Article

Journal of Special Education Technology

2018, Vol. 33(3) 145-158
The Effects of Two Video Modeling ª The Author(s) 2017
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
Interventions on the Independent Living DOI: 10.1177/0162643417746149
journals.sagepub.com/home/jst
Skills of Students With Autism Spectrum
Disorder and Intellectual Disability

Kaylee Stahr Wynkoop1, Rachel E. Robertson2, and Rachel Schwartz2

Abstract
Individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and intellectual disability (ID) often have deficits in independent living skills. One
way to improve skills in this area is through the use of video modeling (VM) interventions. The purpose of the study was to
compare the effects of two VM interventions and a third non-video-based intervention on the independent living skills of four
students with ASD and/or ID. Using an adapted alternating treatments design, we investigated the comparative effects of VM plus
prompting and reinforcement (VM þ P&R), continuous video modeling (CVM) plus prompting and reinforcement (CVM þ P&R),
and prompting and reinforcement alone (P&R). Results indicated that two students responded well to both VM þ P&R and P&R,
while CVM þ P&R was most effective for one student. For the last student, all interventions had only minimal effects on target skill
performance, and results were inconclusive. Overall, students required fewer adult-delivered prompts with VM þ P&R and/or
CVM þ P&R, but P&R required less preparation and instructional time.

Keywords
video modeling, continuous video modeling, independent living skills, autism spectrum disorder, intellectual disability, prompting,
reinforcement

Students with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and intellectual
disability (ID) often have independent living skill deficits
(Bouck, 2010; Liss et al., 2000). Students are also at risk for
becoming prompt dependent and reliant on adults to complete
tasks for them (Giangreco & Broer, 2007). Such deficits and
risks are concerning because increased ability to complete
independent living tasks is associated with improved adult out-
comes (Klinger, Klinger, Mussey, Thomas, & Powell, 2015;
Liss et al., 2001; Taylor & Malick, 2013; Woodman, Mailick,
Anderson, & Esbensen, 2014). To help improve students’ abil-
ity to complete critical independent living skills, researchers
should aim to identify effective classroom-based interventions
that allow students to become more self-reliant with such skills.
Unfortunately, many students with ASD are actively
engaged less than half of the time during classroom observa-
tions (Ruble & Robson, 2007; Sparapani, Morgan, Reinhardt,
Schatschneider, & Wetherby, 2016). More research is needed
to identify the most efficient interventions to increase indepen-
dence, as teachers often struggle to find sufficient time to plan
for activities (Johnson & Semmelroth, 2014) in which students
are likely to be actively and independently engaged. When
planning activities, teachers tend to focus instruction on aca-
demic skills rather than independent living skills (Ninci et al.,
2015). Identifying evidence-based practices that actively
engage students with ASD and ID to improve self-reliance with
independent living tasks would benefit both students and teach-
ers (Hong et al., 2016).
Video Modeling (VM): Description, Benefits,
and Challenges
VM may be one intervention that leads to greater independence
with skill completion and has been identified as an evidence-
based practice for addressing independent living skill deficits
of students with ASD (Bellini & Akullian, 2007; Wang &
Koyama, 2014). VM occurs when a student watches a video
1
Department of Communication Disorders, Special Education, and Disability
Services, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Indiana, PA, USA
2
Department of Instruction and Learning, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh,
PA, USA
Corresponding Author:
Kaylee Stahr Wynkoop, Department of Communication Disorders, Special
Education, and Disability Services, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Davis Hall
203, Indiana, PA 15705, USA.
Email: kwynkoop@iup.edu
146
of a model performing a skill in its entirety and then completes
the same skill in the same way (Leblanc et al., 2003).
VM is often used as a stand-alone intervention where no
additional prompting is provided to the student (i.e., Charlop-
Christy, Le, & Freeman, 2000; D’Ateno, Mangiapanello, &
Taylor, 2003; Lowy Apple, Billingsley, & Schwartz, 2005).
VM can also be paired with prompting strategies (i.e., Cihak
& Schrader, 2008; Murzynski & Bourret, 2007; Scott, Collins,
Knight, & Kleinert, 2013; Taber-Doughty, Patton, & Brennan,
2008; Van Laarhoven, Zurita, Johnson, Grider, & Grider, 2009)
or other strategies such as visual cues (Cannella-Malone, Miz-
rachi, Sabielny, & Jimenez, 2013), role-play (Lasater & Brady,
1995), and time delay procedures (Rai, 2008). In addition to the
variety of ways in which VM may be implemented, aspects of
the video model itself can vary. For example, the video may
show an adult model, a peer model, or footage of the student
himself or herself completing the skill. The video can also be
created displaying either a first-person or third-person point of
view (Mason et al., 2013).
Potential benefits of using VM include reduced costs and
time efficiency (Charlop-Christy et al., 2000), increased skill
generalization and maintenance (Haring, Kennedy, & Pitts-
Conway, 1987), and greater consistency with the delivery of
instructional content (Mason et al., 2013). Additionally, VM
may help students who are easily distracted by the environment
to focus on the most relevant stimuli (McCoy & Hermansen,
2007). Moreover, many children enjoy using technology and
watching videos (Charlop-Christy & Daneshvar, 2003). VM
combines instruction with a preferred activity, which may
increase a child’s motivation to perform a skill (Hendricks
et al, 2009). Perhaps more importantly is the intervention’s
conduciveness to incorporating new technology now abun-
dantly prevalent in our schools and society (Ayres & Langone,
2005; Mason et al., 2013), and it may provide students with
opportunities to work with greater independence (Hume, Lof-
tin, & Lantz, 2009).
Despite the potential benefits of VM, one major challenge
practitioners face is selecting from the wide variety of ways
with which VM may be implemented (i.e., different model
types, points of view, and VM alone or paired with other stra-
tegies; Mason et al., 2013). Given the many variations of VM, it
is difficult to predict how a student will respond to a particular
variation of the intervention. Further, VM requires time,
resources, and at least some expertise in technology use to
implement. As such, teachers and parents are often hesitant
to use VM interventions (Mechling, Ayres, Foster, & Bryant,
2013) and may resort to using more familiar non-video-based
interventions (non-VBIs).
Surprisingly, only one known study has compared the
effects of VM paired with prompting strategies to a non-
video-based strategy to address independent living skill deficits
(e.g., least-to-most prompting; Murzynski & Bourret, 2007).
Results support the superiority of VM, as participants acquired
skills in fewer sessions with a video than without. However, the
researchers did not report how long it took to create the video
models nor did they report how long instructional sessions
Journal of Special Education Technology 33(3)
lasted during the different conditions. Further, the study
included only two participants and focused only on two inde-
pendent living skills, providing limited replication of the super-
ior effects of VM over least-to-most prompting.
Also in the VM literature, K. A. Smith, Sheply, Alexander,
Davis, and Ayres (2015) emphasized the importance of inves-
tigating the use of VBIs such as VM to help students become
more self-sufficient when completing independent living skills.
Alternate forms of VM have emerged, which slightly alter the
role of the video. While the video typically serves as an initial
model viewed by a student prior to engaging in a task, the video
can also serve as an ongoing visual prompt. One form of this
type of VM is continuous video modeling (CVM). CVM may
be one way to increase the independence with which students
can use a video to complete independent living skills. In CVM,
the student has access to the video model while completing the
skill as the video is played on a continuous loop (Mechling,
Ayres, Bryant, & Foster, 2014b).
Only two known studies have investigated the effects of
CVM on independent living skills of adolescents with ASD
or ID. In the first study, CVM was highly effective in improv-
ing all independent living skills for all three participants
(Mechling et al., 2014b). The follow-up study compared CVM
to other VBIs (e.g., VM and video prompting [VP]; Mechling,
Ayres, Bryant, & Foster, 2014a). Results showed that for some
participants/skills, CVM was most effective, while VM or VP
was most effective for others. The authors recommend further
investigation to better understand the comparative effects of
CVM. Additionally, based on previous research that pairs
VM with prompting, combining CVM with prompting may
increase effectiveness.
In addition to pairing VM with prompting, many authors
have paired VM with praise or rewards for correct responding
to address independent living skill deficits (i.e., Alcantara,
1994; Alexander, Ayres, Smith, Shepley, & Mataras, 2013;
Cihak & Schrader, 2008; Mechling & Collins, 2012; Scott
et al., 2013; M. Smith, Ayres, Mechling, & Smith, 2013). How-
ever, no authors conducted preference assessments to identify
reinforcers. Positive reinforcement has been cited as a critical
component to intervention effectiveness (Barton, Lawrence, &
Deurloo, 2012; Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 2007). There are no
known studies on the effects of CVM when paired with com-
ponents often included in highly effective VM interventions
such as prompting and reinforcement (P&R; Wang & Koyama,
2014). We hypothesize that pairing CVM with P&R procedures
based on results of a preference assessment may lead to further
increases in the intervention’s effectiveness due to the combi-
nation of multiple effective strategies (i.e., prompting, reinfor-
cement, and VM).
Purpose of Study
The field has learned a great deal from the extant research on
VM interventions to improve the independent living skills of
students with ASD and ID. However, we have yet to identify
the interventions most likely to lead to improved skills
Wynkoop et al. 147

