Examining scientific articles

This week, we further examined how to read scientific articles. In addition, you should have a solid understanding of what constitutes experimental control (clearly established variables and a solid research question). Read the article from

Leaf et al.

 Download Leaf et al.

and identify the following:

1. What is the purpose of the study?
2. What is the independent and dependent variable?
3. What is the experimental question? What kind of experimental question is it?
4. Based on the Discussion section of this article, formulate an original experimental question that could be used as a follow up study.

Article and rubric attached: This is a behavior analysis class

Check for AI and Plagiarism 

Discussion Post Rubric
20 Possible Points

Category 4 Points 2 Points 0 Points

Length of Post –
Enough content to
convey a scholarly
message

The author’s post
consisted of 150 – 200
words (Not counting
reference citations)

The author’s post
consisted of 100-149
words (Not counting
reference citations)

The author’s post
consisted of 100 words
or less (Not counting
reference citations)

Grammar, Usage,
Spelling – The author
proofread using
software for obvious
errors in grammar,
usage, and spelling

The author’s post
contained less than 2
grammar, usage, or
spelling errors.

The author’s post
contained 3-4 grammar,
usage, or spelling
errors.

The author’s post
contained more than 5
grammar, usage, or
spelling errors and
proofreading was not
apparent.

Referencing and
Utilizing Outside
Sources – The author
referenced all assigned
readings and (1) unique
reference

The author posted a
unique reference from a
peer-reviewed
document AND all the
assigned readings.

The author was missing
a unique reference from
a peer-reviewed
document or did not
cite all the assigned
readings.

The author neither used
a unique reference from
a peer-reviewed
document and/or did
not cite all the assigned
readings.

Promotes Discussion –
The author produces
content beyond a
summary and applies it
to a logical argument.

The author’s post
clearly responds to the
assignment prompt,
develops ideas cogently,
organizes them
logically, and supports
them through empirical
writing. The author’s
post also raises
questions or stimulates
discussion.

The author’s post
responds to the
assignment prompt but
relies heavily on
definitional
explanations and does
not create and develop
original ideas and
support them logically.
The author’s post may
stimulate some
discussion.

The author’s post does
not correspond with the
assignment prompt,
mainly discusses
personal opinions,
irrelevant information,
or information is
presented with limited
logic and lack of
development and
organization of ideas
Does not support any
claims made.

Demonstrates
Application – The
author is able to apply
content to an example
or real world
application

The author’s post
clearly demonstrates
application and
relationship to the
week’s assigned
reading/topic.

The author’s post refers
to the assigned
topic/reading
tangentially but does
not demonstrate
application.

The author’s post does
not demonstrate
application of the
week’s assigned
topic/reading.

Be advised, there are also response costs associated with specific behaviors:

● A response cost of 3 points will be administered for not responding to a peer’s post
● A response cost of 3 points will be administered for late submissions (up to 2 days)
● Discussion posts that are more than two days late will not be accepted unless excused by the

instructor

_______________________________________________________________________________

JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS 2012, 45, 281–298 NUMBER 2 (SUMMER 2012)

COMPARING THE TEACHING INTERACTION PROCEDURE TO
SOCIAL STORIES FOR PEOPLE WITH AUTISM

JUSTIN B. LEAF, MISTY L. OPPENHEIM-LEAF, NIKKI A. CALL, JAN B. SHELDON,
AND JAMES A. SHERMAN

UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS

AND

MITCHELL TAUBMAN, JOHN MCEACHIN, JAMISON DAYHARSH, AND RONALD LEAF

AUTISM PARTNERSHIP

This study compared social stories and the teaching interaction procedure to teach social skills to
6 children and adolescents with an autism spectrum disorder. Researchers taught 18 social skills
with social stories and 18 social skills with the teaching interaction procedure within a parallel
treatment design. The teaching interaction procedure resulted in mastery of all 18 skills across
the 6 participants. Social stories, in the same amount of teaching sessions, resulted in mastery of
4 of the 18 social skills across the 6 participants. Participants also displayed more generalization
of social skills taught with the teaching interaction procedure to known adults and peers.

Key words: autism, behavioral skills training, social skills, social stories, teaching interaction

Autism spectrum disorders (ASD) are
marked by qualitative impairments in social
behavior (American Psychiatric Association,
2000) that can lead to failures in developing
meaningful friendships (e.g., Bauminger &
Kasari, 2000), depression (e.g., M. E. Stewart,
Barnard, Pearson, Hasan, & O’Brien, 2006),
and problems in school (e.g., Ladd, Birch, &
Buhs, 1999). Over the past 30 years, a variety
of methods have been implemented to teach
social behaviors, including video modeling
(e.g., Charlop-Christy, Le, & Freeman, 2000),
discrete-trial teaching (e.g., Lovaas, 1981),
pivotal response training (e.g., Stahmer, 1995),

Justin B. Leaf is now at Autism Partnership, Seal Beach,
California, and Great Strides Behavioral Consulting, St.
Louis, Missouri; Misty L. Oppenheim-Leaf is now at Behavior
Therapy and Learning Center, Seal Beach, California.

This investigation was conducted to meet, in part, the
requirements for the doctoral degree in Behavioral Psychology
at the University of Kansas. We thank Sarah Johnson for her
work throughout the project. We also thank Keith Miller,
Nancy Brady, and Matthew Reese for their help on an earlier
version of this study.

Correspondence concerning this article should be
addressed to Justin B. Leaf, 200 Marina Drive, Seal
Beach, California 90807 (e-mail: Jblautpar@aol.com).

doi: 10.1901/jaba.2012.45-

281

behavioral skills training (e.g., K. K. Stewart,
Carr, & LeBlanc, 2007), social stories (e.g.,
Gray & Garand, 1993), and the teaching
interaction procedure (e.g., Leaf et al., 2009).
Despite the numerous interventions to help
people with ASD improve their social skills,
relatively few studies have compared these
different interventions.

Social stories are brief passages, written by a
teacher, that describe a behavior to be displayed
by a participant. The story describes when the
participant should display the desired behavior,
why he or she should display the desired
behavior, and how displaying the desired
behavior will affect others (Gray & Garand,
1993). Teachers either read the stories aloud to
the students or students read the stories to
themselves or out loud. In some studies, the
teacher either asked the participant comprehen-
sion questions (e.g., Delano & Snell, 2006) or
role-played the social skill with the participant
(e.g., Thiemann & Goldstein, 2001) after the
participant read the story.

