers,
whereas the expressive language skills did. The percentage of Social Stories rated as very effective
decreased as the participant’s expressive language skills decreased. It is possible that estimates of the
student’s language abilities were based on teacher’s subjective assessment. Since expressive language
is relatively conspicuous teachers may be in a better position to make judgements than for receptive
language. Thus, it is possible that teachers may have been more accurate in estimating expressive
 G. Reynhout, M. Carter / Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 3 (2009) 232–251 249

language ability. Gray and Garand (1993) suggested that the intervention might be appropriate for
individuals who possess at least ‘‘basic language skills’’. The data presented in the survey appear to be
consistent with this view. Social Stories were rarely used with children who understood or used less
than short sentences, notwithstanding the fact that they were almost always used with visual support.
Further, in the sample Social Stories provided, teachers wrote stories with a mean number of words
per sentence of 8.2 (range 1–25) and a mean number of sentences of 9.5 (range 1–41) per story.
Teachers described nearly all of the Social Stories analysed in this research as being either very
effective or somewhat effective. Approximately half the teachers, however, failed to collect data
before, during and/or after intervention. It must be acknowledged that the basis on which almost half
the teacher ratings were made was therefore subjective. The vast majority of Social Stories were used
in conjunction with other interventions, a problem also often confounding interpretation of research
(Ali & Frederickson, 2006; Reynhout & Carter, 2006; Rust & Smith, 2006; Sansosti et al., 2004) and this
would further complicate teacher attempts to make judgements regarding efficacy.
In relation to Social Story construction, the percentage of stories containing particular sentence
types and the mean percentage of sentence type per story used in the sample Social Stories provided
by teachers were very similar to those used in the research reviewed by Reynhout and Carter (2006)
with two exceptions. Practitioners used fewer stories with consequence sentences and used nearly
twice as many directive sentences in the stories they constructed. The sample Social Stories described
as very effective were for the most part inappropriately modified. Social Stories coded as
‘‘inappropriately modified’’ contained proportionally a greater number of directive and/or control
sentences than recommended in the guidelines. In fact as the percentage of directive sentences
increased, the percentage of stories rated very effective increased. Similarly, Reynhout and Carter
(2006) found that there was no evidence that deviation from recommended story construction in
research studies impacted negatively on intervention efficacy. In fact, while data were limited, the
stories that varied from Gray’s (2000) guidelines (with a higher ratio of directive to descriptive
sentences than recommended) seemed to be associated with considerably higher efficacy than those
stories that did comply. Noting that the prescriptive guidelines for Social Story construction do not
appear to have any empirical or theoretical foundation, the present research raises questions about
their veracity.
The sample of Social Stories described as very effective tended to have a greater proportion of
directive sentences, (inconsistent with construction guidelines) and to a lesser extent a greater
number of descriptive sentences. Interestingly, there was evidence that as the proportion of
perspective sentences increased, reported efficacy decreased while the relationship between efficacy
and consequence sentences was unclear. The need for explicit instruction for children with
disabilities, particularly those with autism, has been extensively described in the literature (Odom
et al., 2003; Roberts, 2004). Thus, clear and explicit directions on expected behavior may be important
to many children with autism. In this context, it is not surprising that directive sentences containing
clear statements of the expected behavior of children with autism would be associated with reported
efficacy of Social Story interventions in the present study.

3.1. Limitations of the Study

As is often the case in questionnaire-based research, the return rate was somewhat low (42.8%) and
a small number of respondents were able to provide only one sample of a Social Story they had
recently used. In addition, the Social Stories provided by teachers were not a random sample of all the
stories they had used. For reasons of practicality, teachers were asked to provide the two most recent
examples. The notable discrepancies between the general data on Social Story use in Part 2 of the
questionnaire and the data relating to the sample stories, raises the possibility that the sample stories
may not have been representative. Alternatively, it is also possible that teacher general responses in
Part 2 of the survey may not have accurately reflected what their actual practice, which may have been
better represented in the data on specific stories. The survey relied in large part on teacher opinion and
subjective responses. For example, teachers were asked to classify students with whom they used
Social Story intervention according to levels of autism, cognitive ability and receptive and expressive
language skills. It is not known on what basis these decisions were made (e.g., results of standardized
250 G. Reynhout, M. Carter / Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 3 (2009) 232–251

testing versus on teacher opinion). Similarly, data on effectiveness reflected perceived efficacy rather
than measured efficacy and due caution should be exercised in interpreting these data. Finally, the
sample of teachers used was opportunistic but would have reflected practice in a range of settings.
Regardless, it would be useful to broaden the survey to include a wider range of teachers from a greater
diversity educational organizations.

4. Future research

Compliance with prescribed guidelines does not seem to affected reported efficacy. In fact Social
Stories that deviated from recommended construction (i.e., that were non-compliant with prescribed
guidelines), were identified as being more effective than those that did not by the teachers in the
present research. These findings concur with those of some extant research into the efficacy of Social
Stories (Reynhout & Carter, 2006). The Social Stories constructed by both researchers and practitioners
may provide a complex range of information to learners. This can include the identification of cues for
behavior, especially social cues, explicit statements of expected behavior and clear specification of the
natural consequences of behavior for the learner, as well as others. The complexity of this widely used
intervention highlights the need to investigate the ‘‘active’’ components.
While teachers view Social Story intervention as generally effective, they were much less confident
in relation to the maintenance and generalization of skills targeted, consistent with the concerns
expressed in systematic reviews (Ali & Frederickson, 2006; Reynhout & Carter, 2006; Rust & Smith,
2006; Sansosti et al., 2004). Given the nature of Social Stories would appear to predicate their use over
extended time periods and/or across individuals and settings, the concerns regarding maintenance
and generalization might be viewed as somewhat surprising. Nevertheless, both the maintenance and
generalization of newly acquired skills are problematic for individuals with autism spectrum
disorders. Thus, specific research into these issues in relation to Social Stories has to be a priority.