Table 1. Description of Participants.

Student Age Gender Race Home Language Disability IQ

Jake 15.5 M Caucasian English and Dutch ASD and ID NAa

Nick 16.10 M Caucasian English ASD, ID, and seizure disorder 30b
Pete 14.5 M African American English ID and Down syndrome 48c
Hope 14.7 F Caucasian English ID, ADHD, and anxiety 40d
Note. M ¼ male; F ¼ female; ADS ¼ autism spectrum disorder; ID ¼ intellectual disability.
a
Snijders-Oomen Nonverbal Intelligence Test (unable to obtain a reliable score). bWechsler Nonverbal Scale of Ability. cKaufman Assessment Battery for
Children—Second Edition. dStanford–Binet Intelligent Scales—Fifth Edition.

Table 2. Results of Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales-II: Daily Living Skills Domain Assessment.

Parent Teacher

Student SS: AL Personal (AE) Domestic (AE) Community (AE) SS:AL Personal (AE) Academic (AE) Community (AE)

Jake 23: Low 2:1 0:7 Below 0:1 38: Low <3:0 <3:0 <3:0
Nick 43: Low 3:6 2:11 3:7 50: Low 3:5 5:3 <3:0
Pete 58: Low 6:1 7:6 6:0 55: Low NA NA NA
Hope 45: Low 3:5 4:11 4:6 51: Low NA NA NA
Note. SS ¼ standard score; AL ¼ adaptive level; AE ¼ age equivalent; NA ¼ not available.

