USING VIDEO MODELING AND SOCIAL CONSEQUENCES TO INCREASE THE
UNSCRIPTED PLAY BEHAVIOR IN CHILDREN WITH AUTISM
A Thesis
Presented to the faculty of the Department of Psychology
California State University, Sacramento
Submitted in partial satisfaction of
the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
in
Psychology
(Applied Behavior Analysis)
by
Krisann Elizabeth Vistica
SPRING
2012
USING VIDEO MODELING AND SOCIAL CONSEQUENCES TO INCREASE THE
UNSCRIPTED PLAY BEHAVIOR IN CHILDREN WITH AUTISM
A Thesis
by
Krisann Elizabeth Vistica
Approved by:
__________________________________, Committee Chair
Caio F. Miguel, Ph.D
__________________________________, Second Reader
Becky Penrod , Ph.D
_____________________________________, Third Reader
Jill Young, Ph.D
____________________________
Date
ii
Student: Krisann Elizabeth Vistica
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University
format manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to
be awarded for the thesis.
__________________________, Graduate Coordinator___________________
Jianjian Qin, Ph.D
Date
Department of Psychology
iii
Abstract
of
USING VIDEO MODELING AND SOCIAL CONSEQUENCES TO INCREASE THE
UNSCRIPTED PLAY BEHAVIOR IN CHILDREN WITH AUTISM
by
Krisann Elizabeth Vistica
Video modeling has been used to teach a variety of skills to children with autism
including self-help, perspective taking, and play skills. Previous research suggests that
video modeling is an effective tool to teach appropriate play and social skills to this
population. The purpose of this study is to increase the unscripted or “spontaneous” play
behavior and social interaction of children with autism. A multiple-probe across playscripts design was used to examine the effects of a video modeling procedure.
Participants viewed videos of two play scenarios and were then paired with a play partner
to interact with. Results indicate that both children acquired the scripted behavior which
increased interactions while their unscripted behavior significantly decreased. This
suggests the videos may have suppressed the unscripted behavior of the boys.
Implications for increasing unscripted and interactive play behavior are discussed as they
relate to the social skill development in children with autism.
_______________________, Committee Chair
Caio F. Miguel, Ph.D
_______________________
Date
iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author would like to thank her thesis committee, Dr. Caio Miguel, Dr. Becky Penrod,
and Dr. Jill Young for their efforts in the development and fulfillment of this research
project. Specifically, the author would like to thank Dr. Caio Miguel for his ongoing
support and dedication to the completion of this study. The experience I have gained in
working with Dr. Miguel has been invaluable to my academic and professional
development. In addition, I would like to express my appreciation and gratitude to all of
the members of the Sacramento State Verbal Behavior Research Lab. Their feedback,
encouragement, and friendship have made this process a very memorable one. As a final
note, I would like to express thanks to my research assistant, Patricia Santos, for her
continuous dedication and assistance with data collection and procedural implementation
throughout this entire project.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Acknowledgments ………………………………………………………………………...v
List of Tables……………………………………………………………………………..ix
List of Figures …………………………………………………………………………….x
Chapter
1.
INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………………….…..1
Common Methods………… ………………………………………………..........2
Video Modeling…………………………………………………………………...6
Video Modeling to Teach Play Skills....…………………………………………11
2.
METHOD ……………………………………………………………………..........18
Participants ………………………………………………………….……….......18
Settings and Materials.……………………………………………….………......19
Play Sets………………….………………………………………………………20
Barn Set….……………………………………………………………….21
Garage Set………………………………….…………………………….21
Dependent Variables………………………………..…………………………....22
Scripted Vocalizations…………………………………………………...22
Scripted Play Actions…………………………………………………….23
Unscripted Vocalizations………………………………………………...23
vi
Unscripted Play Actions…………………………………………………24
Interactive Play…………………………………………………………..24
Independent Variable……………………………………………………………25
Interobserver Agreement………………………………………………………...25
Social Validity…………………………………………………………………...26
Treatment Integrity………………………………………………………………27
Experimental Design……………………………………………………………..28
Procedures …………………………………………………………....…..……...28
Stimulus Preference Assessment………………………………………...29
Baseline (BL)………….………………..…………………………...…...29
Video Modeling (VM)…………………………...……………...……….30
No Video (NV)…………..…………………………………………...….31
Video + Social Consequences (VS)……………………………………...31
Generalization Probes (G)…….………………………………………….32
3.
RESULTS ……………………………………………………………….…….........33
Nick….……………………………………………………….…………….........33
Levi………………………...………………………………………………...…..39
Social Validity…………………………………………………………………...45
4.
DISCUSSION ………………………………………………………..…….….…....47
Limitations ……………………………………………………………...……….53
Future Research ……………………………………………………………...….56
vii
Implications………………………………………………………………………57
Appendix A.
Play Script Data Sheet- Garage Script………………………...………...59
Appendix B.
Play Script Data Sheet- Barn Script …..……......…………………….…60
Appendix C.
Interval Scoring Data Sheet….……………………………….………….61
Appendix D.
Social Validity Scale...……………………......…………………….…...62
Appendix E.
Video Modeling Treatment Integrity Checklist..……………………….. 63
Appendix F.
Child Preference Questionnaire………………………………………….64
References ………………………..……………………………………………………...65
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Tables
Page
1.
Interobserver Agreement..………………………...…………….........................26
2.
Treatment Integrity..……………………………………………….....................28
3.
Social Validity……………………………………………………..…………….46
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figures
Page
1.
Results for Nick…………...………………………...…………………………...38
2.
Results for Levi……………………………..……………………………………44
x
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Defining characteristics of children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorders
include failure to develop verbal and nonverbal behavior, deficits in social development,
and rigid or repetitive stereotypic behavior (Delano, 2007). With regard to social skills,
these children typically engage in repetitive and/or isolated play while displaying
inappropriate use of objects and/or toys. In addition, they often fail to demonstrate
spontaneous, pretend, or symbolic play (American Psychiatric Association, 1994) and the
social functioning skills of this population tend to be very limited (Scattone, 2007).
Children with autism typically have social skill performance and fluency deficits
which refer to not knowing how to perform a particular social skill or failure to
discriminate which social behaviors are appropriate in specific situations (Gresham,
Sugai, & Horner, 2001). The literature on teaching social and play skills to children with
autism has continued to grow in the last decade as researchers and practitioners learn
more about the social deficits of the disorder (Bellini & Akullian, 2007) and develop
better technology for teaching these skills (Scattone, 2007). It is important that these
individuals be taught to engage in appropriate social behavior early on in development to
increase their participation in social activities with their peers and adults (Scattone, 2007;
Burgess & Turkstra, 2006) as well as give them the tools they will need to function in
society. Additionally, early identification of social deficits in children with autism
2
(Wetherby, Watt, Morgan, & Shumway, 2006) and early intervention in social skill
training is most beneficial as the developmental gap between children with autism and
their typically developing peers becomes smaller (McGee, Feldman, & Morrier, 1997).
Common Methods
Some common methods used to teach social skills to children with autism have
varied from peer-mediation and imitation (Garfinkle & Schwartz, 2002; Haring & Breen,
1992) to theory of mind training (Ozonoff & Miller, 1995). Although literature suggests
that students with autism learn equally well from either an adult or a peer model (Ihrig &
Wolchik, 1988), using peers to help facilitate social communication and interaction skills
has become increasingly popular (Chung, Reavis, Mosconi, Drewry, Matthews, & Tassé,
2007; Maione & Mirenda, 2006; Reagon, Higbee, & Endicott, 2006). MacDonald,
Sacramone, Mansfield, Wiltz, & Ahearn (2009) suggested that in order for children with
autism to maintain peer social interactions, it is necessary to facilitate peer mediated
social reinforcers (i.e., using the peers in the training process to pair with reinforcement)
as social consequences are not typically as reinforcing for children with autism. For
example, most typically developing children enjoy play, and interacting with other
children. Conversely, the play behavior of children with autism is typically reinforcing
when playing alone or repetitively with certain toys or materials while their play has no
real symbolic or social quality.
Chung, et al. (2007) taught social communication skills to children with autism
through a peer-mediated social skills training (SST) program. Four boys with autism,
3
ages 6-7 years, participated in a 12-week, training program which targeted six
communication skills including contingent response, securing attention, initiating
comments, initiating requests, and changing the topic. The typically-developing peers
received pre-training and role play practice to orient them to the target skill for that day
as well as teach them how to prompt and reinforce the target skill. Each training session
followed a similar structure which included explanation, teaching, practice, and video
times. A basic comparison design was used for each child to evaluate treatment
effectiveness. Results indicated that peer-mediated social skills training combined with
behavior management and video feedback quickly improved the social communication
skills of children with autism from baseline levels. This study supports previous findings
that also suggested peer-mediated social skills training (i.e., initiations, prompting, and
reinforcement procedures) produced significant increases in the social behavior of four
children with autism (Strain, Kerr, & Ragland, 1979).
Pierce and Schreibman (1997) used pivotal response training (PRT) with typically
developing peers to increase social behaviors of two boys with autism, ages 7 and 8
years. Multiple peer trainers were used to assess the generalization of treatment effects
and a multiple-baseline design was used across different peer trainers. Dependent
measures included three social behaviors consisting of maintaining interactions, initiating
conversation, and initiating play. Results of this study suggested that the PRT
intervention was a naturalistic and effective method for producing higher levels of social
4
behavior. Additionally, the use of multiple peer trainers was effective in increasing
generalization in the social behavior of the target children.
Shabani, Katz, Wilder, Beauchamp, Taylor, & Fischer (2002) increased social
initiations in three boys (ages 6 and 7-years) with autism through the use of a tactile
prompt (i.e., vibrating pager). They used an ABAB design to assess the effects of the
tactile prompt on verbal initiations and responses to peer initiations. Training sessions
consisted of teaching the children to make a vocal initiation related to a toy or play
activity when the pager vibrated. Adults immediately prompted (i.e., verbal model) the
verbal initiation after activating the timer every minute and reinforced the child for
correct initiations after the model. A least to most prompting hierarchy was used to fade
the prompts as the children demonstrated independent initiations when the pager was
activated. Results suggested that the tactile prompt was an effective and unobtrusive
method for teaching verbal initiations in children with autism.
Kamps, Leonard, Vernon, Dugan, and Delquadri (1992) used a social skills group
training method to increase social interactions between three students with autism (each
age 7-years) and their typically developing peers in a first grade class. A multiplebaseline across-subjects design was used to assess the effectiveness of the group social
skills training. Training was conducted during the first 10 minutes of 20-minute playgroup sessions. A variety of social skills were targeted including greetings, conversations,
giving and accepting compliments, and including others in activities. Feedback was given
in the form of reinforcement (i.e., a star placed next to the student’s name) for engaging
5
in trained social interactions at 1-minute checks during the 20 minute play session.
Follow up sessions were conducted at the end of the school year where feedback was
reduced to two 5-minute checks during a 20-minute play session. Results of this study
suggested that the group social skills training increased the frequency, time engaged, and
duration of social performance in the children with autism. Additionally, positive changes
in the responsiveness of peers to the target children’s social behavior were observed.
Although many of these studies have found positive changes in the social
behavior of children with autism, there are still many limitations and additional areas of
future investigation needed within the body of research exploring the social skills of
children with autism. For example, recruitment of participants with similar
communication deficits, cognitive levels, and ages was identified as a limitation by
Chung, et al. (2007) as it made for a lack of control group. Additionally, the multicomponent training program utilized in their study made it difficult to determine which
components of training were absolutely necessary for the increase in skill acquisition.