Gray and Garand (1993) and Gray (1994)
provided several guidelines related to the
implementation of social stories to teach social

281

mailto:Jblautpar@aol.com

282 JUSTIN B. LEAF et al.

skills. First, participants should be in the
‘‘trainable mentally impaired range or higher
who possess basic language skills’’ (Gray &
Garand, p. 2). Second, the teacher should write
an individualized story at the participant’s
comprehension level. Third, social stories
should include four sentence types: descriptive
sentences that specify when, where, and why the
participant should display the desired social
behavior; perspective sentences that describe the
reactions and feelings that others may have if
the participant displays the social behavior;
affirmative sentences that describe a shared
belief of society; and directive sentences that
specify how the participant should display the
behavior. Gray (1995) recommended a total of
two to four descriptive, affirmative, or perspec-
tive sentences for every directive sentence in the
story. Subsequent research on social stories has
evaluated several presentation variations, in-
cluding the use of pictures or icons (e.g., Barry
& Burlew, 2004; Brownell, 2002), different
story layouts (e.g., book format or single-page
format), role playing (e.g., Thiemann & Gold-
stein, 2001), and comprehension checks (e.g.,
Delano & Snell, 2006), and found each to be
effective.

The teaching interaction procedure is anoth-
er method to teach social skills to children with
autism. In the teaching interaction procedure,
the teacher describes a skill, provides a rationale
for why the participant should display the skill,
describes the cues and characteristics of situa-
tions in which the participant should display the
skill, divides the skill into smaller behavioral
components, models the skill, and role plays the
skill with the participant. During role playing,
the teacher provides simulated opportunities for
the participant to display the social skill and
provides feedback (e.g., praise, tangible conse-
quences, or corrective feedback) based on the
participant’s performance.

The teaching interaction procedure first was
implemented and evaluated as a component of
the Achievement Place Teaching-Family Model

(Phillips, Phillips, Fixsen, & Wolf, 1971, 1974).
Subsequent research has demonstrated the
effectiveness of this strategy in both one-on-one
(Leaf et al., 2009) and group (Leaf, Dotson,
Oppenheim, Sheldon, & Sherman, 2010) teach-
ing arrangements. In addition, the teaching
interaction procedure is similar to another well-
researched procedure, behavioral skills training;
the main difference between the two is the
inclusion of rationales in the teaching interaction
procedure (K. K. Stewart et al., 2007).

Thus, available evidence indicates that both
social stories and the teaching interaction
procedure are effective methods for teaching
social behaviors to children and adolescents
with ASD. However, the relative effectiveness of
the two procedures is unknown, in that no
direct comparison of these teaching strategies
have been conducted to date. This study was
designed to compare these two interventions.
We selected these two procedures because they
both have been implemented with numerous
children and adolescents with autism, share
common components, and have been found to
be effective in the empirical research. The
purposes of the current study were (a) to assess
the relative effectiveness of the two procedures
in teaching social skills to children and
adolescents with ASD and (b) to assess the
level of generalization of the social skills taught
by each method.

METHOD

Participants
Six boys, ages 5 to 13 years old, were

recruited to participate in this study. Each
participant met the following criteria: (a) He
had been diagnosed with an ASD; (b) he spoke
in full sentences; (c) he had no immediate
history of self-injury, severe aggression, or severe
disruptive behaviors; and (d) he had a standard
score of 70 or higher (i.e., within two standard
deviations of the average range and considered
to be a moderately low score) on the Peabody
Picture Vocabulary Test 4 (PPVT-4).

283 COMPARING SOCIAL SKILLS INTERVENTIONS

Buddy was a 6-year-old boy who had been
diagnosed with autistic disorder. The PPVT-4
placed him in the 27th percentile of receptive
language with a standard score of 91 (6 years
1 month age equivalent). He had a Mullen’s
intelligence score (IQ) of 87, and a Social Skills
Rating Scale-Parent (SSRS-P) score of 69 (2nd
percentile of children his age). Buddy attended
a general education kindergarten classroom
without supports and previously had been
taught with both social stories and the teaching
interaction procedure prior to this study.

Hank was a 5-year-old boy who had been
diagnosed with pervasive developmental disor-
der not otherwise specified. The PPVT-4 placed
him in the 97th percentile of receptive language
with a standard score of 128 (8 years 3 months
age equivalent). He had a Wechsler Intelligence
Scale for Children (WISC IV) IQ score of 117,
a SSRS-P score of 91 (27th percentile of
children his age), and a Vineland Adaptive
Behavior Composite score of 87. He attended
an early intervention clinic for children with
ASD and had a prior history with both social
stories and the teaching interaction procedure.

Nick was a 5-year-old boy who had been
diagnosed with autistic disorder. The PPVT-4
placed him in the 8th percentile of receptive
language with a standard score of 79 (3 years
11 months age equivalent). He had a Kaufman
IQ score of 65, a SSRS-P score of 70 (2nd
percentile of children his age), and a Vineland
Adaptive Behavior Composite score of 68. He
attended a general education kindergarten
classroom without any supports and had a
previous history of being taught with social
stories but not with the teaching interaction
procedure.

Lang was a 5-year-old boy who had been
diagnosed with Asperger syndrome. The PPVT-
4 placed him in the 61st percentile of receptive
language with a standard score of 104 (5 years
11 months age equivalent). He had a Wechsler
Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence
(WPSSI-3) IQ score of 89, a SSRS-P score of

106 (66th percentile of children his age), and a
Vineland Adaptive Score of 85. He had been
placed in a general education kindergarten
classroom setting with supports and had a
previous history of being taught with both social
stories and the teaching interaction procedure.

Apollo was a 12-year-old boy who had been
diagnosed with autistic disorder. The PPVT-4
placed him in the 47th percentile of receptive
language with a standard score of 99 (12 years
1 month age equivalent). He had a WISC-IV
IQ score of 80, and a SSRS-P score of 73 (4th
percentile of children his age). He attended a
general education sixth-grade classroom without
supports and had a previous history of being
taught with social stories but not with the
teaching interaction procedure.

Mickey was a 13-year-old boy who had been
independently diagnosed with autistic disorder,
attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and
Tourette syndrome. The PPVT-4 placed him
in the 73rd percentile of receptive language with
a standard score of 109 (14 years 3 months age
equivalent). He had a WISC IV IQ score of 82
and a SSRS-P score of 96 (39th percentile of
children his age). He attended a general
education junior high school (seventh grade)
without supports and had a previous history of
being taught with social stories but not with the
teaching interaction procedure.