completed with greater independence nor have we identified
which of the potentially effective interventions require the least
amount of teacher preparation and instructional time. Our pri-
mary research question was, what are the comparative effects
of CVM plus prompting and reinforcement (CVM þ P&R),
VM plus prompting and reinforcement (VM þ P&R), and
P&R alone on the independent living skills of students with
moderate to severe ASD and/or ID? We aimed to compare
CVM þ P&R to VM þ P&R because VM has been identified
as an effective evidence-based intervention and we were inter-
ested in determining whether CVM would have similar results.
We included P&R alone in the comparison to serve as a control
condition and to allow us to determine whether the videos in
the VBIs contributed to skill improvement.
A second research question was, which intervention
requires less instructional and preparation time? Given that
teachers often have limited instructional and prep time, we
hoped to identify which of the interventions was most effi-
cient in terms of teacher planning and instructional time. Our
last research question was, which intervention requires less
prompting from an adult? Students with ASD and ID often
become prompt dependent and reliant on adults to remain
engaged in a task. We hoped to identify the intervention that
allowed students to complete independent living skills with
the most independence.
Method
Participants
Students meeting the following criteria were considered for
participation in the study: (a) were in middle or high school,
(b) had a diagnosis of ASD or ID, (c) could not already perform
all potential independent living skills to be addressed, (d) could
sit and watch a video for at least 5 min, (e) did not have
physical disability that would interfere with completion of tar-
get skills, and (f) had good attendance. Parents and teachers
were interviewed to determine whether students met the criteria
prior to conducting a skill screening with the potential
participants.
Four students were found eligible. Informed consent was
obtained from all parents, and each student provided assent
to participate. Table 1 shows demographic information for the
participants. Students’ parents and teachers completed a
researcher-created survey and the Daily Living Skills Domain
of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales-II (VABS-II; Spar-
row, Cicchetti, & Balla, 2005), results of which are shown in
Table 2. VABS-II surveys were completed approximately 1
month before beginning baseline sessions. All participants used
computers or iPads1 daily but had never formally used any
type of VBI.
Jake was diagnosed with ASD at age 4. A reliable IQ score
was not available due to behavior challenges during test admin-
istration. At the time of the study, he typically communicated
through basic sign approximations with prompting. He imitated
fine and gross motor movements but required frequent prompt-
ing to complete single and multistep tasks. He engaged in tasks
for up to 1 min independently. Jake was a nonreader. He
engaged in challenging behaviors such as hitting himself or
others, head butting, screaming, and work refusal. He often
threw objects or slammed objects on the table. He also engaged
in behaviors such as hand flapping, finger flicking, and voca-
lizations. His parent reported that Jake never completed inde-
pendent living tasks at home. In school, Jake practiced a variety
of independent living activities but required frequent
prompting.
148
Nick was diagnosed with ASD when he was 6 years old. He
was verbal and communicated through the use of short phrases.
He imitated gross and fine motor movements but needed
prompting to complete multistep tasks. Nick worked indepen-
dently on tasks between 1 and 5 min. He identified basic sight
words. Nick engaged in challenging behaviors such as hitting,
kicking, biting, scratching, pinching, and head butting. He
often engaged in behaviors such as finger flicking and repeti-
tive talk. Nick’s parent reported that he never completed inde-
pendent living tasks at home. In school, Nick practiced a
variety of independent living activities but required frequent
prompting.
Pete was diagnosed with Down syndrome at birth. He typi-
cally communicated using single words and short phrases. Pete
imitated gross and fine motor movements. He completed one-
step tasks independently but needed frequent prompting to
complete multistep tasks. Pete worked for about 1 min inde-
pendently. He read at the preprimer level. Pete did not engage
in challenging behaviors. His parent reported that Pete com-
pleted a variety of cleaning, food prep, and laundry tasks at
home, but that he required constant supervision and frequent
prompting to complete any tasks. In school, Pete practiced a
variety of independent living activities but required frequent
prompting.
Hope was diagnosed with an ID when she was 7 months old.
She typically communicated using single words or short
phrases. Hope imitated gross and fine motor movements. She
usually completed one-step tasks independently but required
frequent prompting to complete tasks with multiple steps. At
home, she reportedly worked on activities for 1–5 min inde-
pendently but needed frequent redirection to complete tasks at
school. She read between the preprimer and Kindergarten lev-
els. At home, Hope engaged in challenging behaviors such as
pushing or hitting others, screaming, and work refusal. In
school, she rarely engaged in challenging behaviors; however,
she became easily distracted and immediately became off task
when she heard or saw other students or adults. At home or out
in the community, Hope sometimes wiped the table, packed a
lunch, emptied the dishwasher, used a vending machine, and
put clothes in drawers. In school, Hope practiced a variety of
independent living activities but required frequent prompting.
Setting and Sessions
The study was conducted in the students’ public high school
during the school day. Enrollment was 1,419, and 17.3% of
students were eligible for free or reduced price lunch. Sessions
took place in a classroom for students with severe disabilities.
All students participated in a curriculum that emphasized func-
tional skills and completed vocational-prep tasks daily in their
classroom and around the school. All students had Individua-
lized Education Program (IEP) goals aimed at improving func-
tional skills. Sessions took place individually with each student
and occurred 3–5 days per week for approximately 2 months
during the students’ technology class between 9:00 and 10:00
a.m. During each session, student completed one trial for each
Journal of Special Education Technology 33(3)
target skill. The order in which students completed each skill/
intervention varied each session. There were approximately 5
min between each trial during which the student had access to a
reinforcer (see Procedures section). Sessions for Pete and Hope
took place at a worktable or in the bathroom connected to the
classroom. All sessions for Nick and Jake took place at a
worktable.
Materials
Materials needed to carry out all interventions included a hand-
held video camera and retractable camera stand, iMovie ver-
sion 10.0.6 (mobile software application used to edit videos;
Apple Inc., 2014), vloop version 14 (mobile software applica-
tion used to play videos on a continuous loop; ClayWare
Games, LLC, 2014), iPad1 Minis, and a variety of reinforcing
items/activities. Materials for target skills included a small
trash can with a full trash bag, a microwave and a cleaning
wipe, a cup and access to a sink and a counter, two containers
that held plastic forks and spoons and a cloth napkin, a laundry
basket and a T-shirt, and a pair of socks and a storage bin with a
lid. Surveys were created to assess the social validity of the