Similarly, Whalen, Schreibman, and Ingersoll (2006) found that their evidence did not
explain which behavioral mechanisms were responsible for the changes in the children’s
behavior. Thus, a component analysis was necessary. Lastly, Kamps, et al. (1992)
suggested the need for examining the quality of social interactions that are being trained.
Unclear or ineffective maintenance and generalization training or performance of the
acquired skills have been a common limitation of social skill training studies as well
6
(Kroeger, Schults, & Newsom, 2006; Greshm, Sugai, & Horner, 2001; Haring & Breen,
1992).
Video Modeling
Video modeling is a teaching method that has been found to have potential
benefits over the other methodologies previously discussed, including using multiple
stimulus and response exemplars, demonstrating the behavior in relevant contexts,
consistency in presentation of training (Baker, Lang, O’Reilly, 2009), and facilitating
observational learning (Corbett, 2003). In addition, Charlop-Christy, Le, and Freeman
(2000) found that video modeling resulted in faster acquisition of tasks than in vivo
modeling, and also promoted generalization of skills across people, settings, and stimuli.
Past literature has also identified video modeling as being more effective and time
efficient than in-vivo modeling (Charlop & Milstein, 1989; Charlop-Christy, Le, &
Freeman, 2000).Video modeling has also been more utilized than those previously
discussed. Video modeling typically consists of presenting the learner with an
individualized video (Delano, 2007) of models (e.g., peers, siblings, adults, or self)
engaging in a specific series of behavior, which are targeted for improvement (Bellini and
Akullian, 2007; MacDonald et.al, 2009) or acquisition.
Kleeberger and Mirenda (2010) discussed the impact of the model in video-based
teaching and how generalized imitation is a prerequisite to being able to copy the
behaviors modeled in the video. Responding is considered imitative when someone
duplicates the behavior or similar behavior modeled by another person (Catania, 2007).
7
Imitation is a fundamental skill that enables learners to acquire more from their
environment long-term and also expand their repertoire to new environments (RosalezRuiz & Baer, 1997). Imitating requires attending to the relevant features of the model
which may be problematic for children with autism as they often require assistance in
attending to the critical features of the environment. In other words, these children are
likely to attend to irrelevant stimuli in the environment rather than the important or
critical features of the model. As a core deficit identified early in children with autism
(Kleeberger & Mirenda, 2010), imitation also entails the ability to attend to who and what
to model after (McCoy & Hermansen, 2007). As previously mentioned, it is common for
individuals with autism to lack the ability to gather critical information from their
environment so to help alleviate for these deficiencies, the video-model serves as a salient
multi-component model to control and direct the child’s attention to what actions and
vocalizations to perform, including which stimuli the child should be attending to
(McCoy & Hermansen, 2007).
The video-modeling technology has been used to teach a variety of skills to
children with autism including complex imitation skills across novel stimuli (Kleeberger
& Mirenda, 2010), appropriate transition behavior (Schreibman, Whalen, & Stahmer,
2000 ), perspective taking (Charlop-Christy and Daneshvar, 2003; LeBlanc, Coates,
Daneshvar, Charlop-Christy, Morris, & Lancaster, 2003), daily living/self-help skills
(Rosenberg, Schwartz, & Davis, 2010; Charlop-Christy, Le, & Freeman, 2000; Haring,
Breen, Weiner, Kennedy, & Bednersh, 1995), social communication skills (Nikopoulos
8
& Keenan, 2004) and play skills (Tetreault & Lerman, 2010; MacDonald et al., 2009;
Hine & Wolery, 2006; Reagon, Higbee & Endicott, 2006; MacDonald et al., 2005;
Dauphin, Kinney, & Stromer, 2004; D’Ateno, Mangiapanello, & Taylor, 2003; Taylor,
Levin, & Jasper, 1999 ). In addition, positive social, language, and academic outcomes
have been acquired in children with a variety of disabilities through the use of this video
technology (Sturmey, 2003).
For example, Kleeberger and Mirenda (2010) taught a 4-year old child with
autism generalized imitation skills (e.g., behaviors the child had never viewed before
from novel people in novel environments) during song and toy-play activities through the
use of a video model. A multiple-baseline across imitation activities design was utilized
to evaluate the effectiveness of the video modeling intervention. The procedures included
a baseline, a video modeling alone phase (VM), a VM plus highlighting critical
components phase (VMH; i.e., the parents made comments while the child watched the
video to call attention to the critical components), a VMH plus prompting and
reinforcement phase (VMHPR), and a final VM phase. Results of this study suggested
that video modeling alone was not sufficient to increase the child’s performance across
imitation activities; however, when the VMHPR procedure was implemented, the child
demonstrated accurate imitations of the actions for both mastered and novel actions
which showed that reinforcement and prompting may have been the vital component for
video modeling.
9
In another example, Charlop-Christy and Daneshvar (2003) used video modeling
to teach perspective- taking to three boys diagnosed with autism, ages 6 and 9-years. A
multiple-baseline across children and within-child across tasks design was used to assess
the effects of the video model training on perspective-taking tasks. Additionally, to
evaluate generalization of skills to novel stimuli, multiple probes were implemented. The
boys viewed a video of adults performing perspective taking tasks while explaining their
problem solving strategies. The video was presented twice and the boys were then tested
on the perspective taking tasks such as asking the child where he thought the person in
the video would look for a cookie). Correct verbal or nonverbal responses were scored
when the child correctly answered a perspective taking question (e.g., “Where will
Johnny look for the cookie?”). Generalization and maintenance of perspective taking
were also taught through multiple exemplar training and assessed across stimuli. Results
of this study indicated that perspective-taking skills were learned in each of the three
children, as well as the generalization of untrained responses. Video modeling was a fast
and effective way to teach new skills to this population.
Similarly, LeBlanc et al. (2003) used a multiple-baseline design to assess the
effects of video modeling and reinforcement to teach perspective-taking skills to three
boys with autism, ages 7 to 15-years. Measures of perspective-taking tasks were
administered to the children by presenting the video of an adult completing the task.
Once the child finished viewing the video, the video was paused and the child was asked
to respond to specific perspective-taking questions. Reinforcement was delivered for
10
correct responses and incorrect responses resulted in repeating the video while prompting
the child to attend until imitation of the correct response occurred. Pre-tests, post-tests,
and baseline, resulted in no feedback from the experimenters. Stimulus variations were
developed for two of the trained tasks to assess for generalization during testing
conditions. Results of this study indicated that all three children eventually mastered the
perspective-taking tasks even when the novel stimulus variations were introduced as a
result of the video modeling and reinforcement procedures used.
Another study conducted by Charlop-Christy, Le, and Freeman (2000) used a
multiple baseline design across five children and within child to compare video modeling
to in-vivo modeling to teach daily- living skills (e.g., tooth brushing and face washing).
More specifically, in the video condition for one child’s tooth brushing task, the child
was presented with the video two times, and then told, “Let’s do the same, just like
what’s on TV”). During the in-vivo condition for face washing, the child watched live
models twice, and then was told, “Let’s do the same, just like they did.” These
procedures were then repeated until the child reached performance criteria in each
condition. Findings of the comparisons indicated that video modeling was a more
effective and efficient technique for teaching self-help skills to a child with autism. This
technique lead to a faster acquisition of skills than in-vivo modeling and also facilitated
generalization of skills, which was not observed after presentations of in-vivo models.
Video modeling has also been used to teach social communication skills to
children with autism. Nikopoulos and Keenan (2004) implemented video modeling
11
procedures to teach social initiation skills to three children with autism, ages 6 to 7 years.
They were interested in each child’s latency to respond to social initiations and their
reciprocal play with different toys. The videos consisted of a typically developing peer
and the experimenter engaging in simple interactive play with one toy. The child with
autism viewed the video clip and then was taken into a room containing the toys used in
the video. The child was moved on to the next condition when they demonstrated
initiations within the first 25s of entering the room for three consecutive sessions in a
row. The second condition followed the same procedures as the first without prior video
viewing. The third condition looked at whether the children would make a social
initiation for reciprocal play with different toys than the ones used in the video. A
multiple- baseline across subjects design was used to evaluate the treatment effects. For
all three students, overall social initiation and reciprocal play increased. The latency to
engage in social initiations decreased with each of the children and both initiation and
reciprocal play were maintained at follow up probes with two different toys.
Video Modeling to Teach Play Skills
Video modeling has been most commonly used to teach play skills to children
with autism. For example, Hine and Wolery (2006) used point-of-view video modeling
(i.e., from the child’s perspective) to teach two preschoolers with autism to engage in
specific play actions. A multiple-probe across two play behaviors design was used to
assess the efficacy of the video modeling. After conducting baseline probes, daily probes,
video viewing, and daily practice segments were implemented. During the video
12
modeling segment, two minutes of the child’s favorite cartoon played to encourage
attending to the video. After the cartoon clip, the video modeling clip began with the set
of materials and a pair of “hands” manipulating them. Finally, another 60s of the cartoon
played before the experimenter provided the child with the play materials. After viewing
the video, the child was told to play with their toys in the absence of any prompting or
reinforcement for engaging in the modeled actions. Generalization probes were
conducted to assess performance in a different setting and with different materials.
Procedures were the same as in treatment with the only difference being the location or
the novel stimuli. Results of this study indicated that point-of-view video modeling was
effective in teaching new play skills to the children with autism in the absence of direct
reinforcement for modeled actions. Additionally, the generalization occurred in novel
settings and with novel stimuli as a result of multiple exemplars.
The type of video model may also be a factor in deciding how to best utilize the
technology as a teaching tool. Palechka and MacDonald (2010) recently conducted a
study which compared commercially-available videos (CAV) to instructor-created video
(ICV) models to teach play skills to three children with autism, ages 4 to 5-years. Three
children were exposed to one commercially-made video for one play activity and one
instructor-made video for another play activity. A multi-element design within participant
and across model types was used to compare the rate of acquisition of scripted play using
ICV models versus CAV models. A multiple probe design was also implemented across
participants. Results of this comparison indicated that both video methods produced
13
complex sequences of play in reasonable amounts of time; however, the instructorcreated videos were found to provide a more exact model of the play behaviors and toys
that were to be duplicated in the following play session, which may have contributed to
the success of two of the three children’s faster acquisition of play skills. The
implications of this research suggest that types of videos may be important variables
when teaching play skills to children with autism.
In another study, Reagon, Higbee, and Endicott (2006) used video modeling to
teach pretend play skills to a 4-year old child with autism and his sibling as a play
partner. An AB replicated across four play scenarios design was used to train the pretend
play skills. Procedures were similar to Hine and Wolery (2006) in that after an initial
baseline phase, the participants were first instructed to watch a video of models depicting
the play scenarios and then instructed to play with the materials. Likewise, prompting and
reinforcement were not provided during the play sessions. In order to assess maintenance
and generalization, follow up sessions were conducted. Throughout the study, data were
collected on both scripted and spontaneous play behavior which depicted the rapid
acquisition of scripted actions and statements. Findings of this research suggest that when
trained, siblings are effective as models and play partners to children with autism.
Additionally, the child with autism produced both scripted and unscripted play behavior
after viewing the video models in the absence of any extraneous prompts or
reinforcement.