Setting
One 45-min session was conducted 3 to

6 days per week, either in a research room at a
midwestern university, at the participants’
homes (Lang, Apollo, and Mickey), or both
(Buddy, Hank, and Nick). All teaching sessions
and performance probes were conducted in the
same location. Some of the generalization
probes were conducted in the same location,
and some generalization probes were conducted
in other research rooms or in other rooms in the
participant’s house. The research room at the
university was 3 m by 1.5 m and contained a
cabinet, two chairs, toys, and a one-way mirror
that allowed the participants’ parents to observe

284 JUSTIN B. LEAF et al.

Table 1
Skills Taught

Participant Teaching Interaction Skill 1 Social Story Skill 1 Teaching Interaction Skill 2

Buddy Losing graciously (3 steps) Negotiation ( 4 steps) On-topic conversation (7 steps)
Hank Sportsmanship (4 steps) Losing graciously (3 steps) Changing the conversation (4 steps)
Nick Giving compliments (2 steps) Appropriate greetings (5 steps) Sportsmanship (4 steps)
Lang Cheering up a friend (6 steps) Changing the conversation (4 steps) Losing graciously (3 steps)
Apollo Showing appreciation (3 steps) Negotiation (4 steps) On-topic conversation (3 steps)
Mickey Reciprocal compliments (5 steps) Providing assistance (3 steps) Losing or wining graciously (3 steps)

the research sessions. Sessions at the partici-
pants’ homes took place in a living room or in a
basement. Available items in the participants’
homes included a table, chairs, couches,
cabinets, and entertainment equipment (e.g.,
television, video game consoles, DVD player).

Skills Taught
The experimenter used parent answers on the

Social Skills Rating Scale (Greshman & Elliot,
1990), informal parental interviews, and direct
observation of the participants to identify six
social skills to be taught to each participant. Each
social skill was divided into smaller steps,
including a set of basic skill steps (e.g., face the
person, look the person in the eye, have a relaxed
body posture, use a neutral voice tone, smile,
display no aggression, use no curse or nonsense
words, and engage in no crying) and a varying
number of skill-specific steps (e.g., providing a
negotiation statement). Table 1 provides infor-
mation on the number of skill-specific steps in
each of the social skills taught (contact the first
author for a listing of the skill steps).

Following social skill selection, the experi-
menter then attempted to pair social skills
together that had roughly the same number
of skill steps, and randomly assigned (by a
computer program) the skills either to the
teaching interaction procedure or to the social
stories procedure. In addition, if a particular
social skill was taught to two different partic-
ipants and the other skills being taught to the
two participants were equivalent in number of
steps, the particular social skill was taught using
the randomly assigned procedure for one

participant and the other procedure for the
other participant. Unfortunately, skills taught in
the teaching interaction procedure for Buddy
and Hank resulted in a greater number of steps.
In addition, not all skills were taught with both
procedures.

Dependent Measure
The dependent variable was the percentage of

skill steps exhibited by the participant during
performance probes with the experimenter,
generalization probes with other known adults,
and generalization probes with peers. Perfor-
mance probes were conducted during baseline,
intervention, and maintenance conditions (de-
scribed below) to determine mastery of each of
the social skills taught. The mastery criterion
was defined as the participant displaying 100%
of all skill steps correctly during performance
probes for three consecutive sessions during
intervention. If the participant reached the
mastery criterion for one of the two skills, but
did not reach mastery criterion for the third
skill (e.g., a participant reached mastery crite-
rion for a skill taught with the teaching
interaction procedure but did not reach mastery
criterion for a skill taught with social stories),
teaching continued for the nonmastered skill
until at least five additional teaching sessions for
that skill and at least a total of 12 performance
probes had been completed.

Generalization probes were conducted be-
fore, during, and after the intervention (de-
scribed below). Probes with other adults were
conducted to determine whether participants
would generalize the social skills to known

285 COMPARING SOCIAL SKILLS INTERVENTIONS

Table 1.
(Extended)

Social Story Skill 2 Teaching Interaction Skill 3 Social Story Skill 3

Sportsmanship (4 steps)
Showing off work (4 steps)
Making empathetic statements (3 steps)
Explaining a prior ‘‘cool’’ event (4 steps)
Losing or winning graciously (3 steps)
Showing interest (7 steps)

Clarifying instructions (7 steps)
Interrupting (7 steps)
Changing the game (6 steps)
Joining into a game (7 steps)
Changing the game (6 steps)
Changing the game (6 steps)

Changing the conversation(4 steps)
Cheering up a person (6 steps)
Showing appreciation (3 steps)
Interrupting appropriately (7 steps)
Disagreeing appropriately (6 steps)
On-topic conversation (6 steps)

adults (e.g., parents or research assistants) who
had not taught the various social skills.
Generalization probes with peers were conduct-
ed to determine if participants would generalize
social skills to situations during which peers
were present.

Design and General Procedure
Design. A parallel treatment design (Gast &

Wolery, 1988) was used to evaluate the
effectiveness of the two social skills interven-
tions. Differences in effectiveness would be
indicated if one of the teaching procedures
reliably produced more behavioral change in a
shorter time than the other teaching procedure.
The study consisted of three phases: an initial
baseline, intervention, and maintenance. Due to
the nature of the design, during the interven-
tion, some skills were being taught while other
skills that had been previously taught were in
the maintenance condition, and skills not yet
taught were in the baseline condition. Perfor-
mance and generalization probes took place
during baseline, intervention, and following
treatment.

Performance probes. During performance
probes, the experimenter engaged in a behavior
that set the occasion for the participant to
display one of the social skills. Multiple
exemplars (two or more) were used during
performance probes, except for the skills of
sportsmanship and cheering up a person. For
example, for giving a compliment, the experi-
menter showed the participant a picture that the
experimenter had drawn or a photograph that
the experimenter had taken and waited to see if

the participant would respond. After approxi-
mately 1 min, the experimenter recorded which
steps the participant displayed and which steps
the participant did not display. No reinforce-
ment or other consequences were provided
during probes.

Generalization probes. Generalization probes
with adults were similar to performance probes
except that they were conducted with an adult
who was not involved in teaching. The adults
were instructed to use multiple exemplars (two
or more) during generalization probes (except
for the skills of sportsmanship and cheering up
a person). During generalization probes with
adults, there were no consequences for partic-
ipant performance. Generalization probes with
peers were the same as generalization probes
with adults, except that peers conducted them.
Peers were primed prior to the session on how
to conduct probes, and the experimenter
remained present during the probes to prompt
the peer on when to initiate probes. The peers
were instructed to use multiple exemplars (two
or more) during generalization probes (except
for the skills of sportsmanship and cheering up
a person). For Mickey and Apollo, generaliza-
tion probes with peers were conducted before
and after the intervention. For Buddy, Nick,
and Lang, these probes were conducted only
after the intervention. No generalization probes
with peers were implemented for Hank, because
his family moved before they could be
conducted.