interventions and procedures.
Dependent Measures
The first research question addressed the comparative effects
of the interventions. For this question, the primary dependent
variable was the percentage of correctly completed steps
according to the task analysis of each target skill. Steps were
scored as independent or prompted. A step was considered
independent if the student’s behavior matched that of the
model’s behavior in the video or the description of the step
in the task analysis. Additionally, all steps had to be indepen-
dently initiated within 3 s of (a) the initial prompt to start a
skill (i.e., “Get a glass of water.”) or (b) the completion of the
previous step. The step also had to be completed indepen-
dently within 30 s of initiation. If a prompt was needed, the
step was incorrect.
The second research question looked at the amount of
prompting required in each intervention. To answer this ques-
tion, the total number of prompts a student required in each
intervention condition and target skill was recorded to deter-
mine which intervention required the least amount of adult
prompting. All steps were scored as independent or prompted.
The total number of prompts required by a student was divided
by the total number of opportunities the student had to com-
plete each step of a target skill in a particular condition, which
resulted in an average number of prompts required for each
intervention.
The third research question looked at the amount of prepara-
tion and instructional time for each intervention. To this ques-
tion, we first recorded how long it took to create videos used in
VM þ P&R and CVM þ P&R. Next, we recorded the total
instructional time or the cumulative amount of time spent on
instruction for each target skill in a particular condition.
Wynkoop et al.
Instructional time included time spent completing a target skill
as well as watching videos during the VBIs. The total number
of instructional minutes for each intervention was divided by
the total number of times a student engaged in the intervention,
which resulted in an average number of instructional minutes
for each intervention.
The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of VM
þ P&R, CVM þ P&R, and P&R on the independent living
skills of students with ASD and ID. Data displaying the pri-
mary dependent variable, percentages of correctly completed
steps for each skill, were graphed and visually analyzed by
level, trend, variability, and immediacy (Riley-Tillman, Burn,
& Gibbons, 2013) to determine the effects of the interventions.
Independent Variables
VM þ P&R. A student viewed a video of a model performing a
target skill in its entirety once at the start of each session and
was then asked to complete the skill without any further view-
ings of the video. Prompts were delivered if an error was made
or no response occurred, and total task reinforcement was
implemented by delivering a reinforcer once the student com-
pleted the skill sequence with or without prompting (see Pro-
cedures section).
CVM þ P&R. A student viewed a video of a model performing a
target skill in its entirety one time and then was directed to
complete the skill while the video restarted and continued to
play on a loop. The student had access to the video while
performing the skill while they did not during VM þ P&R.
Prompting was used if an error was made or no response
occurred, and a reinforcer was delivered once the student com-
pleted the whole sequence of steps in a skill with or without
prompting.
P&R. A student did not view a video but was asked to perform a
skill while being provided with prompts. A reinforcer was
delivered when the student completed all steps of a skill.
Experimental Design
Rather than using a traditional alternating treatments design
(ATD), which evaluates the effects of multiple interventions
on a single behavior, we employed an adapted alternating
treatments design (AATD), which may be used to evaluate
the effects of multiple interventions on two or more
“equivalent and functionally independent instructional sets”
(Sindelar, Rosenberg, & Wilson, 1985, p. 70) .We employed
baseline and comparison phases (Wolery et al., 2014) as well
as a best treatment phase to attempt to replicate the effects of
the intervention that appeared to be the superior treatment for
a student.
In addition to putting in place, procedures to ensure target
skills were of equal difficulty, the inclusion of a baseline in the
AATD helped “demonstrate the equivalence of performance”
on sets of skills (Sindelar et al., 1985, p. 70). Including a
149
baseline also helped verify that the appropriate skills were
assigned to the student. Further, a baseline allowed us to eval-
uate a student’s initial level of performance on each task over
multiple occasions. By observing baseline performance, we
were able to see that a student was unable to successfully
complete a task prior to exposure to the interventions.
During the comparison and best treatment phases, each stu-
dent completed all target skills. While students completed
some of the same target skills, several skills differed across
students, as some students demonstrated the ability to complete
one or two skills during screening or baseline sessions. Target
skills for each student were ultimately selected based on indi-
vidual student performance of each skill. Skills that remained at
low, stable levels during screening or baseline were selected as
skills to which interventions were applied. An attempt to coun-
terbalance skills across the three independent variables as much
as possible was made to account for any potentially confound-
ing variables regarding task difficulty.
Procedures
Pre-Baseline
Skill selection and analysis. Several steps were taken to ensure the
social validity of the target skills selected. First, an Independent
Living Skills Bank was developed for each of the three skill
areas (i.e., cleaning, food prep, and laundry). Included in the
bank were relevant skills targeted in past VM studies and skills
listed in the Murdoch Center Program Library (Wheeler et al.,
2001). Second, a survey was distributed to middle and high
school students without disabilities and their parents. Respon-
dents were asked to indicate which of the skills from the Inde-
pendent Living Skills Bank were in their (or their child’s)
repertoire and were performed most often. Responses were
analyzed and skills were ranked. Results of the survey guided
the selection of the target skills to be addressed in the study.
Ensuring all target skills are of equal difficulty is imperative
when using an AATD because, in contrast to a traditional ATD,
the skills serving as the dependent variables are different and
must be equally difficult to learn (Wolery, Gast, & Ledford,
2014). The believability of the effects of the intervention rests
upon task equivalency. To account for this limitation of
AATDs, responses and discriminations required to perform
each skill correctly were analyzed (Wolery et al., 2014). First,
task analyses were created for each skill. All skills contained
five steps. Next, we performed all skills multiple times to
ensure that the task-analyzed steps lead to successful skill com-
pletion. Third, a team of adults performed each skill to deter-
mine the average length of time required to complete each skill.
All skills took between 12.8 s and 14.5 s to complete. After
performing the skills, all team members agreed that the skills
were of similar difficulty. Further, a logical analysis of each
skill showed that each skill required three object displacements
(i.e., the student must pick up or move an object) and two fine
motor movements. Finally, skills were broken into two groups.
Table 3 provides a list of all potential target skills and group
150 Journal of Special Education Technology 33(3)

Table 3. Potential Target Skills.