14
Similarly, pretend play was also taught using video modeling by MacDonald,
Clark, Garrigan, & Vangala (2005). They taught thematic pretend play scripts to two
boys with autism (ages 4 and 7-years) using a multiple probe design within child across
play sets. Specific scripts were developed to use for each of three different play sets (e.g.,
a town, a ship, and a house). Adult models were recorded acting out the play scripts using
the characters and materials for each play set. These videos were shown to the children
two times in a row, and then immediately following, the children were asked to play with
the materials for four minutes. The children’s responses were scored correct based on the
number of accurate scripted vocalizations and play actions. Unscripted verbalizations and
play actions were also scored to evaluate potential novel behavior. Mastery probes and
follow-up probes were conducted and suggested that video modeling produced extended
sequences of play for the children who did not have a strong play repertoire preceding the
study. Rapid acquisition of skills was observed in both children, in addition to some basic
perspective taking skills (i.e., acting out actions with the play characters as if the
characters were talking). This is a more complex social skill that was learned incidentally
through the video modeling procedure.
To expand on her previous research, MacDonald et al. (2009), studied the effects
of video modeling on teaching two children with autism (ages 5 and 7-years) to engage in
reciprocal pretend play with typically developing peers. Two pairs of children
participated in this study. Each dyad consisted of a child with autism and a typically
15
developing child. A specific selection criterion was developed and used to identify
appropriate peers for the study.
Three play sets including an airport, zoo, and grill set were used to teach both
pairs of children. Scripted play scenarios were used, which included both vocalizations
and play actions with adults as models. Adults were used and matched for gender because
they were easy to train and because the researchers believed that it would increase the
possibility of imitation. The scripts were created based on videotaped observations and
transcriptions of typically developing children playing with the specific play set toys.
In this study, the independent variable was the presentation of video models
depicting scripted play interactions for each of the play sets. Participants with autism
were not exposed to any form of reinforcement or prompting during the study. Dependent
measures included the occurrence of five target responses: a) scripted vocalizations, b)
scripted play actions, c) unscripted vocalizations, d) unscripted play actions, e)
cooperative play, and f) reciprocal verbal interaction chains. Data were collected on the
4-minute play sessions on each child for their particular role in the script. Unscripted
verbalizations and actions were scored only during baseline and during mastery probe
sessions to assess variations in play as a result of the videos. MacDonald, et al. found
that both pairs of children demonstrated extended sequences of reciprocal pretend play
across three commercial play sets as a result of the video modeling. Play sequences
included increased chains of scripted vocalizations and actions, and although the children
16
primarily acquired scripted vocalizations and actions, a slight emergence of novel
behavior was observed in the children with autism.
A limitation of MacDonald, et al.’s study was that increased or extended novel
play did not occur across participants. Reagon, et al. (2006) suggested that scripted
actions and vocalizations generalize to new settings with new materials, which this study
failed to control for. Finally, the authors discuss the possibility of the presence of adults
acquiring stimulus control over responding as they stood behind the children collecting
data. The adult’s presence was a possible confound as they may have exerted some level
of control over responding, and it is difficult to tell whether the children performed
because of the manipulated video modeling variables or because of the adult’s presence.
The purpose of the present study was to extend the MacDonald et al. (2009)
research to further assess the effects of video modeling teaching reciprocal play skills to
children with autism. Additionally, the present study addressed some of the limitations
that were identified in the previously described study conducted by MacDonald et al.
While this study used a similar methodology described by MacDonald et al., it
was not identical in that the manipulated variables produced extended unscripted play
behavior in the participants under study as their “spontaneous” behavior was resulted in
social consequences. Boudreau and D’Entremont (2010) suggested that the introduction
of video modeling resulted in reduced frequency of both unscripted actions and
vocalizations, which may have been a result of the inflexibility acquired while
performing only the modeled or scripted behaviors shown in the videos. Keeping these
17
findings in mind, the present study aimed to control for the suppression of spontaneous
play behavior by directly consequating any and all occurrences of unscripted actions or
vocalizations to increase the frequency of this play behavior. A second goal of the present
study was to add to the growing body of research to support these findings and best
utilize the technology to improve the reciprocal social and communicative behavior of
children with autism (Delano, 2007).
18
Chapter 2
METHOD
Participants
Two boys diagnosed with autism (Nick and Levi) participated in the study. Nick
was a 6.4-year-old male who was enrolled in a typical first grade class full time and
received after school behavioral intervention services in his home for 13.5 hours per
week. At the start of the study, he had been receiving behavior therapy for 5 years. Nick
communicated using complete sentences with a mean length of utterance of
approximately 7 words. Per parent report, his main social skill deficits included a lack of
interactions with his typically developing peers (e.g., he would ignore his peer when they
ask him a question and he rarely initiated his own interactions) as well as engaging in a
lot of repetitious or perseverative play. Nick never had any exposure to or experience
with video modeling.
Levi was a 5.11-year-old male who was enrolled in a typical kindergarten class
full time, received behavioral intervention services in his home for 13.5 hours per week,
and also received one hour of both Speech and Occupational Therapy services each week.
At the start of the study, he had been receiving behavior therapy for a little over 3 years.
Levi communicated using complete sentences with a mean length of utterance of 8-10
words. Per parent report, his main social skill deficits included a lack of pretend play
skills and the inability to interact with and follow along with his typically developing
19
peers for extended durations (e.g., he would lose interest or engage more in solo play
after a few minutes). Only on one occasion did Levi ever have exposure to or experience
with video modeling. During the generalization phase of the study, two peer participants
were recruited through each family and served as the peer play partners. Nick’s peer was
a 6-year-old female who, like Nick, was also in first grade. Levi’s peer was a 4-year-old
female who was in preschool. Both peers were enthusiastic to participate, were socially
competent, followed adult instructions consistently, and displayed age appropriate play
skills.
Setting and Materials
Baseline and training sessions were conducted in each of the boy’s own homes.
The materials necessary for the play activities were placed in open areas on the floor in
the living rooms. The videos were presented on a Magnavox© 10” TFT Monitor Portable
DVD player. One to four sessions were conducted daily with each participant and the
entire session never lasted longer than 30 minutes. The experimenter was responsible for
videotaping each session from a distance of 5-10 feet from the play area. The child’s
parent(s) and/or sibling would sometimes sit quietly in the room and observe the session
and other times would be in another room of the house. Generalization probes were
conducted in a different room (i.e., the Play Room for Nick and the Dining Room for
Levi), of the child’s house after each play set was mastered. Each session was videotaped
for data scoring purposes.
20
An adult research assistant served as the play partner during the sessions to
promote reciprocal play interactions and generalization of social responses in the children
while two different adults were videotaped acting out the sequence of social interactions.
MacDonald et al. (2005) found that adults are easy to train and effective as models to
teach play skills to children. Additionally, Ihrig and Wolchik (1988) found that children
with autism were capable of learning equally well from both adults and peers as models.
Each video was related to a designated play activity and contained 10 scripted
vocalizations along with 10 scripted actions associated with the vocalizations. For
example, a scripted vocalization included, “Oh no! A flat tire,” while the corresponding
action included taking the mechanic out of the truck to look at the man’s tire. The scripts
were developed based on previous observations of two typically developing children
engaging in similar play actions and social interactions using the same play materials.
Play scripts were recorded using a digital video camera and then transferred to a DVD for
later convenience of viewing. The Barn script (See Appendix A) DVD was 1:25 minutes
in duration and the Garage script (See Appendix B) was 1:13 minutes in duration.
Play Sets
Two play sets were used to teach reciprocal pretend play to participants. The play
sets included a Fisher-Price Little People Animal Sounds Farm© and a Fisher-Price Little
People Racin’ Ramps Garage©. Each play set had a base structure (e.g., the barn or the
car garage) and multiple characters and objects (i.e., 10 for the Barn and 5 for the
Garage) related to the theme of the structure that were used in the video modeling scripts.
21
Each of the play sets had features that made sounds (e.g., a pig sty that oinked when you
opened the gate in the barn or a bell that rang as you lifted the elevator up the garage)
related to the theme that was also used in the play scripts. The following play sets were
chosen based on gender neutrality and age appropriateness.
Barn Set
The barn base structure was a two-story red barn with an attached feed storage
tower. There were three different gate entrances to the bottom story of the barn, and each
of the gates made sounds related to the corresponding animal that belonged behind that
specific gate. The characters included a farm boy, a farm girl, and six basic farm animals
(i.e., a horse, cow, pig, sheep, goat, and chicken). The additional objects included a
tractor with a trailer, a basket of apples, and a tall corn stalk. Adults in these videos
modeled play interactions by manipulating the characters and animals (e.g., driving the
car), speaking for the characters and animals (e.g., “Time to feed the pig”), and
manipulating the materials through the characters (e.g., making the farmer get in the
tractor to drive) from the Barn Set.
Garage Set
The garage base structure had a winding ramp for cars to drive down, a car
elevator, and, three levels of parking. Features of the garage included a gas pump, a hose
for putting air into the tires, and an elevator. The elevator had a bell that rang as it is
lifted up to each parking level. The characters included a mechanic, a man, and a police
officer in a police car. The additional objects included a tow truck and a blue car. Adults
22
in these videos modeled play interactions by manipulating the characters and vehicles
(e.g., driving the car down the ramp), speaking for the characters (e.g., “Time to wash
your car”), and manipulating the materials through the characters (e.g., making the
character pump gas into the car at the gas pump) in the garage set.
Dependent Variables
All sessions were videotaped and scored at a later time for the occurrence of the
following responses: a) percentage of scripted vocalizations, b) percentage of scripted
actions, c) percentage of unscripted vocalizations, d) percentage of unscripted actions,
and e) percentage of play interactions.
Scripted Vocalizations
Scripted vocalizations were defined as vocal statements, phrases, or sentences that
matched the statement of the video model while allowing for the omission or substitution
of modeled sound effects, conjunctions, articles, prepositions, or pronouns (e.g.,
substituting “or” for “and” or dropping the “the”). Additionally, the change of verb tense
or the rewording of a line while maintaining the same general context of the model were
also counted as correct scripted vocalizations. For example, “Time to feed pigs” versus
“I’m going to feed the pigs now” was coded as a correct scripted vocalization. A scripted
behavior would only be scored as incorrect if the child completely omitted a scripted
vocalization or action; otherwise, it would be scored as an unscripted vocalization.
23
Scripted Play Actions
Scripted play actions were defined as motor responses that matched the action of
the video model and produced the same change in the environment that had been
modeled in the video. Data was also collected and scored as correct on actions that were
similar but not identical to the modeled responses (e.g., the child is hopping the cow
instead of making him run to the barn or driving the tractor around a different way but
ending up in the same spot). A scripted action would only be scored as incorrect if the
child completely omitted a scripted action; otherwise, it would be scored as an unscripted
action.
Unscripted Vocalizations
Unscripted vocalizations were defined as vocalizations including statements,
phrases, or sentences that differed from the script in the video model by more than sound
effects, conjunctions, articles, prepositions, or pronouns. They were also considered
unscripted if there were changes in the verb tense but were deemed appropriate. In order
to score the vocalization as unscripted, the child had to state a word that varied from that
of the scripted model (e.g., the child said, “My pig likes to drink water!” instead of
saying, “Time to feed the pigs” or “These apples taste so good” versus “Mmm, I like
apples!”). These were sentences that did not occur in the script and were therefore coded
as unscripted. Repetitions of the same statements were only scored as unscripted the first
time they were vocalized within that session. Additionally, vocalizations were not scored
as unscripted if the child repeated a line that was modeled from the play partner’s script.
24
For example, a vocalization was not scored as unscripted if the child simply added an
article or two such as, “I think I’ll wait upstairs” versus “I’ll wait upstairs.”