Initial baseline. In the initial baseline, each
session began with the experimenter imple-
menting performance probes for each of the six

286 JUSTIN B. LEAF et al.

social skills to be taught. The order of the
performance probes was determined randomly
ahead of time. The probes were followed by a short
5-min break during which the participant played
with toys or other items in the room. After this
short break, a research assistant or the participant’s
parent implemented generalization probes with
adults for each of the six social skills. The order was
determined randomly ahead of time.

After all six generalization probes with adults
had been conducted for Buddy, Hank, Nick,
and Lang, the session ended. However, Apollo
and Mickey had another 5-min break, during
which time they could play with toys or other
items in the room. Following this short break,
generalization probes were conducted with
peers. The order of the generalization probes
was determined randomly.

Intervention. Two social skills (one assigned to
the teaching interaction procedure and one
assigned to social stories) were taught while the
other four skills were exposed to either the
baseline or maintenance conditions. Each session
began with the implementation of performance
probes for both social skills that were currently
being taught and for some of the other randomly
selected social skills that were in either the
baseline or maintenance conditions. The order
of the performance probes for each skill was
determined ahead of time. A 5-min break was
provided after all of the performance probes were
conducted. Participants were allowed to play with
toys or other items during this break. After this
break, the experimenter implemented one of the
two teaching conditions (i.e., teaching interaction
or social stories) followed by another 5-min
break. After this break, the experimenter imple-
mented the other teaching condition. The order
of the two teaching conditions was selected
randomly before each session. Following imple-
mentation of both procedures, the session either
was terminated or the participant had a 10- to 20-
min break, during which he could play with toys
or could interact with other people. Next,
generalization probes with adults were conducted.

Maintenance. After the participant had
reached the mastery criterion for a social skill,
performance and generalization probes were
periodically conducted during certain sessions.
After the participant had reached the mastery
criterion for all social skills, all three types of
probes were implemented three more times.

Reinforcement procedures. Potentially reinforc-
ing stimuli were selected for each participant
prior to beginning the teaching conditions.
These potential reinforcers were identified
based on interviews with the participants’
parents and teachers and observations of
participants in their natural setting. Stimuli
included tangible reinforcers (e.g., bouncy balls
or Whoopie cushions) and privileges (e.g.,
going outside to play or visiting a professor).
A token economy was in place during the
teaching conditions (see further description
below). Participants did not earn tokens during
any of the probe sessions. At the end of each
session, participants could exchange tokens (i.e.,
tickets) for preferred items or activities. Partic-
ipants could also save tickets across sessions to
earn larger reinforcers (e.g., fountain pen or gift
card). Reinforcement opportunities were equat-
ed so that a participant had the possibility of
earning the same amount of tickets for both
teaching procedures within a given session. To
equate the amount of possible tickets to be
provided in the two conditions, we took the
total amount of possible tickets that a partici-
pant could earn in the social stories procedure
(i.e., one ticket per page of the social story and
four tickets for the four comprehension ques-
tions) and provided the same amount of
possible tickets in the teaching interaction
procedure.

Teaching Procedure
Teaching interaction procedure. First, the

experimenter made a statement (e.g., ‘‘Today
we are going to talk about saying ‘hello.’’’) and
then asked the participant to state the skill to be
taught. If the participant accurately labeled the

287 COMPARING SOCIAL SKILLS INTERVENTIONS

skill within approximately 10 s of the instruc-
tion, positive reinforcement was provided (i.e.,
tickets and praise [e.g., ‘‘Good job dude.’’]). If
the participant did not label the skill correctly
or did not respond within 10 s of the
instruction, the experimenter provided correc-
tive feedback (e.g., ‘‘You need to try.’’ or
‘‘That’s not it.’’) and repeated the sequence (i.e.,
labeling the targeted skill and asking the
participant to repeat the skill) until the
participant accurately labeled the skill. Next,
the experimenter explained why the participant
should engage in the behavior (e.g., ‘‘If I say
‘hello,’ my friends might ask me to play.’’), and
asked the participant to state a rationale. The
participant was given approximately 10 s to
respond to the instruction and received the
same consequences as described above. Then,
the experimenter described times or situations
in which it might be appropriate to display the
skill (e.g., ‘‘I should say ‘hello’ when I see a
friend for the first time.’’) and asked the
participant to repeat the description. The
participant was given approximately 10 s to
respond to the instruction and received the
same consequences as described above.

After the first teaching session of a new skill,
the same procedures were used, except that the
experimenter simply asked the question (e.g.,
‘‘What skill are we going to talk about today?’’)
without providing the model of the correct
response. The participant was given 10 s to
respond and received positive reinforcement
(i.e., tickets and praise) if he responded
correctly (e.g., ‘‘saying ‘hi’’’). If the participant
did not respond within 10 s or responded
inaccurately (e.g., ‘‘saying ‘bye’’’), the experi-
menter provided corrective feedback (e.g.,
‘‘That’s not it.’’) and repeated the question. If
the participant responded correctly on this
remedial instruction, positive reinforcement
was provided (i.e., tickets and praise). If the
participant responded inaccurately or did not
respond within approximately 10 s, the exper-
imenter again provided corrective feedback
(e.g., ‘‘That’s not it.’’) and repeated the

question. This process continued until the
participant stated what skill he was working
on. The same procedure was implemented for
the participant providing a rationale and a time
and place when he should display the desired
social skill.

The skill was then divided into its smaller
behavioral steps. During the first teaching
session of a new skill, the experimenter named
the basic skill steps (e.g., face the person, look
him in the eyes, smile) and the skill-specific
steps and asked the participant to name the
steps. If he did not name all of the skill steps,
the experimenter restated the step and contin-
ued to do so until the participant repeated the
step. The same procedure was used to teach the
participant to name all of the steps of the social
skill. Throughout teaching, the participant
received praise and tickets for correct responses.
After the first teaching session, the participant
was asked to name all of the steps (i.e., basic and
skill specific) in the correct order (i.e., basic skill
steps followed by skill-specific steps). If the
participant correctly labeled all of the skill steps
in the correct order, he received praise and
tickets. If he did not name a step or named the
steps out of order, the experimenter had the
participant start over, asked him to state the first
step, and gave a verbal prompt (e.g., ‘‘The first
step was to look at the person in their eyes.’’).