Cleaning Food Prep Laundry

Take Out Trash Wipe Microwave Get Water Roll Silverware Fold T-Shirt Fold and Store
Step (Group 1) (Group 2) (Group 1) (Group 2) (Group 1) Socks (Group 2)

Step 1 Unhook trash bag Open microwave Pick up Pick up fork (O) Pick up shirt (O) Match bottom of
from can (F) door (F) cup (O) socks (O)
Step 2 Grasp strings on Pick up wipe (O) Turn on cold Pick up spoon (O) Place shirt flat on table Fold top of socks down
either side of water (F) (bottom faces you) (O) over one another (F)
bag (F)
Step 3 Pull strings to close Wipe tray (F)
Fill cup with Lay utensils on Fold shirt in half (match Open lid of bin (F)
bag (O) water (O) napkin corner sleeves; F)
(O)
Step 4 Lift bag out of can (O) Close microwave Turn off Fold corner over Fold shirt in half (top to Put socks in bin (O)
door (O) water (F) utensils (F) bottom) (F)
Step 5 Place bag in Throw wipe Place cup on Roll utensils in Place shirt in basket (O) Replace bin lid (O)
hallway (O) away (O) tray (O) napkin (F)
Average 12.9 s 14.3 s 14.1 s 14.5 s 13.9 s 12.8 s
time
Note. O ¼ object displacement; F ¼ fine motor movement.

Table 4. Skill—Intervention Pairings.
Student VM þ P&R CVM þ P&R P&R
Jake Take out trash Roll silverware Fold and store socks
Nick Roll silverware Take out trash Fold T-shirt
Pete Get water Fold T-shirt Take out trash
Hope Wipe microwave tray Take out trash Roll silverware
Note. Prior to recruitment and skill screenings, skill–intervention pairings were
randomly assigned to each participant. VM þ P&R ¼ video modeling plus
prompting and reinforcement; CVM þ P&R ¼ continuous video modeling plus
prompting and reinforcement; P&R ¼ prompting and reinforcement alone.
numbers, a task and logical analysis for each skill, and average
time to skill completion as demonstrated by the team of adults.
Skill screening. To ensure appropriate skills were selected for
each student, all were screened on current levels of perfor-
mance on Group 1 skills. If a student performed zero, one, or
two steps correctly (40% or below) on each skill, he or she was
assigned to the three skills in Group 1. If a student completed
more than three steps correctly for a skill, he or she was
assessed on a skill from Group 2 until three skills were identi-
fied on which he or she performed at or below 40% of steps
correctly. Once we assigned three target skills to a student, he
or she entered baseline. All skill screenings took place approx-
imately 1 month before the first baseline session. Prior to
recruitment or skill screening, a template was created to ran-
domly assign students to different skill and intervention pair-
ings. Table 4 displays the skill–intervention pairings for each
student, which were counterbalanced as much as possible. Stu-
dents had one cleaning, one food prep, and one laundry skill
except for Hope. She was able to complete all laundry tasks
with over 40% accuracy during the skill screening and was
assigned two cleaning and one food prep skill.
Creating video models. The same video components were incor-
porated into all videos used in both VBIs. Videos were filmed
using a Sony HD Handycam and edited using iMovie. All
videos depicted the same adult model (the lead author) com-
pleting skills at a slightly slower pace (e.g., 75% of “normal”
pace in iMovie) with narration of short phases describing what
the model was doing in each step. For example, in the video for
getting a glass of water, the first step showed the model picking
up a cup from a shelf, while the phrase “Pick up cup” was
heard. Video footage was primarily shot from a third-person
perspective with close-up views of the tasks being completed
(i.e., the model’s hands or arms). A 3 s pause occurred between
each step of a skill during which a black screen with a white
number corresponding to the step that followed was shown. All
videos were between 38 s and 44 s long. CVM þ P&R videos
played on a loop using vloop. Both were purchased through the
iTunes1 store. It took approximately 1 hr to film the raw
footage and approximately 3 hr to edit, narrate, finalize, upload
videos to the iPad Minis, and upload videos a second time to
vloop, for an average of 40-min per video.
Preference assessments. We conducted a series of multiple sti-
mulus without replacement (MSWO; see DeLeon & Iwata,
1996) preference assessments with each student to determine
the item most likely to be reinforcing. Based on information
from teachers and parents, we gathered sets of 6 highly pre-
ferred items for each student (i.e., small pieces of candy,
remote control car, Velcro bracelet, iPad with games and
videos, sensory objects). Briefly, an array of 3–6 items were
presented to each student. The student was asked, “Which one
do you want?” and the student’s selection was recorded. The
process was repeated until no items remained. The entire
MSWO procedure was conducted at least 6 times for each
student until 1 item emerged as being the most preferred. This
Wynkoop et al.
was the item that the student selected on at least three consec-
utive probes. Jake preferred the pin art object, Nick preferred
Smarties1, Pete preferred iPad1 games, and Hope preferred
YouTube videos.
Baseline Phase
Similar to previous studies (i.e., Cihak & Schrader, 2008),
baseline sessions were carried out as follows. Students had
a single opportunity to complete each skill in a randomized
order during each session. To begin a trial, we directed the
student to either the worktable or the classroom bathroom. All
materials needed to complete the skill were available. We
delivered an initial prompt (e.g., “Get a glass of water”) to
begin completing the target skill. No feedback was given for
any step completed correctly or incorrectly. If the student did
not respond by correctly completing a step within 20 s, the
student was given a second prompt during which we told the
student to try to complete any steps he or she knows. We
counted any steps correctly completed according to the skill
task analysis as correct regardless of the order in which they
were completed. The student was given 10 s to initiate per-
formance of a step after the second prompt was given. If they
did not respond or continued to make errors, the probe was
discontinued. We conducted at least five baseline sessions per
student. We randomized the order in which skills were com-
pleted from session to session for each student.
Intervention Comparison Phase
Three independent variables were under investigation: VM þ
P&R, CVM þ P&R, and P&R. Each intervention was applied
to a target skill for each student. Students had a single oppor-
tunity to complete each skill with the assigned intervention in
a randomized order during each session. To begin a trial, the
student was guided to the appropriate work area. All materials
were available including the iPad Mini on which the student
viewed videos during VM þ P&R and CVM þ P&R probes.
We recorded whether a step was independent or prompted.
We implemented a least-to-most prompting hierarchy based
on the procedure used by Parsons, Reid, and Lattimore
(2009). Specific prompting procedures used in each interven-
tion are listed below.
VM þ P&R. We told the student to “Watch the video,” and he or
she viewed a video in its entirety one time. We delivered verbal
prompts to watch the video if a student looked away. When the
video ended, the student was told to begin the target skill. He or
she was given 3 s to begin the first step independently. If he or
she did not begin or made an error during the first step, we
began the prompting procedure. First, we delivered a verbal
and gestural task prompt (e.g., “Get the cup” while pointing to
the cup) and waited 3 s. If the student still did not begin the skill
or did not correct the error, we physically guided the student to
complete the first step correctly. The student was then expected
to initiate the second step within 3 s; if not, the prompting
151
procedure was repeated. The pattern continued until the task
was completed, and we delivered a reinforcer. If a student
completed a step correctly and independently, no feedback was
delivered. The student simply moved on to the next step and
received the reinforcer once they completed the task. Students
were given 3 s to respond during all intervention conditions
(Cihak & Schrader, 2008). We selected a short response time to
attempt to increase the fluency with which students completed
tasks during teaching sessions.
CVM þ P&R. The second intervention was conducted in a similar
way to VM þ P&R with one major difference: the video was set
to play on a constant loop using vloop. The student viewed the
video in its entirety one time, delivering verbal prompts as
needed. After the student watched the video all the way through
once, we told the student to begin the target skill just before the
video restarted at the first step. The student had 3 s to begin the
first step independently. If he or she did not begin or made an
error, we began a slightly altered prompting procedure. First, we
delivered a verbal and gestural video prompt (i.e., Watch the
video while pointing to the video) and directed the student to
watch the video, as it looped around to the step during which the
error was made by the student. We prompted the student to
attend to the looped video in an attempt to teach the student to
use the video model rather than rely on the adult. The verbal and
gestural video prompt was not used in VM þ P&R because the
video was not played on a loop. Once the looped video played
the step during which the student’s error occurred and the stu-
dent viewed the correct performance of the step, he or she was
given 3 s to correctly begin the skill. If the student still did not
begin the skill or did not correct the error, we physically guided
the student to complete the first step correctly. The student was
then expected to initiate the second step within 3 s; if not, the
prompting procedure was implemented accordingly. This pat-
tern continued until the task was completed, and we delivered a
reinforcer. No feedback was delivered after an individual step
was completed correctly and independently.
P&R. There was no video nor was any instruction provided in
this condition. We directed the student to the appropriate work
area and told the student to begin the target skill and he or she
had 3 s to begin. If he or she did not begin or made an error in
the first step, we began the same prompting procedure used in
VM þ P&R. We implemented to prompting procedure until the
task was completed and the reinforcer was delivered. No feed-
back was delivered after an individual step was completed
correctly and independently.
Best Treatment Phase
During the intervention comparison phase, students completed
all target skills with the assigned intervention one time, in a
randomized order during each session, until the student reached
the mastery criterion of 100% of steps correctly completed
across three consecutive sessions in one of the intervention
conditions. We considered the condition in which the student
152 Journal of Special Education Technology 33(3)