Unscripted Play Actions
Unscripted actions were defined as motor responses that were not modeled in the
video scripts but were appropriately related to the context of the play activity. The play
action was not scored as unscripted if the action was simply repetitious in nature (e.g.,
driving a car back and forth in a repetitive motion) or if it was an action that was modeled
from the play partner’s script (e.g., if the play partner’s action was to wash the target
child’s car and the target child imitated this to engage in the same actions to wash his
own car). In order to score the play action as unscripted, it had to vary from that of the
play action modeled in the video (e.g., the child gave the apples to the chicken instead of
feeding them to the horse and pig). Repetitions of the same actions were only scored as
unscripted the first time they were performed within that session. Additionally, actions
that were corrective in nature (e.g., picking up a toy that was accidentally dropped) were
not scored as a spontaneous response.
Interactive Play
Interactive play included offering and receiving materials to and from the play
partner (e.g., handing the play partner the apples to put inside the barn or accepting a toy
that is being offered), as well as talking to each other about the same scripted or
unscripted topics (e.g., driving different cars down the ramp and reciprocating
information about their cars). Play was not counted as interactive if the duo was simply
25
engaged in parallel play (e.g., sitting and playing next to each other in the absence of
interacting) or if it was repetitive or stereotypic in nature (e.g., the child makes the same
repetitive initiation to the play partner several times).
Independent Variable
The independent variable in this study was the presentation of video models
depicting scripted play interactions for the two sets of play materials (i.e., Barn and
Garage). In addition, two conditions of video viewing were examined that related to
program consequences. The first condition included the viewing of videos alone (VM;
i.e., no programmed consequences provided for correct scripted or unscripted
actions/vocalizations during play). The second condition of viewing included the viewing
of videos and the addition of social consequences for unscripted behavior and play
interactions.
Interobserver Agreement
Interobserver agreement (IOA) was assessed on 67% of Nick’s sessions and 67%
of Levi’s sessions. IOA was calculated by dividing the number of agreements by the
total number of agreements plus disagreements and multiplying by 100. An agreement
was scored as any scripted or unscripted vocalization or action in which both observers
scored either the occurrence or nonoccurrence of behavior. Disagreements were scored
as any scripted or unscripted vocalization or action in which one observer scored an
occurrence of a behavior, and the other did not. The primary researcher acted as the
primary coder to transcribe and score the occurrences of the dependent measures from all
26
videos across both participants and phases. In addition, a research assistant independently
coded IOA for each of the videotapes across all participants and phases. Mean IOA was
94.6% across participants. Table 1 contains individual IOA values for each participant.
Table 1
Interobserver Agreement (IOA) – Dependent Measures
Nick
Levi
All
# Sessions
43
36
79
# Sessions IOA
29
24
53
% Sessions IOA
67
67
67
% Scripted Responses
100
99
99.5
% Unscripted Responses
92
92
92
% Interaction
99
97
98
Social Validity
Social validity for this study was assessed through the use of a post test
questionnaire created for the purpose of this study which required parents to rate his/her
child performance in relation to the dependent measures. Specifically, parents were asked
to provide feedback about the video modeling procedure using a 5-point Likert-scale. The
questionnaire consisted of a 10-item scale with 5 meaning “Strongly Agree” to 1 meaning
“Strongly Disagree.” Examples of questions include, “Video modeling is a socially
appropriate training method for my child” or “I feel video modeling produced little
change in my child’s pretend play during the session.” (See Appendix D)
27
Treatment Integrity
In order to assess the degree to which the treatment sessions were implemented
according to the protocol, treatment integrity checklists were completed (See Appendix
E). This checklist included the tasks that were expected to occur in each phase and each
condition of the study (e.g., placement of materials, delivery of reinforcement, technical
difficulties, etc.). A session was considered correct if the experimenter(s) implemented all
procedures as outlined in the protocol for that particular session. A session was
considered incorrect if more than one step was implemented differently than outlined in
the protocol. The total number of correct sessions divided by the total number of sessions
multiplied by 100 will be calculated to determine the overall percentage of treatment
integrity of the independent variable. Treatment integrity was assessed for the study
during 100% of sessions across each video modeling condition. The only issue that
occurred (on multiple instances) throughout the entire study was some minor technical
difficulties with the digital timer on five separate occasions. Upon these occurrences, we
were able to quickly correct the difficulty with the timer and resume data collection as
scheduled.
28
Table 2
Treatment Integrity (T.I.)
Nick
Levi
All
Total # Sessions
43
36
79
# Sessions T.I.
43
36
79
% Sessions T.I.
100
100
100
% Correct Sessions
93
94
93.5
Experimental Design
A multiple-probe design across play scripts was used to assess the effects of the
video modeling intervention on play behaviors. The play sets were counterbalanced
across each child to control for order of effects. For example, Nick learned the garage
script first and then the barn script, while Levi learned the barn script first and then the
garage script. Baseline probes were conducted prior to the introduction of a new play set.
A generalization probe was conducted to assess for generalization of the acquired skills
in another room of the house at a one-week follow up at the end of the intervention.
Procedures
Two adults (i.e., the primary researcher and one research assistant) were assigned
to consistent roles across participants and throughout the course of the study. The primary
researcher was responsible for videotaping the sessions. The research assistant acted as
the peer “play partner” during each session with each of the children. Neither the
experimenter nor the research assistant acted as the models in the videos to capitalize on
29
the effectiveness of the videos and to keep the actors “neutral” throughout the course of
the study.
Stimulus Preference Assessment
Prior to the start of data collection, parents of the target children were asked to
complete a child preference questionnaire (See Appendix F) that was developed for the
purposes of this study. This form provided information to develop a selection of
potential reinforcers or prizes for the children to earn throughout the course of the study.
Nick and Levi each had their own prize box filled with a variety of tangible items and
social activity “coupons” (e.g., playing hide and seek or making up a silly story) that had
been identified as preferred by their parents. The children had access to the prize box at
the end of each session for participating in a session that day.
Baseline (BL)
Each child was presented with each of two sets of play materials without having
viewed the modeling videos. The child was then given the instruction, “Go play” and
allowed to play for three minutes in the absence of any programmed consequences from
adults. The adult play partner played in a neutral fashion (i.e., not very enthusiastic or
energetic) without initiating any play with the child (i.e., the adult engaged in solitary
play and only interacted with the target child if he made the initiation). The target child
was instructed to sit on the left of what the play set while the adult play partner was
placed on the right for playing, as this corresponded with the positions of the characters
they would assume during video modeling training. Additionally, the play materials were
30
presented on the floor and positioned in the same way that they would be presented in the
videos. Baseline probe procedures continued until responding reached stability (i.e., the
data show no evidence of an upward or downward trend, and all of the data points fall
within a small range of values; Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 2007).
Video Modeling (VM)
During the video modeling condition, the materials were set up identical to how
they were in baseline. The child was assigned a constant “role” in each video to watch
(e.g., “Watch the girl”) which corresponded with the script that they would be performing
during the play session. They then viewed the specific target video two consecutive times
before being allowed access to the toys. After viewing, the children were immediately
directed to the play materials and told, “Go play!” The duo was allowed three minutes to
play or until they stopped playing (e.g., sat in the absence of making vocalizations or
manipulating any play materials for longer than 15 seconds) before the three minutes
elapsed. There were no programmed consequences for this play period, regardless of if
the response were scripted or not. If the target child engaged in his scripted response, the
adult play partner immediately moved onto their next line. If the target child engaged in
an appropriate unscripted response or initiation, the play partner would quickly respond
in a neutral way and then immediately move onto their next line of the script. For
example, if the child made an unscripted comment such as, “I think the chicken laid an
egg!” the play partner would simply respond with, “Really?” and then move onto her
next line. In other words, the play partner did not provide a lot of acknowledgement or
31
enthusiasm in her response to the child’s comment. If the target child engaged in an
inappropriate or incorrect response, the adult play partner ignored the child for 10
seconds and then moved onto their next line in the script. For example, if the child made
his car repetitively crash into the play partner’s character in a rough manner, she would
then ignore this for 10 seconds and then move onto her next scripted line. These video
viewing sessions continued until the target child demonstrated a steady rate of
responding, regardless of whether they engaged in the scripted behavior or not.
No Video (NV)
During No Video (NV) condition, the videos were removed and everything else
was identical to the initial baseline condition as described above.
Video + Social Consequence (VS)
During the VS condition, the materials were set up identical to how they were in
the first two conditions. Any and all occurrences of unscripted behavior and interactions
received a social consequence while all scripted responses were ignored and had no
programmed consequences. Scripted responses were being ignored as to further increase
the amount of unscripted play behavior and interactions that the children engaged in than
in previous phases. Social reinforcement was provided briefly by the adult play partner in
the form of an energetic and enthusiastic response to the child’s spontaneous
vocalization, action, or interaction (e.g., if the child initiated, “Let’s have a race,” the play
partner would say, “Oh cool! That sounds like a really fun idea! You go first!” If the
child continued to engage in these unscripted responses, the play partner continued to
32
provide the same level of social consequence for each response, creating an extended
reciprocal play chain. As mentioned earlier, if the target child engaged in an
inappropriate or incorrect response, the adult play partner ignored the child for 10
seconds and then moved onto their next line in the script as to redirect the child back to
appropriate play. If the child engaged in one of their scripted responses, the play partner
would respond with her next line in the script. The difference between this condition and
baseline was that the adult play partner delivered her response to unscripted behavior
with a lot more interest, enthusiasm, and energy versus in baseline; she would have
simply stated something neutral such as, “nice!” or “cool” while providing minimal eye
contact in response to the child’s initiation or spontaneous play. This type of social
consequence was a more natural and socially appropriate way of increasing the
unscripted play behavior that the children engaged in.
Generalization Probes (G)
Generalization sessions were conducted one week after mastery of video skills
with a similar aged peer play partner (i.e., rather than the adult play partner) in a different
room of the house to assess for generalization. The same play sets, characters, and
objects were used to observe whether generalization would occur with the same materials
but while playing with a different person.
33
Chapter 3
RESULTS
Nick
Figure 1 depicts the percentage of scripted (closed circles and squares) and
unscripted (open circles and squares) play behaviors, as well as interactive play
(triangles) performed by Nick across the two different play scripts. During the baseline
phase for the Garage play script (upper panel), Nick performed zero scripted actions and
one scripted vocalization (M=5%). He also performed moderate levels of appropriate
unscripted actions (M=42%) and vocalizations (M=50%). However, some of his
spontaneous play was not necessarily related to the context of the play materials (e.g.,
vocalizing, “We’re going to Disneyland!” while keeping his character in the same
position on the roof of the barn for several seconds), in which case was not scored as a
correct unscripted response as it did not relate to the theme of the play set. He also
displayed low levels of interaction (M=17%; e.g., he would simply make his character
say, “Hi” to his partner’s character or he would move an object out of the way for the
other character to get by but did not engage in extended sequences of reciprocal
interactions). In some cases, Nick would receive a correct score for both unscripted
behavior and interaction as he would be manipulating and sharing materials as well as
engaging in some spontaneous vocalizations or actions. The introduction of the video
modeling phase led to a rapid increase in the scripted actions (M=78%) and vocalizations
34
(M=73%) and drastically suppressed the unscripted actions (M=5%) and vocalizations
(M=14%). After only the third session of viewing, Nick was performing the scripted
actions and vocalization at 100% correct. Additionally, a rapid increase in play
interactions was observed (M=96%) after the introduction of the video models (i.e., he
was responding to every single initiation or comment made by his play partner that was
built into the script). Once the videos were removed again during the No Video phase,
Nick’s unscripted actions (M=57%) and vocalizations (M=45%) returned to near
baseline levels whereas his scripted actions (M=3.3%) and vocalizations (M=8%)
decreased significantly. Here, he was only performing one to three of the scripted actions
or vocalizations and displayed higher levels of unscripted behavior than in baseline.