5. Conclusion

The results of the present survey of the use of Social Stories by teachers provide insight into the
ways this intervention is actually employed by practitioners working in the field. There is great
disparity between the Social Stories written by teachers and the recommended guidelines. Findings in
relationship to these variations and the efficacy of Social Stories perceived by teachers using them
raises many questions in relation to the validity of the recommended guidelines, which to date have
not been subjected to rigorous scientific investigation. The need for further research is paramount in
order to ensure evidence-based practice in the use of Social Stories by practitioners working with
children with autism.

References

Ali, S., & Frederickson, N. (2006). Investigating the evidence base of Social Stories. Educational Psychology in Practice, 22, 355–377.
Barry, L., & Burlew, S. (2004). Using social stories to teach choice and play skills to children with autism. Focus on Autism and Other
Developmental Disabilities, 19, 45–51.
Bernad-Ripoll, S. (2007). Using a self-as-model video combined with Social Stories to help a child with Asperger Syndrome
understand emotions. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 22, 100–106.
Dawson, G., & Watling, R. (2000). Interventions to facilitate auditory, visual, and motor integration in autism: A review of the
evidence. Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders, 30, 415–421.
Elder, J. (2002). Current treatments in autism: Examining the evidence and clinical implications. Journal of Neuroscience Nursing, 34,
67–73.
Gray, C. (2000). Writing social stories with Carol Gray. [Videotape and workbook]. Arlington, TX: Future Horizons Inc.
Gray, C. (2003). Social Stories 10.0. Jenison Autism Journal 15(4).
Gray, C. (2007). Social Stories. Retrieved April 13, 2007, from http://www.thegraycentre.org.
Gray, C., & Garand, J. D. (1993). Social stories: Improving responses of students with autism with accurate social information. Focus on
Autistic Behavior, 8, 1–10.
Greenway, C. (2000). Autism and Asperger syndrome: Strategies to promote prosocial behaviours. Educational Psychology in Practice,
16, 469–486.
Gresham, F. M., MacMillan, D. L., Beebe-Frankenberger, M. E., & Bocian, K. M. (2000). Treatment integrity in learning disabilities
intervention research: Do we really know how treatments are implemented? Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15,
198–205.
 G. Reynhout, M. Carter / Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 3 (2009) 232–251 251

Gresham, F. M., Sugai, G., & Horner, R. H. (2001). Interpreting outcomes of social skills training for students with high-incidence
disabilities. Exceptional Children, 67, 331.
Heflin, L. J., & Alberto, P. A. (2001). Establishing a behavioral context for learning for students with autism. Focus on Autism and Other
Developmental Disabilities, 16, 93–101.
Horner, R. H., Carr, E. G., Strain, P. S., Todd, A. W., & Reed, H. K. (2002). Problem behavior interventions for young children with autism:
A research synthesis. Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders, 32, 423–446.
Kasari, C. (2002). Assessing change in early intervention programs for children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental
Disorders, 32, 447–461.
Kerrin, R., Murdock, J., Sharpton, W., & Jones, N. (1998). Who’s doing the pointing? Investigating facilitated communication in a
classroom setting with students with autism. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 13, 73–79.
Kuoch, H., & Mirenda, P. (2003). Social story interventions for young children with autism spectrum disorders. Focus on Autism and
Other Developmental Disabilities, 18, 219–227.
Kuttler, S., Myles, B. S., & Carlson, J. K. (1998). The use of social stories to reduce precursors to tantrum behavior in a student with
autism. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 13, 176–182.
McWilliam, R. (1999). Controversial practices: The need for a reacculturation of early intervention fields. Topics In Early Childhood
Special Education, 19, 177–188.
Odom, S. L., Brown, W. H., Frey, T., Karasu, N., Smith-Canter, L. L., & Strain, P. (2003). Evidence-based practices for young children with
autism: contributions for single-subject design research. Focus on Autism & Other Developmental Disabilities, 18, 166–175.
Reynhout, G., & Carter, M. (2006). Social stories for children with disabilities. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 36, 445–
469.
Reynhout, G., & Carter, M. (2007). Social StoryTM efficacy with a child with Autism Spectrum Disorder and moderate intellectual
disability. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 22, 173–182.
Reynhout, G., & Carter, M. (2008). A pilot study to determine the efficacy of a Social StoryTM Intervention for a child with autistic
disorder, intellectual disability and limited language skills. Australian Journal of Special Education, 32, 159–173.
Roberts, J. M. (2004). A review of the research to identify the most effective models of best practice in the management of children with
autism spectrum disorders. Sydney, Australia: Centre for Developmental Disability Studies.
Rust, J., & Smith, A. (2006). How should the effectiveness of Social Stories to modify the behaviour of children on the autism spectrum
be tested? Autism, 10, 125–138.
Sanosti, F. J., & Powell-Smith, K. A. (2006). Using Social Stories to improve the social behaviour of children with Asperger syndrome.
Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 8, 43–57.
Sansosti, F., Powell-Smith, K., & Kincaid, D. (2004). A research synthesis of social story interventions for children with autism
spectrum disorders. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 19, 194–204.
Strain, P. S., & Schwartz, I. S. (2001). ABA and the development of meaningful social relations for young children with autism. Focus on
Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 16, 120–128.
Toplis, R., & Hadwin, J. A. (2006). Using Social Stories to change problematic lunchtime behaviour in school. Educational Psychology in
Practice, 22, 53–67.