Table 5. Social Validity Results: Teachers and Parents.

Participant’s Are VBI’s Acceptable Were Target Were VBI’s Were VBI’s More, Less or Would You Use a VM or
Parent (P) or Ways to Improve Skills Selected Effective in Equally Effective Compared to CVM in Your Home or
Teacher (T) Independent Living Skills? Appropriate? Improving Skills? Other Strategies? Classroom? Which One?

Jake (P) Yes Yes Yes Equal Yes; VM

Nick (P) Yes Somewhat Yes Equal Yes; CVM
Hope (P) Yes Yes Somewhat Less Yes; CVM
Jake (T) Yes Yes Yes More Yes; both
Nick (T) Yes Yes Yes More Yes; both
Pete (T) Yes Yes Yes Equal Yes; both
Hope (T) Yes Yes Yes Equal Yes; both
Note. No response from Pete’s parent. CVM ¼ continuous video modeling; VM ¼ video modeling; VBI ¼ video-based intervention.

reached mastery criterion first the best treatment for that stu-
dent. Sessions continued until (a) the student met the mastery Baseline Comparison Best Treatment
criterion for at least one additional skill/intervention or (b) until
performance of the other two skills appeared relatively stable 90% VM+P&R
P&R

Percentage of Steps
without meeting criterion. In the case of situation (b), a best
treatment phase was implemented during which the presumed 70%
VM+P&R
best intervention was applied to a skill that had received a
different intervention without meeting criterion. We continued 50%
to apply the original intervention to the third skill as a control.
Jake
30% P&R

Interobserver Agreement (IOA) and Procedural Integrity

10%
CVM+P&R
A research assistant was trained in the coding procedure and
IOA data were collected on 34.2% of sessions across all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Sessions
phases. Point-by-point agreement was calculated for IOA Roll silverware Fold socks Take out trash
training sessions and study sessions by dividing the number
of agreements by the sum of agreements and disagreements
Figure 1. Independent completion of tasks for Jake.
and multiplying by 100 (Johnston & Pennypacker, 2009). IOA
training was conducted during multiple sessions and consisted
pictures while Nick, Pete, and Hope verbally answered ques-
of reviewing task analyses of similar independent living skills
tions. Questions included: (a) What did you think of your jobs?
and clearly defining each step, reviewing data sheets to be
(b) What did you think of the videos? (c) When doing your
used, watching videos of students other than the participants
jobs, did you like having a video or not having a video? (d)
completing the skills, and scoring steps as independent or
When watching a video, did you like when it played again and
prompted. A criterion of 90% agreement or higher was set for
again or just one time? Additionally, we shared study results
training. During training, the research assistant viewed 22
with teachers and parents which included a final written report,
videos and IOA was 97%.
graphs, and pre- and postintervention video clips. We asked
For study sessions, IOA was 99.8%, overall. IOA was 99.1%
teachers and parents to complete a brief electronic survey. All
across 36.2% of sessions for Jake and 100% across 33.3% of
responded to the survey with the exception of Pete’s mother
sessions for Nick, Pete, and Hope. The research assistant also
(see Table 5).
used checklists specific to each intervention to collect proce-
dural integrity data on an average of 34.2% of sessions across
all conditions and all students. Items on the checklists included Results
(a) materials were available, (b) the student was guided to the Research Question 1: Comparative Effects of the
proper area, (c) the initial prompt and prompting hierarchy
were delivered correctly, (d) trials were stopped appropriately,
Interventions
and (e) reinforcers were delivered appropriately. Procedural Baseline. All students had relatively low and stable baseline
integrity was 100% for all students. levels for all skills. Jake, Nick, and Pete consistently performed
between 0% and 20% of steps correct for all skills. Hope’s
performance was less consistent, as she performed between
Social Validity 0% and 40% of steps correct and data displayed a variable
At the end of the study, social validity surveys were adminis- trend. Figures 1–4 display the percentage of correctly and inde-
tered verbally to the students. Jake responded by pointing to pendently completed steps for each student.
Wynkoop et al. 153

criteria for taking out the trash with VM þ P&R in nine inter-
Baseline Comparison Best Treatment vention sessions. Jake also immediately improved with folding
and storing the socks when P&R was applied to the skill, but his
90%
performance stabilized between 40% and 60% of steps com-
Percentage of Steps

pleted correctly. When rolling silverware with CVM þ P&R,

70% CVM+P&R
CVM+P&R Jake’s improvement was slower and also stabilized at around
50% VM+P&R P&R Nick 40–60%. During the comparison phase, VM þ P&R appeared
to be most effective for Jake.
During the best treatment phase, VM þ P&R was applied to
30%
rolling silverware instead of CVM þ P&R. With the applica-
P&R tion of VM þ P&R, Jake’s performance immediately improved
10%
to 80% of steps completed correctly; however, his performance
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 stabilized. P&R remained in effect with folding and storing
Sessions socks and, over time, Jake’s performance improved. He was
Roll silverware Fold t-shirt Take out trash
able to reach the mastery criterion with P&R in 17 sessions.