Noteworthy, his unscripted behavior was more thematic than what was observed during
baseline. For example, during baseline, Nick made the man with a car fly in the air while
vocalizing a random screaming sound such as, “ahhhh” or he bounced the man on top of
the car garage while yelling, “We’re going to Disneyland” as mentioned earlier. Nick’s
unscripted behavior now included more thematic play such as driving his car to different
garage floors or traveling the farm tractor to pick up the corn in the field; two actions that
were not modeled in the videos but were appropriately related to the play sets.
Additionally, his interactions (M=23%) decreased to near baseline levels once the videos
were removed and were variable throughout most of this condition. For example, Nick
would show interest and make initiations toward the play partner during some sessions
and would engage in more solo play during other sessions.
35
After the introduction of the video plus reinforcement phase, Nick’s unscripted
actions (M=61%) and vocalizations (M=52%) increased while near zero levels of
scripted actions (M=3%) and vocalizations (M=0%) were maintained from the previous
condition. Once his unscripted play behavior started producing more enthusiastic and
reinforcing responses from his play partner, he continued engaging in spontaneous play
and stopped attempting to perform any of the scripted behavior as it was being put on
extinction. Finally, the interaction levels (M=65%) increased and maintained at a higher
level than previous phases as a result of the social consequences. All of the scores during
the reinforcement phase were found to be significantly higher than the initial baseline
phase. One week after the completion of the video modeling procedures, the
generalization probe for the Garage Script was conducted. Nick did not perform any of
the scripted actions or vocalizations but demonstrated the highest levels of unscripted
actions (89%), vocalizations (78%), and interaction levels (78%) with his peer.
During the baseline phase for the Barn play script (Figure 1, lower panel), Nick
performed zero scripted actions and vocalizations, low levels of unscripted actions
(M=33%) and vocalizations (M=41%) and a very low levels of play interaction
(M=14%). He engaged in similar actions and vocalizations to those of his Garage Script
baseline (e.g., making his character jump and say, “We’re going to Disneyland” or
vocalizing several different sound effects as he moved his character about the play set
without really paying attention to his play partner’s behavior). Again, the introduction of
the video modeling phase led to a rapid increase in the modeled actions (M=49%) and
36
vocalizations (M=49%), but produced variable results with his unscripted actions
(M=43%) and vocalizations (M=37%). Initially he performed six to seven of the scripted
actions and vocalizations during the session, but consistently stopped responding at the
same point in the script each session. After about six correct scripted responses, Nick
would begin engaging in unscripted play behavior which was not always appropriate
(e.g., silly or repetitive in nature), in accordance with our operational definitions. After
the introduction of the video models, a large increase in play interaction was observed
(M=57%). However, this level of performance did not maintain stability throughout this
condition. Upon removal of the videos, Nick’s scripted actions (M=0%) and
vocalizations (M=7%) returned to baseline levels. His unscripted actions (M=68%) and
vocalizations (M=46%) slightly increased from the video model phase and his
interactions (M=29%) decreased considerably (e.g., he returned to solo play and paid
minimal attention to his play partner). Again, the introduction of the video modeling plus
reinforcement phase led to a further increase in his unscripted actions (M=69%) and
vocalizations (M=50%) and maintained at zero levels of scripted actions and
vocalizations. Nick’s play continued to become more thematic as he received social
consequences for appropriate comments and actions that were related to the theme of the
play set. Finally, the interaction levels (M=67%) were the highest and continued on an
upward trend as a result of the social consequences being delivered for all of his
interactions. Similar to the first play script, all of the scores during the reinforcement
phase were found to be significantly higher than the initial baseline phase suggesting that
37
the direct reinforcement or delivery of social consequences of unscripted play behavior
created more opportunities than the video models were able to. During the generalization
phase for the Barn Script, Nick performed one of the scripted actions (10%) and one
vocalization (10%) but again displayed the highest levels of unscripted actions (72%),
vocalizations (78%), and interaction levels (78%) with his peer. He maintained a close
proximity and interacted with his peer the majority of the play session.
38
Figure 1. Results for Nick. Percentage of scripted and unscripted actions (circles),
scripted and unscripted vocalizations (squares), and interactions (triangles) that occurred
during the baseline (BL), Video Modeling (VM), No Video (NV), Video + Social
Consequence (VS), and generalization (G) play sessions for Nick.
39
Levi
Figure 2 depicts the percentage of scripted (closed circles and squares) and
unscripted (open circles and squares) play behavior, as well as interactive play (triangles)
performed by Levi across the two different play scripts. During the baseline phase for the
Barn play script (upper panel), Levi performed zero scripted actions and very low levels
of scripted vocalizations (M=3%) Although not very high, he displayed moderate levels
of unscripted actions (M=33%) and vocalizations (M=41%) during baseline probes. His
vocalizations and actions were somewhat thematic but mostly consisted of solo play
which included many different sound effects and repetitive actions. For example, he
made a variety of screeching or crashing car sounds (e.g., “Errrrrrrrrr” or “Ppsshhhhh”)
or airplane sounds (e.g., “Neeeer”) as he manipulated the characters in ways that were not
related to the play sets (e.g., flying them aimlessly through the air or bouncing them
around the play set with no direction). Levi did display some interactive play behavior
(M=35%) such as asking the play partner different questions about what she was doing,
however, he mostly sat and just observed what his play partner was doing without joining
in.
After viewing the videos, Levi’s number of scripted actions (M=20%) and
vocalizations (M=12%) slightly increased. Slightly differing from Nick’s results, Levi’s
unscripted actions (M=80%) and vocalizations (M=68%) did continue to increase as well
as his scripted responses during this condition. Likewise, his interactive play behavior
increased (M=62%) and he demonstrated much more consistent reciprocal play as a result
40
of the video viewing. Consequently, Levi established a short history of reinforcement
simply by playing with his partner as the number of sessions increased which in turn;
created more interactions. As his scripted behavior did not significantly increase upon the
viewing of the videos, Levi was given a specific “rule” to copy what he saw in the video
(e.g., “Watch the girl in the video, and when it’s over, you are going to copy how she
played with the toys.”). After receiving this rule, an inverse effect was observed where
his number of scripted actions (M=88%) and vocalizations (M=73%) increased
dramatically and his unscripted actions (M=25%) and vocalizations (M=11%) greatly
decreased. Additionally, his interactive play behavior (M=90%) increased a significant
amount as well. Levi was performing nine out of ten scripted actions and vocalizations
while staying on cue with his play partner’s scripted lines.
During the return to baseline or NV condition, Levi’s performance returned to
above baseline levels with his unscripted actions (M=64%) and vocalizations (M=69%).
Furthermore, Levi’s scripted actions (M=3%) and vocalizations (M=2%) returned to
baseline levels as well. Although the removal of the video produced a decrease in his
level of interactions (M=69%) as compared to when video was present, his scores
remained higher than in baseline. It should be noted that Levi was constantly observing
his play partner and developing ideas for his own unscripted play behavior although he
did not always initiate interactions with her (e.g., the play partner would be racing her car
down the ramp and Levi would start talking about how fast his car was while not
necessarily directing his vocalizations toward her).
41
The introduction of the video modeling plus reinforcement led to further increases
in his unscripted actions (M=72%) and vocalizations (M=79%) as compared to the No
Video phase. Additionally, Levi did not perform any scripted actions or vocalizations
which was maintained from the previous phase. Finally, Levi’s interaction scores
(M=90%) exceeded both baseline and video modeling levels as a result of the social
consequences delivered. The majority of Levi’s behavior during this condition resulted in
social consequences, which in turn created increased levels of interaction with his play
partner. All of the scores during the reinforcement phase were found to be significantly
higher than the initial baseline phase. At the one week follow up session, the
generalization phase for the Barn Script resulted in no observed scripted actions or
vocalizations but Levi did demonstrate the highest levels of unscripted actions (83%),
vocalizations (78%), and interaction levels (94%) with his peer. Noteworthy, all of his
unscripted play behavior during this generalization probe was more appropriate and
thematic as compared to the initial baseline probes.
During the baseline phase for the Garage play script (Figure 2, lower panel), Levi
performed very few scripted actions (M=3%) and zero vocalizations. He performed
moderate levels of unscripted actions (M=39%), vocalizations (M=42%), and interactions
(M=39%). Levi’s displayed similar play behavior to the Barn script baseline where he
engaged in some thematic play and subtle interactions but mostly engaged in solo play as
mentioned above. A very significant increase in modeled actions (M=93%), vocalizations
(M=88%), and interactive play (M=95%) was observed after the introduction of the video
42
models. Levi did not require a rule this time as his behavior came under the control of the
rule from the previous play script. Levi’s unscripted actions (M=8%) and vocalizations
(M=5%) significantly decreased as a result of the video models suggesting that the video
extinguished any spontaneous responding. Levi’s scripted actions (M=7%) and
vocalizations (M=0%) returned to near baseline levels after the removal of the video
models and an increase in unscripted play behavior was observed again. His unscripted
actions (M=63%) and vocalizations (M=63%) increased from the video alone phase and
his interactions (M=72%) decreased slightly yet remained higher than baseline. The
introduction of the video plus reinforcement phase led to further increases in his
unscripted actions (M=74%) and vocalizations (M=92%) and maintained at zero levels of
scripted actions and vocalizations. Levi demonstrated appropriate thematic play both in
his vocalizations and actions throughout this condition. Finally, the interaction level
(M=96%) was found to be the highest as a result of the social consequences delivered for
engaging in spontaneous behavior and interactions. Similar to the first play script, all of
the scores during the reinforcement phase were found to be significantly higher than the
initial baseline phase. After the one week follow up for generalization of the Garage
Script, Levi performed zero scripted actions or vocalizations but again displayed high
levels of unscripted actions (89%), vocalizations (72%), and interaction levels (78%)
with his peer. Levi’s overall percentages decreased slightly while playing with the peer
which may have been due to the history of reinforcement that was established with the
43
adult play partner, thus finding that the interactions with the peer may not have been as
reinforcing to him.
44
Figure 2. Results for Levi. Percentage of scripted and unscripted actions (circles),
scripted and unscripted vocalizations (squares), and interactions (triangles) that occurred
during the baseline (BL), Video Modeling (VM), Video Model + Rule (VMR), No Video
(NV), Video + Social Consequence (VS), and Generalization (G) play sessions for Levi.
45
Social Validity
The overall social validity of the study indicated that both families were satisfied
with the video modeling procedures. They strongly agreed with items such as, “Video
modeling increased my child’s interactive play behavior during the sessions” and “I think
video modeling is a socially appropriate training method for children with autism.” Both
of the boy’s families disagreed with items such as, “Video modeling produced strong
negative emotions in my child.” The results of the social validity questionnaires indicate
that both sets of parents considered this type of procedure to be a socially valid training
method for children with Autism spectrum disorders.
46
Table 3
Social Validity- Likert-Type Scale Ratings for Social Validity
Nick
Levi
1. I liked the video modeling
5
5
procedure
2. My child has demonstrated more
1
3
thematic play since the video
modeling procedure.
3. I am satisfied with my child’s
3
4
Response to the video modeling
procedure.
4. Video modeling increased my
5
5
child’s interactive play behavior
during the sessions.
5. I thought the video modeling
5
5
Procedure decreased my child’s
spontaneous play behavior.
6. Video modeling is a socially
4
4
appropriate training method for
children with autism.
7. I think video modeling procedures
5
5
promoted my child’s unscripted play
behavior during the session.
8. My child will benefit in the long run 3
3
from the procedures implemented
in the study.
9. Video modeling produced negative 1
1
Emotional reactions in my child.
10. I feel video modeling produced little
Change in my child’s pretend play
4
2
During session.