Next, the experimenter demonstrated the
skill steps using either the participant or a
research assistant who set the occasion for the
skill to be displayed. In this demonstration, the
experimenter displayed all of the steps correctly,
displayed one or more steps incorrectly, or left
some steps out. Steps that the participant had
displayed inaccurately or had omitted during
the performance probe during that session were
the steps that the experimenter displayed
incorrectly or left out. If a participant displayed
all steps of a skill correctly in the performance
probe during that session, the experimenter’s
subsequent demonstration of the skill was
always complete and correct. After the first
demonstration, the participant was asked if the

288 JUSTIN B. LEAF et al.

experimenter provided a correct or an incorrect
demonstration of the social skill. If he answered
correctly, he was given praise and tickets and
was asked to name which steps the experimenter
had demonstrated correctly and which ones had
been demonstrated incorrectly or left out (if
applicable). If the participant did not respond
accurately, he was given corrective feedback and
again was asked to label each of the demon-
stration steps as correct, incorrect, or not
displayed. After feedback, the experimenter
demonstrated the social skill for the second
time; this time, however, the experimenter
always displayed all of the steps correctly and
followed the same procedure described above.

Immediately following the experimenter’s
correct demonstration of the skill, the participant
practiced the social skill in role-play situations.
The participant was told that it was his turn to
practice, and the experimenter engaged in
behaviors that set the occasion for the participant
to display the social behavior currently being
taught. Role-play situations were similar to those
in performance probes. If the participant
correctly displayed all steps in the skill, he was
given praise and tickets. If he incorrectly
displayed any steps in the skill or omitted a step,
the experimenter named the steps that he had
displayed correctly, praised him for displaying
them correctly, and named the steps that he
displayed incorrectly. Then the role-play was
repeated with the same consequences for correct
and incorrect performances. If, after two role-
play practices, the participant did not perform
all skill steps correctly, a third role-play
was conducted, and the experimenter vocally
prompted (e.g., ‘‘Remember to say ‘hi.’’’) the
participant throughout the role-play. After the
role-play, the participant was given a short break.

Development of social stories. Individual social
stories were created for each participant for each
social skill taught in this study. All stories had
descriptive, perspective, affirmative, and direc-
tive sentences in the proportions recommended
by Gray (1995). Each social story was in a book
format: One sentence was printed at the bottom

of each page, center aligned, in Times New
Roman 22-point boldface font with a relevant
clip-art picture or cartoon picture (e.g., Felix
the Cat smiling) above each sentence in the
center of the page. The pages were put into a
three-ring binder or were professionally bound.

Implementation of social stories. To start the
social story, the participant was asked to sit next
to the experimenter and was asked if he was
ready to begin the story. When the participant
was ready, the experimenter read each page
aloud. When the experimenter reached the end
of a page, he praised the participant and gave
him a ticket if he looked at the book the whole
time and did not engage in any problem
behavior. If, however, the participant engaged
in any problem behavior or did not look at the
book, he was given corrective feedback (e.g.,
‘‘You need to pay attention.’’) and no ticket.

After the experimenter had read all the pages,
he asked the participant comprehension ques-
tions to ensure that the participant understood
the story. The first question was ‘‘What did the
book talk about?’’ If the participant answered
the question correctly (e.g., ‘‘The book talked
about losing graciously.’’), he was given praise
and a ticket. If he answered incorrectly or did
not respond, he was given corrective feedback
(e.g., ‘‘That’s not it.’’ or ‘‘You need to try.’’)
and the question was repeated. If, on this
remedial trial, the participant answered correct-
ly, praise and a ticket were provided. If,
however, the participant did not answer
correctly on the second try, the experimenter
provided corrective feedback and asked the
question again. The third time, the experiment-
er asked the question and immediately vocally
prompted the participant to state the correct
answer. When the participant stated the correct
answer, only praise was provided.

The procedures for the second, third, and
fourth comprehension questions were the same
as for the first question. The second, third, and
fourth comprehension questions were ‘‘When
should you display the desired social behavior?,’’
‘‘Why should you display the desired social

289 COMPARING SOCIAL SKILLS INTERVENTIONS

behavior?,’’ and ‘‘What are the steps for the
desired social behavior?’’ The participant re-
ceived a brief break after answering questions
correctly.

Interobserver Agreement and Treatment Fidelity
The experimenter and a research assistant

independently recorded participant behaviors
(in vivo and from video recordings) during 40%
of performance probes (range, 34% to 49%
across participants), 46% of generalization
probes with other adults (range, 33% to 65%
across participants), and 37% (range, 33% to
61% across participants) of generalization
probes with peers, across all participants.
Interobserver agreement was calculated by
totaling the number of times observers agreed
on the scoring of each skill step (as correct or
incorrect) divided by the total number of
agreements and disagreements and multiplying
by 100%. Mean percentage agreement was 97%
(range, 78% to 100% across all probes and
participants) for the performance probes, 97%
(range, 77% to 100% across all probes and
participants) for the generalization probes with
adults, and 97% (range, 83% to 100% across all
probes and participants) for the generalization
probes with peers.

To assess treatment fidelity, a research assistant
recorded from videotape whether experimenter
behaviors occurred at the planned times during
teaching for 69% of teaching sessions with the
teaching interaction procedure and 62% of
teaching sessions with social stories. Planned
experimenter behaviors during the teaching
interaction procedure were (a) labeling and ask-
ing the participant to label the behavior; (b) asking
the participant to provide a rationale; (c) asking
the participant to state when to display the
behavior; (d) asking the participant to state
each of the behavioral steps; (e) demonstrating
the social skill; (f) asking the participant to
evaluate the experimenter’s demonstration of
the social skill; (g) asking the participant to
role-play the social skill; (h) providing feedback
on the role-play; and (i) providing tickets and

praise for appropriate behavior. Planned ex-
perimenter behaviors during social stories were
(a) asking the participant to sit by the teacher;
(b) reading each of the pages; (c) asking the
first, second, third, and fourth comprehension
questions; and (d) providing praise and tickets
for appropriate behaviors.

The research assistant recorded that the
experimenter engaged in the planned teaching
behaviors correctly on 100% of the occasions
during both the teaching interaction procedure
and social stories. A second research assistant
independently recorded the experimenter’s
planned teaching behaviors during the teaching
interaction procedure for 44% of videotapes
scored by the first observer and during social
stories for 41% of videotapes scored by the first
observer. Interobserver agreement was calculat-
ed by comparing the scoring of each of the
planned behaviors by the two observers. The
observers agreed on the scoring of planned
research behaviors 100% of the instances during
the teaching interaction procedure and 99% of
the instances during social stories.