Figure 2. Independent completion of tasks for Nick. Nick. During the comparison phase, Nick’s performance with
taking out the trash immediately improved with CVM þ P&R
Baseline Comparison
(see Figure 2). Performance steadily increased and Nick met
the mastery criteria for taking out the trash with CVM þ P&R
90% VM+P&R in 10 sessions. When rolling silverware with VM þ P&R,
Percentage of Steps

Nick’s performance initially fluctuated between 0% and 40%

70% and stabilized between 20% and 40%. For folding the T-shirt
with P&R, Nick’s performance remained similar to his baseline
CVM+P&R
50% levels. Little to no change was seen with VM þ P&R and P&R
for Nick.
P&R Pete
30% During the best treatment phase, CVM þ P&R was applied
to rolling silverware instead of VM þ P&R. With CVM þ
10% P&R, Nick’s performance immediately improved to 100% of
steps completed correctly; however, his performance stabilized
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Sessions at 80%. Nick did not meet the mastery criterion for rolling
Get water Fold t-shirt Take out trash silverware with CVM þ P&R, but his performance was at a
much higher level than with VM þ P&R. His performance with
Figure 3. Independent completion of tasks for Pete. folding the T-shirt remained similar to his performance during
the comparison phase with P&R. Little to no change was seen
in his ability to fold the T-shirt with P&R over 15 sessions.
Baseline Comparison Best Treatment
Pete. During the comparison phase, Pete immediately improved
90% CVM+P&R
when VM þ P&R was applied to getting a glass of water and
Percentage of Steps

when CVM þ P&R was applied to folding a T-shirt (see Figure

70% VM+P&R
3). When applying P&R, there was a slight but steady increase
in taking out the trash. Ultimately, Pete mastered all skills with
50% VM+P&R the originally assigned interventions; therefore, a best treat-
ment phase was not implemented. He met the mastery criterion
30% first for getting a glass of water with VM þ P&R.
CVM+P&R

10%
Hope
P&R Hope. Similar to her baseline performance, Hope’s perfor-
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
mance was extremely variable during the comparison phase
Sessions (see Figure 4). Hope’s performance when taking out the trash
Roll silverware Wipe microwave Take out trash with CVM þ P&R initially fluctuated between 40% and 60%,
followed by an increase in 80–100%. Her performance with
Figure 4. Independent completion of tasks for Hope. taking out the trash dropped back down to 60% and 80% during
the final comparison sessions. When rolling silverware with
Jake. During the comparison phase, Jake’s performance with P&R, her performance initially remained similar to her base-
taking out the trash immediately improved with VM þ P&R line performance, followed by increased performance between
and steadily increased (see Figure 1). He met the mastery 40% and 60% and a decrease in 20% during the final
154
3 5
2.5
CVM+P&R
VM+P&R
2 CVM+P&R
Minutes
1.5
1 P&R
0.5
0 0
Jake Nick Pete Hope All
Figure 5. Average instructional time per session across participants
and interventions.
comparison session. When wiping the microwave tray with
VM þ P&R, Hope demonstrated a steady increasing trend,
culminating at 80% of steps correct followed by a steady
decline in performance to between 40% and 60% of steps cor-
rect. Overall, the range in Hope’s performance for each skill
was 40–100% for taking out the trash (CVM þ P&R), 20–60%
for rolling silverware (P&R), and 40–80% for wiping the
microwave tray (VM þ P&R). During the comparison phase,
Hope’s performance with one or both of the VBIs was always
better than or equal to her performance with P&R.
It was surmised that CVM þ P&R was the best treatment for
Hope, and CVM þ P&R was applied to rolling silverware
instead of P&R. There was no change seen in her performance
with rolling silverware when CVM þ P&R was applied. Fur-
ther, Hope’s performance across all skills stabilized during best
treatment.
Research Question 2: Instructional and Preparation Time
Figure 5 shows the average amount of instructional time stu-
dents spent engaging in each intervention. Less instructional
time was required for all students in P&R compared to both
VBIs. To complete tasks with CVM þ P&R, students took an
average of 2.1 min per session. With VM þ P&R, students took
an average of 1.3 min per session. With P&R, students took an
average of 0.9 min per session. Further, more preparation time
was required for both VBIs. It took approximately 40 min to
create videos, while no videos were needed for P&R.
Research Question 3: Adult Prompts
Figure 6 shows the number of prompts each student required
with each intervention. Across both the comparison and best
treatment phases, regardless of the skill being completed, all
students needed fewer prompts with one or both of the VBIs
compared to P&R. To complete tasks with CVM þ P&R,
students required an average of 1.6 prompts per session. With
VM þ P&R, students needed an average of 1.9 prompts per
Journal of Special Education Technology 33(3)
VM+P&R
4.5
4
3.5
Number of Prompts
3
2.5
2
P&R
1.5
1
0.5
Jake Nick Pete Hope All
Figure 6. Average number of adult prompts needed per session
across participants and interventions.
session. With P&R, students required an average of 2.4
prompts per session.
Social Validity
All students said that they enjoyed completing the target skills
and liked watching the videos. Three of the four students indi-
cated that they preferred to use a video, while Pete preferred not
using a video. Jake, Nick, and Hope reported a preference for
the looped video (see Table 5 for parent and teacher questions
and responses). Pete’s parent did not return the survey.
Discussion
Findings are relatively consistent with and add to the large
body of literature demonstrating that VM interventions may
be used to improve the independent living skills of most stu-
dents with ASD and ID (Bellini & Akullian, 2007; Mason et al.,
2013; Wang & Koyama, 2014). Three of the four students
clearly improved or mastered skills with one or both VBIs
paired with P&R, and responses from social validity surveys
indicated that VM þ P&R and CVM þ P&R are socially
acceptable ways of addressing independent living skill deficits.
Further, this study extends the inaugural investigations of a
new form of VM, CVM, introduced by Mechling, Ayres, Bry-
ant, and Foster (2014a, 2014b). This study is the first to inves-
tigate the effects of CVM þ P&R and is the first to compare
CVM þ P&R, VM þ P&R, and P&R. Additionally, this is only
the second known study to compare a VM intervention to a
non-VBI (Murzynski & Bourret, 2007) and, at the time the
study was conducted, the only known study to compare two
different variations of VM to a non-VBI.
Our primary focus of the study was to determine the com-
parative effects of two VBIs, VM þ P&R and CVM þ P&R,
and one non-VBI, P&R, on the independent living skills of
students with ASD and ID. We hypothesized that a single
intervention would emerge as the superior treatment across all
students; however, this did not occur. CVM þ P&R appeared to
Wynkoop et al.
be most effective for Nick. VM þ P&R appeared to be most
effective for Jake and Pete; however, Jake (during the best
treatment phase) and Pete also responded well to P&R. One
potential factor regarding Pete’s exceptional response to all
interventions was his high adaptive skill level. His VABS-II
score was significantly higher than the other students. The high
variability of Hope’s data during the comparison phase and the
stabilization seen during the best treatment phase made it dif-
ficult to determine the best intervention for her. However, data
showed that both VBIs lead to greater independence with skill
completion over P&R for Hope.
Another goal was to identify the intervention(s) most likely
to lead to reduced reliance on adult prompting. Although data
from the best treatment phase may present contradictory find-
ings, all students consistently needed fewer prompts with one
or both VBIs paired with P&R regardless of the phase and the
target skills to which the interventions were applied. This is an
important finding, given that students with ASD and ID often
become prompt dependent and heavily rely on adults to com-
plete tasks. All students needed fewer prompts in the VBI
conditions. Further, according to prestudy reports from teach-
ers, all students had limited ability to independently attend to a
task in school for an extended length of time without prompts
(i.e., less than 1 min for Hope, about 1 min for Jake and Pete,
and 1–5 min for Nick). During study sessions, students were
able to complete some if not all tasks with much greater inde-
pendence than they typically would in the VBI conditions.
The most variable data and smallest effects were seen in
Hope’s graph. Hope was the only student with a diagnosis of
attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Despite evi-
dence in the literature suggesting the VM may be especially
effective for students easily distracted by environmental factors
(McCoy & Hermansen, 2007), this was not the case with Hope.
She was highly distractible during each session and she needed
frequent redirection. Further, Hope was the only student to
have a diagnosed anxiety disorder. Working one-on-one with
an unfamiliar adult on new skills could have caused a rise in her
anxiety. Both factors (i.e., ADHD and anxiety) may have
played a major role in her minimal response to the
interventions.
Finally, we set out to determine which intervention is most
efficient (i.e., requires less preparation and instructional time).
P&R required the least amount of prep and instructional time.
However, VBIs have the potential to be just as efficient as P&R
if already-created videos could be effectively reused with new
students who have similar deficits. Still, more instructional
time was always required for both VBI’s compared to P&R
simply due to the amount of time it took students to watch the
videos. For some teachers, this could be an issue due to limited
amounts of instructional time (Johnson & Semmelroth, 2014).
However, some teachers may have greater amounts of instruc-
tional time and are often looking for new activities and tasks to
actively engage students in meaningful and productive learning
opportunities (Ruble & Robson, 2007; Sparapani et al., 2016).
For students like Jake and Pete, P&R may be the more efficient
intervention. However, for students like Nick, one of the VBIs
155
may be the more efficient intervention because it is the only
effective intervention. For students like Hope, more intensive
interventions may be needed such as increased access to a more
powerful reinforcer.
With these findings, it is important to consider the balance
between instructional and prep time and acceptability of an
intervention. Although VBIs took more time to plan for and
implement, a teacher may use VBIs to reduce the amount of
teacher-delivered prompting as frequent prompting may be
frustrating and intrusive for both the teacher and student.
Limitations
First, while baseline data were relatively low and stable for
most students, it is possible that the data collected do not accu-
rately represent how well students could perform a task in its
entirety. No corrective feedback was delivered during baseline,
and it is possible that students simply did not understand
instructions. Second, while every attempt was made to ensure
that all skills targeted were of equal difficulty, the issue of task
equivalency is one that may limit conclusions drawn from the
study. Specifically, some skills may have been less difficult
than others for individual students. While evidence suggests
that students either responded to, or did not respond, a partic-
ular intervention, conclusions regarding a single best treatment
for any student other than Nick should be interpreted with
caution.
Third, a benefit of AATDs is that different skills may be
targeted, as opposed to a traditional ATD in which the same
target skill is measured in different conditions. However, due to
unforeseen issues with students having increased ability levels
with certain target skills, students did not complete all of the
same skills, which is typically (but not always) the case with
AATD (see Miltenberger & Charlop, 2015; Taber-Doughty
et al., 2011). Ideally, all students would have completed the
same skills allowing for the equal distribution of the interven-
tions across the target skills. Because students did not complete
all of the same skills based on results of skill screenings and
because of the unequal number of interventions (e.g., three),
students (e.g., four), and potential target skills (e.g., six), true
counterbalancing across interventions, skills, and students was
not possible.
The final limitations relate to a lack of data collection on
potentially important components. We did not collect data on
how well students attended to the videos. Anecdotally, Nick
was the student who paid most attention to the videos through-
out the study and was the student to most clearly respond to
CVM þ P&R. It would be interesting to quantify, perhaps
though interval recording, how much time students spent
actively engaged in the videos (i.e., eyes and body were turned
toward the iPad). We did not also include generalization or
maintenance phases in our study as recommended by Neely
et al. (2016) who emphasized the importance of collecting
generalization measures during all phases of a study as well
as maintenance measures that are conducted long after the
intervention has been removed.
156 Journal of Special Education Technology 33(3)