________________________________________________________________________
47
Chapter 4
DISCUSSION
The current study supports previous research related to using video modeling to
teach play and interactive skills to children with autism (Hine and Wolery, 2006;
MacDonald, et al., 2005; Palechka & MacDonald, 2010; Reagon, Higbee, & Endicott,
2006). Specifically, the current study replicated and extended the work of MacDonald, et
al (2009) by showing the acquisition of scripted and thematic play behavior as a result of
video modeling. Additionally, our results support the work by Boudreau & D’Entremont
(2010) that shows that video modeling can have a suppressive effect on unscripted or
“spontaneous” play behavior.
Similar to previous findings, Nick and Levi demonstrated rapid acquisition of the
scripted vocalizations and actions after viewing the video models as compared to initial
baseline levels. Prior to the video modeling, both boys engaged in play that was
somewhat “random,” lacking any real theme related to the play sets (e.g., they engaged in
repetitive actions and the majority of their vocalizations were sound effects related to the
vehicles in the play sets). Although they did have some appropriate pretend play skills in
their repertoire prior to the beginning of the study, it was evident that the video modeling
contributed to the increase in their appropriate and related vocalizations and actions.
Upon the introduction of the video models, Nick immediately performed the
scripted vocalizations and actions while the majority of his spontaneous play behavior
48
had completely suppressed. Although the video modeling condition showed us that Nick
was successful in learning his portion of the play scripts and it did increase his thematic
play, this may have been disadvantageous to him as he stopped engaging in the little
unscripted behavior that he had initially displayed in baseline. Additionally, Nick’s
parent did report that he had a long history of reinforcement for imitation which may
have influenced how quickly he memorized the script.
Once the videos were removed, Nick’s unscripted play scores returned to baseline
levels and continued to progress in an upward trend as the intervention continued. Again,
his unscripted actions and vocalizations were now more thematic and related to the play
materials suggesting that the video models did have a permanent effect over Nick’s play
behavior. For example, Nick would pretend to drive through a car wash on a different
level of the garage or made his farm character ask the other characters what their names
were and if they wanted to go for a ride with him in the tractor. Unfortunately, his
interaction scores decreased upon the removal of the videos. Once social consequences
were delivered for every initiation, spontaneous action, or vocalization he produced, his
scores increased even further than in the video modeling condition. This suggests that
social consequences were effective in increasing his overall performance scores.
Differently than Nick, little change was observed in Levi’s scripted responses
upon the introduction of the video models, whereas his spontaneous play behavior
actually showed a dramatic increase. For example, his play became far more thematic and
he was observed to make more reciprocal comments and actions to that of his play
49
partner. After four sessions of little to no change in his scripted responses, we gave him a
“rule” to copy what the girl was doing and saying in the video. The rule was given to
assess whether or not Levi was able to imitate the scripted responses modeled in the
videos. Once the videos were removed again, both Levi’s unscripted play and interaction
scores were higher than in the initial baseline. Upon receiving the social consequences for
every initiation, spontaneous action, or vocalization he produced, Levi’s scores slightly
increased again. This suggests that, like Nick, the social consequences were effective in
increasing his overall performance scores and he was able to achieve and maintain high
levels of interaction with his play partner.
Both Nick and Levi displayed reasonably low levels (M= 13% for Nick and M=
37% for Levi) of interaction prior to the start of the study. During baseline, the children
primarily engaged in parallel play with the adult play partner (i.e., they sat next to the
adult but rarely made eye contact, did not respond to, or direct any initiations toward
them. Following the introduction of video modeling, the children both produced
significant increases in their interaction levels throughout the remainder of the study (M=
13% for Nick and M= 37% for Levi). These results support previous findings
(MacDonald, 2009; Reagon, Higbee, & Endicott, 2006; Taylor, Levin, & Jasper, 1999)
suggesting that video modeling can be a method of facilitating sequences of interactions
with a play partner. It should be noted that the video modeling helped more with the
participant’s overall interaction levels rather than the actual play language and actions
they were engaging in. Naturally, engaging in appropriate vocalizations and/or actions is
50
a very important play skill, but the interaction a child has with his or her peers while
using those play skills is the more valuable skill for them to learn.
Interestingly, both Nick and Levi’s results for their unscripted actions and
vocalizations indicated that the video models did, in fact have a suppressive effect on
their spontaneous play behavior. This supports the findings of Boudreau & D’Entremont
(2010) suggesting that repeated exposures to the same videos may suppress the
production of unscripted or spontaneous play behavior in children who have some in their
repertoire to start.
The videos controlled the play behavior of both boys although no explicit
instructions were given to copy what they observed in the video (with the exception of
the rule given to Levi for the Barn script). It was interesting that they rarely added any
additional actions or vocalizations to the scripted lines or actions even though they were
both capable of doing so according to their baseline scores. Once they completed their
portion of the scripted responses, they stopped playing with the toys all together. On only
a few instances, Nick continued to play on his own after he completed the script;
however, this additional play was not always appropriate. Levi never continued on to add
his own actions or vocalizations into the play after he completed the scripted responses
(e.g., he would stop what he was doing and look at the video camera to indicate that he
had finished his script and was done playing). As part of the social validity survey, one
of the questions was, “I thought the video modeling decreased my child’s spontaneous
play behavior,” and interestingly enough, the parents agreed with this statement.
51
Another interesting finding of this study was when video was removed with both
boys, the nature of the spontaneous vocalizations and play changed from its original
form. Both boys demonstrated play that was more thematic and appropriate (i.e., related
to the context of the materials and not stereotypic or repetitive in nature), suggesting that
video modeling is a teaching tool that may affect future probability of behavior. Although
both boys demonstrated some appropriate play and language skills, the scripted videos
worked as a tool to facilitate spontaneous play ideas in each of the boys.
In addition to the increases noted above, the generalization phase resulted in
maintenance of high scores while playing with a similar age, typically developing peer.
However, it is important to note that the social consequences provided by the peer were
not as strong or enthusiastic compared to those delivered by the adult play partner. This
has interesting implications in that our method of reinforcement may not have even been
necessary to evoke higher levels of unscripted play and interactions as both boys
continued to perform at high levels simply with the basic social consequences that their
peers provided. Here again, we can support past findings that video modeling can be a
powerful teaching tool in that the videos can foster thematic play that children with
autism can learn to use when playing with same-aged peers (D’Ateno, Mangiapanello, &
Taylor, 2003; MacDonald, 2009; Sancho, et al., 2010).
In this study, we chose to use a less obvious and more socially appropriate
method of reinforcement (i.e., compared to other types of reinforcement such as edible;
Sancho, Sidener, Reeve, Sidener, 2010, verbal praise, or token delivery; Boudreau &
52
D’Entremont, 2010) to increase the amount of unscripted play behavior and interactions
in both boys during the video plus reinforcement phase. We wanted to challenge this
notion as we saw play increase as a result of very subtle reinforcement which was
embedded into the play sessions. Reagon, Higbee, & Endicott (2006) suggest that video
modeling alone was effective in producing scripted and unscripted behavior as well as
interactions without the aid of outside reinforcement. Additionally, Boudreau &
D’Entremont (2010) suggested that future studies should, “lessen or eliminate
reinforcement all together” as these consequences did not necessarily produce dramatic
changes in their play. It is likely that these children would encounter reinforcing social
consequences through contingencies in the natural environment (e.g., a peer commenting,
smiling, or responding to an initiation that the target child makes) which is what we
attempted to simulate through our adult play partner’s interactions with the children
during the social consequence phase. Koegel, O’Dell, & Koegel (1987) discuss the
importance of employing naturalistic reinforcers to broaden treatment gains in children
with autism. They also discuss the efficiency of video modeling in the absence of
programmed consequences such as prompting and praise.
Both boys ended up requiring a similar number of sessions to complete the entire
training process (M= 20) with each boy participating in fewer sessions during their
second play script. This may suggest that the video modeling process may have some
history effects related to it and as the boys became more familiar with the training
53
procedures, they were able to acquire the modeled responses in fewer sessions for their
second scripts.
In summary, the results of the current study indicate that video modeling is an
effective method for teaching thematic play and social skills to children with autism.
Both of the participants met the performance criteria and ended up with significantly
higher play and interactive scores than their initial baselines. Additionally, the overall
quality of their play became more thematic and relevant to the play materials they were
using.
Limitations
While the current study demonstrates strong experimental control and replication
of the results across participants, there are some limitations that should be considered.
Firstly, we were not able to produce the most naturalistic results possible as we used an
adult as the play partner for convenience of data collection purposes. Although we did
one generalization probe with a typically developing peer, the results would be much
more meaningful had we conducted the entire study using a same-aged peer. If familiar
peer participants were utilized throughout the entire study (versus for generalization
only), we may have seen similar results, with the exception of potential extended
maintenance of skills and generalization. In other words, the training with a familiar
same-aged peer may have fostered generalized play skills across activities, play
materials, and environments beyond the realm of the study. Chandler and Lubeck (1992)
discuss the need for increased use of baseline and normative comparisons to better
54
control for potential treatment inflation which is something that may have occurred in the
present study due to the utilization of an adult as a peer play partner. The scores may
have been inflated with an adult as the play partner possibly due to the fact that children
receiving behavior intervention services typically have a history of reinforcement with
adults, therefore; the scores may have been inflated because of this. We were not able to
include information about normative scores and how the target children performed in
comparison to their typically developing peers in this study; however, future research
should look into expanding on this idea and continue to utilize peers as much as possible
during social skill training.
Another limitation that should be noted in relation to using an adult as the play
partner was the lack of control we had for the adult’s responding during the Baseline and
No Video phases. Because the adult play partner was only instructed to respond in a
neutral fashion (i.e., not very enthusiastic or energetic) without initiating any play with
the child, her responding may have solicited more behavior at times and less at other
times. In other words, no explicit guidelines were created around what specifically to say
or not say in response to the child’s initiations. Future studies should look at developing a
system to control for this issue and ensure that the play partner is consistently responding
during each occurrence of an initiation.
Each of the play scripts was developed based on observations of typically
developing children interacting with the exact play materials used in this study; however,
midway through data collection, it was noted that the garage script seemed easier for the
55
boys to learn than the barn script. The Garage Script required that the target child use
only one character and one object throughout the entire script and the same for the play
partner. Conversely, the Barn Script required each person to change characters, objects,
and roles throughout the script, which may have been more difficult for the boys to learn.
Interestingly, the Barn Script is where both boys demonstrated quite a bit of varied
responding during the video modeling phase, which ended up taking them a little longer
to learn that particular script. Future researchers should ensure that the play scripts are
more consistent in terms of effort required to perform them in order to control for
response requirement problems.
A fourth limitation may have been that the participants may have experienced
satiation from the repeated exposure to the videos and became less motivated to interact
in ways that promoted spontaneity in their play. The repeated exposure to the videos may
have extinguished the spontaneous play. As Boudreau & D’Entremont (2010) describe,
Nick and Levi may have had displayed some “inflexibility” in their performance of only
engaging in what was modeled in the videos while missing out on opportunities to add
spontaneous vocalizations or actions to their play. It seems that performing what was
observed in the videos and engaging in additional spontaneous play were competing
behaviors making it difficult for the children to engage in both. Further examination of
how to possibly fade the play scripts or create multiple exemplars to promote more
generalized responding may be of great use in the elimination of the route responding that
often accompanies the video modeling (D’Ateno, Mangiapanello, & Taylor, 2003).
56
A final factor to consider includes the profile of child that we used in this study.