RESULTS

Figures 1 through 6 show the participants’
performance on skill-specific steps for both
performance probes (before and after teaching)
and generalization probes with adults. Basic
steps common to all social skills taught are not
displayed in the figures, because these steps were
displayed at high levels for all participants across
all skills throughout the duration of the study.

Results indicated that the teaching interaction
procedure produced higher levels of skill-specific
steps than did social stories. All participants met
the mastery criterion for all of the skills taught
(a total of 18) using the teaching interaction
procedure, whereas participants met the mastery
criterion for only 4 of the 18 skills taught with
social stories. Buddy met mastery on two of the
skills taught using social stories, and Lang and
Mickey each met mastery on one of the skills
taught using social stories.

290 JUSTIN B. LEAF et al.

Figure 1. Percentage of skill steps performed correctly for each skill during performance and generalization probes
with adults across baseline, teaching, and maintenance conditions for Buddy. The skills taught via the teaching
interaction procedure are shown in the left panel, and the skills taught via social stories are shown in the right panel.
BL 5 baseline; INT 5 intervention; MAINT 5 maintenance.

In general, participants’ performances in 0% to 8.9% across participants) before teaching to
generalization probes with adults were similar to an average of 76.5% (range, 43.6% to 98.2%
their performances in performance probes. Across across participants) across all skill-specific steps
all six participants, skill-specific steps taught with after teaching, across all skills taught. Skill-specific
the teaching interaction procedure improved steps taught with social stories, on the other hand,
considerably from an average of 5.3% (range, did not improve as much, from an average of

291 COMPARING SOCIAL SKILLS INTERVENTIONS

Figure 2. Percentage of skill steps performed correctly for each skill during performance and generalization probes
with adults across baseline, teaching, and maintenance conditions for Hank. The skills taught via the teaching interaction
procedure are shown in the left panel, and the skills taught via social stories are shown in the right panel. BL 5 baseline;
INT 5 intervention; MAINT 5 maintenance.

1.2% (range, 0% to 3.7% across participants)
before teaching to an average of 28.7% (range,
4% to 61% across participants) across all skill
specific steps after teaching, across all skills taught.

As noted previously, two participants (Apollo
and Mickey) were exposed to both pre- and

postintervention generalization probes with
peers. Three participants (Buddy, Nick, and
Lang) were exposed to only postintervention
generalization probes with peers. Both the pre-
and postintervention probes consisted of three
separate occasions during which a peer set the

292 JUSTIN B. LEAF et al.

Figure 3. Percentage of skill steps performed correctly for each skill during performance and generalization probes
with adults across baseline, teaching, and maintenance conditions for Nick. The skills taught via the teaching interaction
procedure are shown in the left panel, and the skills taught via social stories are shown in the right panel. BL 5 baseline;
INT 5 intervention; MAINT 5 maintenance.

occasion for the participants to display the
targeted social skill. Table 2 displays the average
percentage of skill-specific steps displayed by
participants during the pre- and postinterven-
tion generalization probes with peer across the
two teaching conditions. Prior to intervention,

Apollo and Mickey displayed low levels of skill-
specific steps for skills taught with both the
teaching interaction procedure and social sto-
ries. After intervention, both Apollo and
Mickey displayed higher levels of skill-specific
steps for skills taught with the teaching

293 COMPARING SOCIAL SKILLS INTERVENTIONS

Figure 4. Percentage of skill steps performed correctly for each skill during performance and generalization probes
with adults across baseline, teaching, and maintenance conditions for Lang. The skills taught via the teaching interaction
procedure are shown in the left panel, and the skills taught via social stories are shown in the right panel. BL 5 baseline;
INT 5 intervention; MAINT 5 maintenance.

interaction procedure than for skills taught with DISCUSSION
social stories. After intervention, Buddy, Nick,
and Lang displayed higher levels of skill-specific In this study, all participants reached a mastery
steps for skills taught with the teaching criterion during performance probes with the
interaction procedure than social skills taught experimenter for all 18 of the social skills taught
with social stories. using the teaching interaction procedure. By

294 JUSTIN B. LEAF et al.

Figure 5. Percentage of skill steps performed correctly for each skill during performance and generalization probes
with adults across baseline, teaching, and maintenance conditions for Apollo. The skills taught via the teaching
interaction procedure are shown in the left panel, and the skills taught via social stories are shown in the right panel.
BL 5 baseline; INT 5 intervention; MAINT 5 maintenance.

contrast, mastery was reached for only 4 of the 18
social skills taught using social stories. During
generalization probes with adults, the partici-
pants displayed high levels of social skills taught
with the teaching interaction procedure and
lower levels of the social skills taught using the
social stories. This second finding may be

expected because more social skills reached the
mastery criterion with the teaching interaction
procedure than with social stories.

These results are similar to previous research
findings on the teaching interaction procedure,
in that participants reliably learned new social
skills and met a stringent mastery criterion. In

295 COMPARING SOCIAL SKILLS INTERVENTIONS

Figure 6. Percentage of skill steps performed correctly for each skill during performance and generalization probes
with adults across baseline, teaching, and maintenance conditions for Mickey. The skills taught via the teaching
interaction procedure are shown in the left panel, and the skills taught via social stories are shown in the right panel.
BL 5 baseline; INT 5 intervention; MAINT 5 maintenance.

addition, for several participants, there was
substantial generalization of skills from probes
with adults to probes with peers (Leaf et al.,
2010). Results also are consistent with previous
research findings on social stories. In the present
study, participants displayed considerable vari-
ability in learning new skills using social stories.

In the existing literature, social stories have been
associated with slight behavior changes (e.g.,
Dodd, Hupp, Jewell, & Krohn, 2008) and
substantial behavior changes (e.g., Delano &
Snell, 2006) across participants and across skills.
In the present study, one participant (Buddy)
showed substantial improvement on all three of

296 JUSTIN B. LEAF et al.

Table 2
Average Percentage of Skill-Specific Steps Exhibited by Participants Across All Skills During

Generalization Probes with Peers

Teaching interaction Teaching interaction Social stories Social stories
Participant procedure preintervention procedure postintervention preintervention postintervention

Buddy 100 75
Hank
Nick 15 0
Lang 95 45
Apollo 10 78 2 15
Mickey 6 88 0 51

the skills taught with social stories almost as
quickly as skills taught with the teaching
interaction procedure. In contrast, two partic-
ipants (Hank and Nick) showed little improve-
ment in skills taught with social stories and
relatively rapid improvement in skills taught
with the teaching interaction procedure.