Both Nick and Levi had fairly advanced play skills to begin with, so we may have seen
different results had we recruited participants with fewer play and language skills. These
types of play scripts and videos would be more appropriate for children who have
minimal appropriate vocalizations, actions, and interactions as the scripts would have
given them some basic and appropriate play behaviors to engage in with a play partner.
Again, the idea is for the videos to serve as a guide or building block of how to play and
what to say, while also influencing increased interactive behavior. It is possible that the
unscripted or “spontaneous” play behavior of the boys in this study could have simply
increased with basic reinforcement or social consequences.
Future Research
Future research should seek to replicate and extend the current study to continue
to examine the effects of video modeling and how to best utilize it as a teaching tool for
children with developmental disabilities. In addition, the results found in this study may
be strengthened and further supported if additional participants are used; especially those
who have fewer play skills in their repertoire to begin with. This is a population who
would most likely benefit from this type of intervention.
Another area to examine in future research would be to measure the overall
duration of interactions pre and post video modeling procedure as well as the quality of
interactions taking place. While the children in this study may have interacted on several
different occasions, we had no measure for their quality (i.e., meaningful or contextually
57
related interactions) or of any significant length. We recommend that both of these
variables are investigated in future studies as they would provide valuable information
into further developing the best methods for teaching social and interaction skills. It is
important that we are not only teaching the children to interact but to engage in quality
interactions with their peers.
The play skills in this procedure were very basic and were designed for young
preschool or kindergarten aged children with more severe deficits in their play and social
skills than these two children displayed. It would be interesting to use these video
modeling procedures with children who have less advanced play skills and see if the
scripted videos promote their responding to the next level in the teaching procedure. The
current study did not include criteria for probing of independence of either teaching
procedure.
Implications
Of primary importance is the finding that in addition to the positive changes in
their social behavior, for both of the boys, the video modeling actually suppressed their
unscripted or spontaneous play. This suggests that video modeling may not have been the
most appropriate method to increase the spontaneity in their pretend play skills.
Nonetheless, it helped to foster their vocalizations into more thematic play when it was
removed in which case, the videos could be used in a different way.
Furthermore, the use of video modeling served as a method of decreasing problem
or unrelated behavior (e.g., unrelated, stereotypic, or inappropriate sound effects or play)
58
as appropriate behavior increases through the implementation of the procedures. The
more appropriate play and social skills we can teach, the more incompatible they become
with the problematic or inappropriate play behavior.
The use of social consequences (i.e., more energetic and enthusiastic responses)
on the unscripted actions and vocalizations was a key component in the increase of
unscripted behavior as well as interactions in both children. Video modeling could be an
important tool to use in future programming for unscripted play behavior. This type of
video modeling procedure may be more appropriate for children who have fewer verbal
skills or who have less advanced play skills. As these children displayed moderate
language and play skills to begin with, the videos did not serve as a discriminative
stimulus for developing new play ideas in addition to the scripted responses like we had
hoped. However, we do feel that the results of this study suggest that video modeling is
an effective and efficient method of teaching a wide spectrum of skills to children with
autism.
59
APPENDIX A
Play Script Data Sheet- Garage Script
Garage Play Script
Date : _____________
Session Time: _____________
Mark data as (+) = Correct
Scripted Actions + Vocalizations
Observer: ____________
(-) = Incorrect
Vocal
S core
Action
S core
Child: _____________
(NR) = No Response
Unscripted Actions + Vocalizations
(P) = Peer (TC) = Target Child
P: "Good Afternoon!" (walking mechanic over to man
in blue car).
1) TC: "My car is dirty!" (drives car up to mechanic)
P: "No problem! Follow Me!" (drives tow truck around
to entrance on side of garage)
2) TC: "I need gas too!" (follows tow truck to entrance
on side of garage)
P: "Scrub, scrub, swish, swish" (makes mechanic
wash blue car)
3) TC: "I'll wait upstairs!" (puts man in elevatormoves green lever up to top floor- takes man out)
P: "Stop! Security!" (drives police officer over to other
man)
4) TC: "Hello Officer!" (makes man wave to police
officer)
P: "Okay! Goodbye!" (drives police car down the
ramp)
5) TC: "Gotta get my car!" (gets back into elevatormoves green lever down to bottom floor- takes man
out)
P: "All clean! Don’t forget your gas!" (pushes blue car
to man outside)
6) TC: "Thanks Mister! Glug, glug, glug" (drives man
in blue car and fills up with gas)
P: "Want to race?" (drives mechanic in tow truck to
talk to man in blue car)
7) TC: "Sure- you go first!" (puts cars on top of
garage)
P: "Here I go- Weeeeeee" (rolling tow truck down the
ramp)
8) TC: "My turn! Zoooom! " (rolling blue car down
the ramp)
P: "Oh no! A flat tire!" takes mechanic out of tow truck
to look at man's tire)
9) TC: "Thanks for fixing it!" (gives mechanic a high
five)
P: All done working!" (puts mechanic back into tow
truck)
10) TC: "See you soon!" (puts man in blue car and
drives away)
Score: # of Correct Responses/
Total Opportunities for Child to Respond
Vocal Score- TC:_______/10 P:________/10
Action Score- TC: _______/10 P: ________/10
Additional Notes/Observations/Bx Issues:
60
APPENDIX B
Play Script Data Sheet- Barn Script
Barn Play Script
Date : _____________
Se ssion Time : _____________
Mark data as (+) = Correct
Scripted Actions + Vocalizations
Obse rve r: ____________
(-) = Incorrect
Vocal
S core
Action
S core
Child: _____________
(NR) = No Response
Unscripted Actions + Vocalizations
(P) = Peer (TC) = Target Child
P: "Time to feed the animals!" (walks farm girl to the
front of the barn)
1) TC: "Beep Beep… Got the apples!" (drives farm
boy in tractor to pick up apples in barn shed- lifts door
to get apples & puts in tractor).
P: "Lets feed the cow" (walks cow out of barn over to
the apples + makes cow eat apples)
2) TC: "I like apples! Oink Oink" (walk pig out of gate
over to eat apples)
P: "You animals need some exercise!" (makes farm girl
talk to the animals and the farm boy)
3) TC: "Let's have a race." (walks horse out of barn,
over near the barn shed)
P: "On your mark, get set, go! Neighhh!" (runs horse
toward tractor)
4) TC: "Yay! I win! (runs cow fast towards tractor)
P: "Let's get a drink" (walks horse to get a drink on
side of barn)
5) TC: "I'm thirsty! Gulp Gulp Gulp" (follows horse to
side of barn, pretends to drink)
P: "I want to visit chicken" (puts horse up top in
chicken coup- slides chicken from left to right to make
chicken sound)
6) TC: "I'm going to visit Mr. Goat" (walks into the
barn where the goat is)
P: "There's hay everywhere!" (makes farm girl pretend
to sweep)
7) TC: "Im going for a ride" (drives tractor back to
barn shed- makes farm boy put apples inside)
P: "Okay Mr. Pig. Go to your home!" (opens pig gate,
puts pig back in barn)
8) TC: "Time for lunch! Hop in!" (driving tractor to
pick up farm girl)
P: "Goodbye Animals!" (puts farm girl in back of
tractor)
9) TC: "Honk honk honk!" (drives tractor around
barn)
P: "Thanks for the ride friend." (makes farm girl wave
to farm boy)
10) TC: "See you tomorrow!" (parks the tractor near
the barn shed)
Score: # of Correct Responses/
Total Opportunities for Child to Respond
Vocal Score- TC:_______/10 P:________/10
Action Score- TC: _______/10 P: ________/10
Additional Notes/Observations/Bx Issues:
61
APPENDIX C
Interval Scoring Data Sheet
Interval Scoring Data Sheet
Child:
Script: __________________
IOA Initials: ____________
Session: _______________
Date: ____________
Spontaneous Play (Partial Interval)
Opperational Definitions: (V= Vocalization, A=Action)
Unscripted vocalizations. Defined as vocalizations that differ from the script in the video model by more than sound effects,
conjunctions, articles, prepositions, or pronouns, or changes in the verb tense but are deemed appropriate. In order to score the
vocalization as unscripted, the child must state a word that varies from that of the scripted model (e.g., the child said, “M y pig likes to
drink water!” instead of saying, “Time to feed the pigs” or “These apples taste so good” versus “M mm, I like apples!” “M y pig likes to
drink water” did not occur in the script and was therefore coded as unscripted. Repetitions of the same statements will only be scored
as unscripted the first time they are vocalized within that session. Additionally, vocalizations will not be scored as unscripted if the
child repeats a line that was modeled from the play partner’s script
Unscripted play actions. Defined as motor responses that are not modeled in the video scripts but are appropriately related to the
context of the play activity. The play action will not be scored as unscripted if the action is simply repetitious in nature (e.g., driving a
car back and forth repetitively in the same motion) or if it is an action that was modeled from the play partner’s script. In order to score
the play action as unscripted, it must vary from that of the play action modeled in the video (e.g., the child was making the cow moo to
the chicken instead of making him run to the barn). Repetitions of the same actions will only be scored as unscripted the first time
they are performed within that session. Additionally, actions that are corrective in nature (e.g., picking up a toy that was accidentally
dropped) are not scored as a spontaneous response.
10 sec
10 sec
10 sec
10 sec
10 sec
10 sec
1 Minute
V
A
V
A
V
A
V
A
V
A
V
A
2 Minutes
V
A
V
A
V
A
V
A
V
A
V
A
3 Minutes
V
A
V
A
V
A
V
A
V
A
V
A
Vocalizations (V)
# Intervals circled ________/ 18 Total = __________ %
Actions (A)
# Intervals circled ________/ 18 Total = __________ %
IOA
# Agreements________/ Total #Agreements+Disagreements = __________ %
Cooperative Play (Whole Interval)
Opperational Definition: (P= Proximity, O=Orientation, I=Interaction)
Interactive Play. Interactive play includes offering and receiving materials to and from the play partner (e.g., handing the play
partner the apples to put inside the barn or accepting a toy that is being offered) as well as talking about the same scripted or
unscripted topics (e.g., driving different cars down the ramp and talking about how fast they were going). Play is not counted as
interactive if the duo is simply engaging in parallel play (e.g., sitting and playing next to each other in the absence of interacting)
or if it is repetitive or stereotypic in nature (e.g., the child makes the same repetitive initiation to the play partner several times).
10 sec
10 sec
10 sec
10 sec
10 sec
10 sec
1 Minute
P O I
P O I
P O I
P O I
P O I
P O I
2 Minutes
P O I
P O I
P O I
P O I
P O I
P O I
3 Minutes
P O I
P O I
P O I
P O I
P O I
P O I
Proximity (P)
# Intervals circled ________/ 18 Total = __________ %
Orientation (O)
# Intervals circled ________/ 18 Total = __________ %
Interaction (I)
# Intervals circled ________/ 18 Total = __________ %
IOA
# Agreements________/ Total #Agreements+Disagreements = __________ %
62
APPENDIX D
Social Validity Scale
After observing the video sessions, please answer all questions honestly and to the best of
your ability. This will help to interpret the overall social validity of the study for future
reference. Thank you for your participation in this survey.
1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Agree, 5 = Strongly Agree
1. I liked the Video Modeling procedure.
1
2
3
4
5
2. My child has demonstrated more thematic play
since the video modeling procedure.
1
2
3
4
5
3. I am satisfied with my child’s response to the video
modeling procedure.
1
2
3
4
5
4. Video modeling increased my child’s interactive play
behavior during the sessions.
1
2
3
4
5
5. I thought the video modeling procedure
decreased my child’s spontaneous
play behavior.
1
2
3
4
5
6. Video modeling is a socially appropriate training
method for children with autism.
1
2
3
4
5
7. I think video modeling procedures promoted my child’s
unscripted play behavior during the session.
1
2
3
4
5
8. My child will benefit in the long run from the
procedures implemented in this study.
1
2
3
4
5
9. Video modeling produced negative emotional reactions
in my child.
1
2
3
4
5
10. I feel video modeling produced little change in my
child’s pretend play during session.
1
2
3
Please provide any additional comments/suggestions about the procedure:
4
5
63
APPENDIX E
Video Modeling Treatment Integrity Checklist
Observer: __________________________________
Date: _________________
Child: _____________________________________
Session:_______________
Play Script: _________________________________
Materials/Equipment
1. Play Set (Barn or Garage)
2. Play Characters and Objects
3. DVD Player
4. Play Script DVD
5. Video Camera
6. Digital Timer
7. Adult play script cheat sheet
8. Prize Box
Procedure
9. During video viewing, child and adult play
partner were positioned to correspond with
roles they assumed in the video models
10. Child viewed video two times
11. Timer was set for 3 minutes
12. Experimenter told child to, “Go Play” after
video viewing
13. During play, child and adult play partner
were positioned to correspond with roles they
assumed in the video models
14. Child stays in the designated play area for
duration of play
15. Correct scripted responses were reciprocated
with the next line of the script
16. Appropriate unscripted responses received no
social consequence
17. Appropriate unscripted responses were
reinforced
18. Incorrect/Inappropriate responses were
ignored for 10 seconds before moving onto
next line in script
19. Session lasted no longer than 30 minutes
20. Child was given the opportunity to select an
item from the prize box
Yes
No
N/A
Comments
Yes
No
N/A
Comments
Total # of Steps Completed: _________
Total # of Correct Steps: ____________
# of Correct steps /Total # of steps completed : _____________
Total % of Tx Integrity for the session: _________________
64
APPENDIX F
Child Preference Questionnaire
The purpose of this survey is to obtain information about the toys that you believe would
be useful as rewards for your child.
If you have signed the consent form, please answer the following questions regarding
your child’s preferences:
1. Some children really enjoy toys (e.g., puzzles, books, blocks, figurines, musical
toys, playdoh, etc.) and special treats (e.g., candy, fruit snacks, cookies, cereal,
crackers, sodas or juices, etc.) that they do not have access to on a regular basis. What
are the specific toys/edible items your child really likes?










__________________________
__________________________
__________________________
__________________________
__________________________
__________________________
__________________________
__________________________
__________________________
__________________________
2. Please go back to the list in question number one, and place a number in each box to
rank these toys from most favorite (1) to least favorite (10).
3. Are there any toys/edible items that you would prefer your child not to play with
during our study?
________________________________________________________________________
65
REFERENCES
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Baker, S.D., Lang, R., & O’Reilly, M. (2009). Review of video modeling with students
with emotional and behavioral disorders. Education and Treatment of Children,
32(3), 403-420.
Bellini, S. & Akullian, J. (2007). A meta-analysis of video modeling and video selfmodeling interventions for children and adolescents with autism spectrum
disorder. Exceptional Children, 73(3), 264-287.
Boudreau, E. & D’Entremont, B. (2010). Improving pretend play skills of preschoolers
with autism spectrum disorders: The effects of video modeling. Journal of
Developmental Disabilities, 22, 415-431.
Burgess, S. & Turkstra, L.S. (2006). Social skills intervention for adolescents with
autism spectrum disorders: A review of the experimental evidence. EBP Briefs,
1(4), 121.
Catania, A.C. (2007). Learning (Interim 4th ed.). Cornwall-on-Hudson, NY: Sloan
Publishing, LLC.
Chandler, L.K., Lubeck, R.C., & Fowler, S.A. (1992). Generalization and maintenance of
preschool children’s social skills: A critical review and analysis. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 415-428.
66
Charlop-Christy, M.H. & Daneshvar, S. (2003). Using video modeling to teach
perspective taking to children with autism. Journal of Positive Behavior
Interventions, 5(1), 12-21.
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 Disabilities, 30(6), 537-552.
Charlop, M.H. & Milstein, J.P. (1989). Teaching autistic children conversational speech
using video modeling. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 22, 275-285.
Chung, K., Reavis, S., Mosconi, M., Josiah D., Matthews, T. Tasse’, M.J. (2007). Peer
mediated social skills training program for young children with high functioning
autism. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 28, 423-436.
Corbett, B.A. (2003). Video modeling: A window into the world of autism. The Behavior
Analyst Today, 4(3), 367-377.
D’Ateno, P., Mangiapanello, K., & Taylor, B.A. (2003). Using video modeling to teach
complex play sequences to a preschooler with autism. Journal of Positive
Behavior Interventions, 5(1), 5-11.
Dauphin, M., Kinney, E.M., & Stromer, R. (2004). Using video-enhanced activity
schedules and matrix training to teach sociodramatic play to a child with autism.
Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 6(4) 238-250.
Delano, M.E. (2007). Video modeling interventions for individuals with autism.
Remedial and Special Education, 28(1), 33-42.
67
Garfinkle, A.N., & Schwartz, I.S. (2002). Peer imitation: Increasing social interactions in
children with autism and other developmental disabilities in inclusive preschool
classrooms. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 22(1), 26-38.
Gresham, F.M., Sugai, G., & Horner, R.H. (2001). Interpreting outcomes of social skills
training for students with high-incidence disabilities. Exceptional Children, 67(3),
331-344.
Haring, T.G., Breen,C.G., Weiner, J., Kennedy, C.G., Bednersh, F. (1995). Using
videotape modeling to facilitate generalized purchasing skills. Journal of
Behavioral Education, 5(1), 29-53.
Haring, T.G., & Breen, C.G. (1992). A peer-mediated social network intervention to
enhance the social integration of persons with moderate and severe disabilities.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 319-333.
Hine, J.F. & Wolery, M. (2006). Using point-of-view video modeling to teach play to
preschoolers with autism. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 26(2),
83-93.
Ihrig, K. & Wolchik, S.A. (1988). Peer versus adult models and autistic children’s
learning: Acquisition, generalization, and maintenance. Journal of Autism and
Developmental Disorders, 31(3), 343-349.
Kamps, D.M., Leonard, B.R., Vernon, S., Dugan, E.P., Gershon, B., Wade, L. & Folk, L.
(1992). Teaching social skills to students with autism to increase peer interactions
68
in an integrated first-grade classroom. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25,
281-288.
Kleeberger, V. & Mirenda, P. (2010). Teaching generalized imitation skills to a
preschooler with autism using video modeling. Journal of Positive Behavior
Interventions, 12(2), 116-127.
Kroeger, K.A., Schultz, J.R., & Newsom, C. (2006). A comparison of two groupdelivered social skills programs for young children with autism. Journal of Autism
and Developmental Disorders, 37, 808-817.
LeBlanc, L.A., Coates, A.M., Daneshvar, S., Charlop-Christy, M.H., Morris, C., &
Lancaster, B.M. (2003). Using video modeling and reinforcement to teach
perspective taking skills to children with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 36, 253-257.
MacDonald, R., Sacramone, S., Mansfield, R., Wiltz, K., & Ahearn, W.H. (2009). Using
video modeling to teach reciprocal pretend play to children with autism. Journal
of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42, 43-55.
MacDonald, R., Clark, M., Garrigan, E. & Vangala, M. (2005). Using video modeling to
teach pretend play to children with autism. Behavioral Interventions, 20, 225-238.
Maione, L. & Mirenda, P. (2006). Effects of video modeling and video feedback on peerdirected social language skills of a child with autism. Journal of Positive
Behavior Interventions,8(2), 106-118.
69
McCoy, K. & Hermansen, E. (2007). Video modeling for individuals with autism: A
review of model types and effects. Education and Treatment of Children, 30(4),
183-213.
McGee, G.G., Feldman, R.S., Morrier, M.J. (1997). Benchmarks of social treatment for
children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 27(4),
353-364.
Nikopoulous, C.K. & Keenan, M. (2007). Using video modeling to teach complex social
sequences to children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental
Disorders, 37, 678-693.
Nikopoulous, C.K. & Keenan, M. (2004). Effects of video modeling on social initiations
by children with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 37, 93-96.
Nikopoulous, C.K. & Keenan, M. (2003). Promoting social initiation in children with
autism using video modeling. Behavior Interventions, 18, 87-108.
Ozonoff, S. & Miller, J.N. (1995). Teaching theory of mind: A new approach to social
skills training for individuals with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental
Disorders, 25(4), 415-433.
Palechka, G. and MacDonald, R. (2010). A comparison of the acquisition of play skills
using instructor-created video models and commercially available videos.
Education and Treatment of Children, 33(3), 457-474.
70
Pierce, K. and Schreibman, L. (1997). Multiple peer use of pivotal response training to
increase social behaviors of classmates with autism: Results from trained and
untrained peers. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,1, 157-160.
Reagon, K.A., Higbee, T.S., & Endicott, K. (2006). Teaching pretend play skills to a
student with autism using video modeling with a sibling as model and play
partner. Education and Treatment of Children, 29, 517-528.
Rosalez-Ruiz, J. & Baer, D.M. (1997). Behavioral cusps: A developmental and pragmatic
concept for behavior analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 533-544.
Rosenberg, N.E., Schwartz, I.S., & Davis, C.A. (2010). Evaluating the utility of
commercial videotapes for teaching hand washing to children with autism.
Education and Treatment of Children, 33(3), 443-455.
Sancho, K., Sidener, T.M., Reeve, S.A., Sidener, D.W. (2010). Two variations of video
modeling interventions for teaching play skills to children with autism. Education
and Treatment of Children, 33(3), 421-442.
Scattone, D. (2007). Social skills interventions for children with autism. Psychology in
the Schools, 44(7), 717-726.
Schreibman, L., Whalen, C., & Stahmer, A.C. (2000). The use of video priming to reduce
disruptive transition behavior in children with autism. Journal of Positive
Behavior Interventions, 2, 3-11.
71
Shabani, D.B., Katz, R.C., Wilder, D.A., Beauchamp, K., Taylor, C.R., & Fischer, K.J.
(2002). Increasing social initiations in children with autism: Effects of a tactile
prompt. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 35, 79-83.
Shipley-Benamou, R., Lutzker, J.R., & Taubman, M. (2002). Teaching daily living skills
to children with autism through instructional video modeling. Journal of Positive
Behavior Interventions, 4(3), 165-175, 188.
Strain, P.S., Kerr, M.M., & Ragland, E.U. (1979). Effects of peer-mediated social
initiations and prompting/reinforcement procedures on the social behavior of
autistic children. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 9(1), 41-54.
Sturmey, P. (2003). Video technology and persons with autism and other developmental
Disabilities: An emerging technology for pbs. Journal of Positive Behavior
Interventions, 5(1), 3-4.
Taylor, B.A., Levin, L., & Jasper, S. (1999). Increasing play-related statements in
children with autism toward their siblings: Effects of video modeling. Journal of
Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 11(3), 253-264.
Tetreault, A.S. & Lerman, D.C. (2010). Teaching social skills to children with autism
using point-of-view modeling. Education and Treatment of Children, 33(3), 395419.
Wetherby, A.M., Watt, N. Morgan, L., & Shumway, S. (2006). Social
communication profiles of children with autism spectrum disorders late in the
second year of life. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders,37, 960-975.
72
Whalen, C., Schreibman, L., & Ingersoll, B. (2006). The collateral effects of joint
attention training on social initiations, positive affect, imitation, and spontaneous
speech for young children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental
Disorders, 36, 655-664.