Although results of this study showed that, for
our participants, the teaching interaction proce-
dure resulted in greater learning in a shorter
period of time compared to social stories, the
reasons for these differences were not deter-
mined. It is possible that the timing of probes
differentially affected the two procedures. We
conducted probes prior to teaching. In contrast,
in the majority of studies that have evaluated the
effects of social stories, probes were implemented
soon after social story teaching (Kokina & Kern,
2010). An additional possibility is that the
stringent mastery criterion (three consecutive
sessions of displaying 100% of the skill steps in
performance probes with adults) differentially
affected the outcomes. In previous research on
social stories, the authors looked at trends in the
data (e.g., Crozier & Tincani, 2005), had no
stated mastery criterion (e.g., Barry & Burlew,
2004), or had a less stringent mastery criterion
(e.g., Delano & Snell, 2006). Therefore, it may
have been more difficult for participants to meet
the mastery criterion in this study than in the
previous research with social stories.

We suggest, however, that other factors more
likely influenced the outcomes of the present
study. One factor was that the procedures

involved in the teaching interaction procedure
more closely resembled the probe testing than
did the social stories procedure. Perhaps the most
important component in the teaching interaction
procedure was role playing (rehearsal), in which
participants had the opportunity to practice the
desired social skills. The probes for learning
involved displaying the skill in a similar
situation, although in the absence of any explicit
prompts or consequences from the researcher.
Gray and Garand (1993) recommended the use
of role playing with social stories. However, role
playing is rarely implemented in the published
literature on social stories and was not imple-
mented in the present study.

Role playing has been well established in the
research as an important component of teaching
children with and without autism a variety of
skills other than social skills (e.g., Kifer, Lewis,
Green, & Phillips, 1974; Poche, Brouwer, &
Swearingen, 1981; Schrandt, Townsend, &
Poulson, 2009). Role playing provides oppor-
tunities for participants to practice the social
skills in conditions similar to those in the
natural environment and allows the participants
to receive both positive and corrective feedback
for practicing the social skills during teaching.
Thus, rehearsal and feedback may increase the
likelihood of participants learning the social
skills and generalizing the learned skills to
somewhat different situations.

Another component that has been shown to
be effective in teaching children with autism is
demonstration (modeling) (e.g., Charlop &

297 COMPARING SOCIAL SKILLS INTERVENTIONS

Milstein, 1989; Charlop & Walsh, 1986).
Demonstration is an essential component of
video modeling (e.g., Charlop & Walsh, 1986),
which has been found to be effective in teaching
numerous social skills to children with autism.
Demonstration also was an essential component
of the teaching interaction procedure but was not
included with the social stories. Demonstration
of the social behavior gives participants oppor-
tunities to observe how to perform the desired
social skill accurately. Children with ASD may
not fully understand the social skills by simply
reading or listening to a description of the
behavior. Thus, a teacher’s demonstration may
provide a more complete and clear illustration of
the specific steps the participant needs to
perform. In addition, the demonstration com-
ponent of the teaching interaction procedure
allows teachers to highlight or emphasize parts of
the skill that participants may be struggling with
and allows the participants to practice particular
parts of a skill that need to be improved.

Results of this study raised several questions
that may serve as a basis for future research.
First, the teaching interaction procedure con-
sisted of multiple components (e.g., rationales,
modeling, and demonstration), and it is not
known if all of these components are necessary
for increasing social behavior. Component
analyses should be conducted to determine
which steps are needed and which steps are not
needed for producing behavior change.

Second, we implemented the social stories with
comprehension checks rather than with role
playing. As noted earlier, role playing may be
an important component in increasing social
behavior. Social stories with role playing could be
compared to the teaching interaction procedure
to determine if role playing increases the
effectiveness of social stories. If the teaching
interaction procedure still is more effective than
social stories with role playing, then it may
indicate the importance of teacher demonstration
in increasing social behavior for children and
adolescents with autism.

Third, future research could further examine
participants’ generalization of social skills to
their peers. In the present study, we measured
generalization of social skills with peers pre- and
postintervention for only two participants
(Apollo and Mickey). The purpose of teaching
social skills to children and adolescents with
autism is for them to display these skills with
their peers; therefore, future researchers may
wish to have demonstration of social skills
towards peers as their main measure.

REFERENCES

American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and
statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text
rev.). Washington, DC: Author.

Barry, L. M., & Burlew, S. B. (2004). Using social stories
to teach choice and play skills to children with autism.
Focus on Autism and Other Develeopmental Disabilities,
19, 45–51.

Bauminger, N., & Kasari, C. (2000). Loneliness and
friendship in high-functioning children with autism.
Child Development, 71, 447–456.

Brownell, M. D. (2002). Musically adapted social stories
to modify behaviors in students with autism: Four
case studies. Journal of Music Therapy, 34, 117–144.

Charlop, M. H., & Milstein, J. P. (1989). Teaching autistic
children conversational speech using video modeling.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 22, 275–285.

Charlop, M. H., & Walsh, M. E. (1986). Increasing
autistic children’s spontaneous verbalizations of
affection: An assessment of time-delay and peer
modeling procedures. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 19, 307–314.

Charlop-Christy, M. H., Le, L., & Freeman, K. A. (2000).
A comparison of video modeling with in vivo
modeling for teaching children with autism. Journal
of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 30, 537–552.

Crozier, S., & Tincani, M. J. (2005). Using a modified
Social StoryTM to decrease disruptive behavior of a
child with autism. Focus on Autism and Other
Developmental Disabilities, 20, 150–157.

Delano, M., & Snell, M. E. (2006). The effects of social
stories on the social engagement of children with autism.
Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 8, 29–42.

Dodd, S., Hupp, S. D. A., Jewell, J. D., & Krohn, E.
(2008). Using parents and siblings during a social
story intervention for two children diagnosed with
PDD-NOS. Journal of Developmental and Physical
Disabilities, 20, 217–229.

Gast, D. L., & Wolery, M. (1988). Parallel treatments
design: A nested single subject design for comparing
instructional procedures. Education & Treatment of
Children, 11, 270–285.

298 JUSTIN B. LEAF et al.

Gray, C. (1994). Social stories. Arlington, TX: Future
Horizons.

Gray, C. (1995). Teaching children with autism to read
social situations. In K. A. Quill (Ed.), Teaching children
with autism (pp. 219–241). New York: Delmar.

Gray, C. A., & Garand, J. D. (1993). Social stories:
Improving responses of students with autism with
accurate social information. Focus on Autistic Behav-
ior, 8, 1–10.

Greshman, F. M., & Elliot, S. N. (1990). Social skills rating
scale. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.

Kifer, R. E., Lewis, M. A., Green, D. R., & Phillips, E. L.
(1974). Training pre delinquent youths and their
parents to negotiate conflict situations. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 7, 357–364.

Kokina, A., & Kern, L. (2010). Social story interventions
for students with autism spectrum disorders: A meta-
analysis. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disor-
ders, 40, 812–816.

Ladd, G. W., Birch, S. H., & Buhs, E. S. (1999).
Children’s social and scholastic lives in kindergarten:
Related spheres of influence? Child Development, 70,
1373–1400.

Leaf, J. B., Dotson, W., Oppenheim, M. L., Sheldon,
J. B., & Sherman, J. A. (2010). The effectiveness of
group teaching interactions for young children with a
pervasive developmental disorder. Research in Autism
Spectrum Disorders, 4, 186–198.

Leaf, J. B., Taubman, M., Bloomfield, S., Palos-Rafuse,
L. I., McEachin, J. J., Leaf, R. B., et al. (2009).
Increasing social skills and prosocial behavior for three
children diagnosed with autism through the use of
a teaching package. Research in Autism Spectrum
Disorders, 3, 275–289.

Lovaas, O. I. (1981). Teaching developmentally disabled
children: The me book. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Phillips, E. L., Phillips, E. A., Fixsen, D. L., & Wolf,
M. M. (1971). Achievement Place: Modification of
the behaviors of pre-delinquent boys within a token
economy. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 4,
45–59.

Phillips, E. L., Phillips, E. A., Fixsen, D. L., & Wolf,
M. M. (1974). The Teaching-Family handbook (2nd
ed.). Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.

Poche, C., Brouwer, R., & Swearingen, M. (1981).
Teaching self-protection to young children. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 14, 169–176.

Schrandt, J. A., Townsend, D. B., & Poulson, C. L.
(2009). Teaching empathy skills to children with
autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42,
17–32.

Stahmer, A. C. (1995). Teaching symbolic play skills to
children with autism using pivotal response training.
Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 25,
123–141.

Stewart, K. K., Carr, J. E., & LeBlanc, L. A. (2007).
Evaluation of family-implemented behavioral skills
training for teaching social skills to a child with
Asperger’s disorder. Clinical Case Studies, 6, 252–262.

Stewart, M. E., Barnard, L., Pearson, J., Hasan, R., &
O’Brien, G. (2006). Presentation of depression in
autism and Asperger syndrome: A review. Autism, 10,
103–116.

Thiemann, K. S., & Goldstein, H. (2001). Social stories,
written text cues, and video feedback, effects on social
communication of children with autism. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 34, 425–446.

Received March 15, 2011
Final acceptance December 26, 2011
Action Editor, Joel Ringdahl

<< /ASCII85EncodePages false /AllowTransparency false /AutoPositionEPSFiles true /AutoRotatePages /None /Binding /Left /CalGrayProfile (Dot Gain 30%) /CalRGBProfile (None) /CalCMYKProfile (U.S. Sheetfed Coated v2) /sRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CannotEmbedFontPolicy /Error /CompatibilityLevel 1.4 /CompressObjects /Off /CompressPages true /ConvertImagesToIndexed false /PassThroughJPEGImages true /CreateJobTicket false /DefaultRenderingIntent /Default /DetectBlends true /DetectCurves 0.1000 /ColorConversionStrategy /LeaveColorUnchanged /DoThumbnails false /EmbedAllFonts true /EmbedOpenType false /ParseICCProfilesInComments true /EmbedJobOptions true /DSCReportingLevel 0 /EmitDSCWarnings false /EndPage -1 /ImageMemory 1048576 /LockDistillerParams false /MaxSubsetPct 100 /Optimize false /OPM 1 /ParseDSCComments false /ParseDSCCommentsForDocInfo true /PreserveCopyPage true /PreserveDICMYKValues true /PreserveEPSInfo true /PreserveFlatness true /PreserveHalftoneInfo false /PreserveOPIComments false /PreserveOverprintSettings true /StartPage 1 /SubsetFonts true /TransferFunctionInfo /Apply /UCRandBGInfo /Remove /UsePrologue false /ColorSettingsFile () /AlwaysEmbed [ true ] /NeverEmbed [ true ] /AntiAliasColorImages false /CropColorImages true /ColorImageMinResolution 150 /ColorImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleColorImages true /ColorImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /ColorImageResolution 600 /ColorImageDepth 8 /ColorImageMinDownsampleDepth 1 /ColorImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeColorImages true /ColorImageFilter /FlateEncode /AutoFilterColorImages false /ColorImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /ColorACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >>
/ColorImageDict << /QFactor 0.40 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >>
/JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >>
/JPEG2000ColorImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >>
/AntiAliasGrayImages false
/CropGrayImages true
/GrayImageMinResolution 150
/GrayImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK
/DownsampleGrayImages true
/GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic
/GrayImageResolution 600
/GrayImageDepth 8
/GrayImageMinDownsampleDepth 2
/GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000
/EncodeGrayImages true
/GrayImageFilter /FlateEncode
/AutoFilterGrayImages false
/GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG
/GrayACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >>
/GrayImageDict << /QFactor 0.40 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >>
/JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >>
/JPEG2000GrayImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >>
/AntiAliasMonoImages false
/CropMonoImages true
/MonoImageMinResolution 1200
/MonoImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK
/DownsampleMonoImages true
/MonoImageDownsampleType /Bicubic
/MonoImageResolution 1200
/MonoImageDepth -1
/MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000
/EncodeMonoImages true
/MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode
/MonoImageDict << /K -1 >>
/AllowPSXObjects false
/CheckCompliance [
/None
]
/PDFX1aCheck false
/PDFX3Check false
/PDFXCompliantPDFOnly true
/PDFXNoTrimBoxError false
/PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
]
/PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox false
/PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
]
/PDFXOutputIntentProfile (Euroscale Coated v2)
/PDFXOutputConditionIdentifier (FOGRA1)
/PDFXOutputCondition ()
/PDFXRegistryName (http://www.color.org)
/PDFXTrapped /False
/CreateJDFFile false
/SyntheticBoldness 1.000000
/Description << /DEU
/FRA
/JPN
/PTB
/DAN
/NLD
/ESP
/SUO
/ITA
/NOR
/SVE
/ENU (Settings for the Rampage workflow.)
>>
>> setdistillerparams
<< /HWResolution [2400 2400] /PageSize [612.000 792.000] >> setpagedevice