Implications for Practitioners the use of generic video models and their effectiveness with
students exists (Mechling et al., 2013) but not necessarily in the
Results of this study are relatively consistent with the larger
same way in which a teacher might use videos. Videos in this
VM literature base in that one or both VBIs improved the
study, while generic, were still created for the purpose of using
independent living skills of most students (Bellini & Akullian,
them in a particular study with a particular set of students.
2007; Mason et al., 2013; Wang & Koyama, 2014). Results are
Videos that have been created for a previous group of students
also consistent with the literature in that students with ID, with
may or may not be effective for an entirely new group of
or without ASD, can respond to VBIs. Two students with ASD
students.
and one student with Down syndrome improved skills with a
As evidenced by the results of this study, VBIs may not be
VBI. Interestingly, the student with Down syndrome improved
the most effective and efficient means of instruction for every
skills with all interventions. However, the two students with
student. Research on and development of screening tools to
ASD responded well to different VBIs. Jake appeared to
help determine ahead of time which VBI, if any, a student is
respond better to VM þ P&R, while Nick responded only to
most likely to respond would be beneficial, particularly for
CVM þ P&R. Hope, the only student who did not clearly
practitioners. Such screening tools could help avoid spending
respond to any of the interventions, was also the only student
time preparing and implementing interventions that are not
with ADHD and anxiety and was the student most easily dis-
likely to be the most effective and efficient interventions for
tracted during sessions. Because of her high distractibility,
our students.
Hope may have benefited from more frequent prompting to
attend to the video and/or the task rather than waiting to deliver Declaration of Conflicting Interests
a prompt until after an error had occurred. Hope may have also
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to
benefited from more frequent access to reinforcement (i.e., the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
delivering reinforcement after each step rather than waiting
until the entire task was completed). Finally, Hope may have Funding
been less anxious with a familiar adult or if the target skills
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author-
were ones she was used to being asked to complete. ship, and/or publication of this article.
Second, if a teacher has limited time to prepare for and
deliver instruction, it may not be in the best interest of the References
teacher or the student to implement a VBI. The more traditional
Alcantara, P. R. (1994). Effects of videotape instructional package on
method of P&R may be more efficient. However, if a teacher
purchasing skills of children with autism. Exceptional Children, 6,
aims to increase the level of independence with which a student
40–55.
completes a skill, then a VBI may be the more effective
Alexander, J. L., Ayres, K. M., Smith, K. A., Shepley, S. B., &
method. Further, if aiming to increase independence, it is rec-
Mataras, T. K. (2013). Using video modeling on an iPad to teach
ommended that teachers carefully consider the student’s par-
generalized matching on a sorting mail task to adolescents with
ticular strengths and past learning tendencies. It may be helpful
autism. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 7, 1346–1357.
to test both VM þ P&R and CVM þ P&R and collect prelim-
doi:10.1016/j.rasd.2013.07.021
inary data to predict which intervention is most likely to lead to
Apple Inc. (2014). iMovie (Version 10.0.6) [Mobile application soft-
greater independence. Anecdotally, Nick clearly showed signs
ware]. Retrieved from http://itunes.apple.com
that he was responding to CVM þ P&R compared to the other
Ayres, K. M., & Langone, J. (2005). Intervention and instruction with
students and other interventions. For example, his eyes were
video for students with autism: A review of the literature. Educa-
consistently on the video while it played on a loop and his
tion and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 40, 183–196.
movements and behaviors were often in sync with the video.
Barton, E. E., Lawrence, K., & Deurloo, F. (2012). Individualizing
Teachers should consider looking for behavioral signs, such as
interventions for young children with autism in preschool. Journal
these, when determining the intervention most likely to be
of Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 42, 1205–1217. doi:10.
effective for a student. It is also important to keep in mind that
1007/s10803-011-1195-z
some students may need interventions above and beyond the
Bellini, S., & Akullian, J. (2007). A meta-analysis of video modeling
interventions under investigation in this study, as was the case
and video self-modeling interventions for children and adolescents
with Hope.
with autism spectrum disorder. Exceptional Children, 73,
264–287. doi:10.1177/001440290707300301
Bouck, E. C. (2010). Reports of life skills training for students with
Directions for Future Research intellectual disabilities in and out of school. Journal of Intellectual
A commonly stated benefit of VM interventions is that the Disability Research, 54, 1093–1103. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2788.
video models can be used with many students. However, more 2010.01339.x
research is needed to investigate the effects of using video Cannella-Malone, H. I., Mizrachi, L. M., Sabielny, L. M., & Jimenez,
models that have already been created and used with one set E. D. (2013). Teaching physical activities to students with signif-
of students with an entirely new set of students, possibly with a icant disabilities using video modeling. Developmental Neuroreh-
different set of materials, or in different settings. Research on abilitation, 16(1), 145–154. doi: 10.3109/17518423.2012.763192
Wynkoop et al.
Charlop-Christy, M. H., & Daneshvar, S. (2003). Using video model-
ing to teach perspective taking to children with autism. Journal of
Positive Behavior Interventions, 5(1), 12–21. doi: 10.1177/
10983007030050010101
Charlop-Christy, M. H., Le, L., & Freeman, K. A. (2000). A compar-
ison of video modeling with in vivo modeling for teaching children
with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 30,
537–552. doi:0162-3257/00/1200-0537$18.00/0
Cihak, D. F., & Schrader, L. (2008). Does the model matter? Compar-
ing video self-modeling and video adult modeling for task acqui-
sition and maintenance by adolescents for autism spectrum
disorders. Journal of Special Education Technology, 23, 9–20.
ClayWare Games, LLC. (2014). CWG’s video loop presenter (Version
14) [Mobile application software]. Retrieved from http://itunes.
apple.com
Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2007). Applied beha-
vior analysis (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle Ridge, NJ: Pearson
Education.
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, 5–11.
DeLeon, I. G., & Iwata, B. A. (1996). Evaluation of a multiple stimu-
lus presentation format for assessing reinforcer preferences. Jour-
nal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 519–533.
Giangreco, M. F., & Broer, S. M. (2007). School-based screening to
determine overreliance on paraprofessionals. Focus on Autism and
Other Developmental Disabilities, 22, 149–158.
Haring, T. G., Kennedy, C. H., Adams, M. J., & Pitts-Conway, V.
(1987). Teaching generalization of purchasing skills across com-
munity settings to autistic youth using videotape modeling. Jour-
nal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 20(1), 89–96. doi: 1053-0819/
95/0300-0029507.50/
Hendricks, D. R., Smith, M. D., & Wehman, P. (2009). Teaching
youth for success. In P. Wehman, M. D. Smith, & C. Schall, Autism
and the transition to adulthood: Success beyond the classroom.
Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
Hong, E. R., Ganz, J. B., Mason, R., Morin, K., Davis, J. L., Ninci, J., . . .
Gilliland, W. D. (2016). The effects of video modeling in teaching
functional living skills to persons with ASD: A meta-analysis of
single-case studies. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 57,
158–169. doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2016.07.001
Hume, K., Loftin, R., & Lantz, J. (2009). Increasing independence in
autism spectrum disorders: A review of three focused interven-
tions. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 39,
1329–1338. doi:10.1007/s10803-009-0751-2
Johnson, E., & Semmelroth, C. L. (2014). Special education teacher
evaluation: Why it matters, what makes it challenging, and how to
address these challenges. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 39,
71–82. doi:10.1177/1534508413513315
Johnston, J. M., & Pennypacker, H. S. (2009). Strategies and tactics of
behavioral research (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Klinger, L. G., Klinger, M. R., Mussey, J. L., Thomas, S. P., & Powell,
P. S. (2015, May). Correlates of middle adult outcome: A follow-up
study of children diagnosed with ASD from 1970-1999. Paper pre-
sented at the 2015 International Meeting for Autism Research, Salt
Lake City, UT.
157
Lasater, M. W., & Brady, M. P. (1995). Effects of video self-modeling
and feedback on task fluency: A home-based intervention. Educa-
tion and Treatment of Children, 18(4), 389–408.
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. doi:
10.1901/jaba.2003.36-253
Liss, M., Harel, B., Fein, D., Allen, D., Dunn, M., Feinstein, C., . . .
Rapin, I. (2001). Predictors and correlates of adaptive functioning
in children with developmental disorders. Journal of Autism and
Developmental Disabilities, 31(2), 219–230. doi: 0162-3257/01/
0400-0219$19.50/0
Lowy Apple, A., Billingsley, F., & Schwartz, I. S. (2005). Effects of
video modeling alone and with self-management on compliment-
giving behaviors of children with high-functioning ASD. Journal
of Positive Behavior Interventions, 7, 33–46.
Mason, R. A., Ganz, J. B., Parker, R. I., Boles, M. B., Davis, H. S., &
Rispoli, M. (2013). Video-based modeling: Differential effects due
to treatment protocol. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 7,
120–131. doi:10.1016/j.rasd.2012.08.003
McCoy, K., & Hermansen, E. (2007). Video modeling for individ-
uals with autism: A review of model types and effects. Educa-
tion and Treatment of Children, 30, 183–213. doi:10.1353/ect.
2007.0029
Mechling, L. C., Ayres, K. M., Bryant, K. J., & Foster, A. L. (2014a).
Comparison of the effects of continuous video modeling, video
prompting, and video modeling on task completion by young
adults with moderate intellectual disability. Education and Train-
ing in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 49, 491–504.
Mechling, L. C., Ayres, K. M., Bryant, K. J., & Foster, A. L. (2014b).
Continuous video modeling to assist with completion of multi-step
home living tasks by young adults with moderate intellectual dis-
ability. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Dis-
abilities, 49, 368–380.
Mechling, L. C., Ayres, K. M., Foster, A. L., & Bryant, K. J. (2013).
Comparing the effects of commercially available and custom-
made video prompting for teaching cooking skills to high school
students with autism. Remedial and Special Education, 34,
317–383. doi:10.1177/0741932513494856
Mechling, L. C., & Collins, T. S. (2012). Comparison of the effects of
video models with and without verbal cueing on task completion
by young adults with moderate intellectual disability. Education
and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 47,
223–235.
Miltenberger, C. A., & Charlop, M. H. (2015). The comparative effec-
tiveness of portable video modeling vs. traditional video modeling
interventions with children with autism spectrum disorders. Jour-
nal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 27. doi:10.1007/
s10882-014-9416-y
Murzynski, N. T., & Bourret, J. C. (2007). Combining video modeling
and least-to-most prompting for establishing response chains.
Behavioral Interventions, 22, 147–152. doi:10.1002/bin.224
Neely, L. C., Ganz, J. B., Davis, J. L., Boles, M. B., Hong, E. R., Ninci,
J., & Gilliland, W. D. (2016). Generalization and maintenance of
functional living skills for individuals with autism spectrum
158
disorder: A review and meta-analysis. Review Journal of Autism
and Developmental Disorders. Advance online publication. doi:
10.1007/s40489-015-0064-7
Ninci, J., Neely, L. C., Hong, E. R., Boles, M. B., Gilliland, W. D.,
Ganz, J. B., . . . Vannest, K. J. (2015). Meta-analysis of single-case
research on teaching functional living skills to individuals with
ASD. Review Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders,
2, 184–198. doi:10.1007/s40489-014-0046-1
Parsons, M. B., Reid, D. H., & Lattimore, L. P. (2009). Increasing
independence of adults with autism in community activities: A
brief, embedded teaching strategy. Behavior Analysis in Practice,
2, 40–48.
Rai, K. (2008). Technology to teach self-help skills to elementary
students with mental disabilities. Journal of the Indian Academy
of Applied Psychology, 34(2), 201–202.
Riley-Tillman, T. C., Burns, M. K., & Gibbons, K. (2013). RTI appli-
cations, Volume 2: Assessment, analysis, and decision making.
New York, NY: Guildford Press.
Ruble, L. A., & Robson, D. M. (2007). Individual and environmental
determinants of engagement in autism. Journal of Autism and
Developmental Disorders, 37, 1457–1468. doi:10.1007/s10803-
006-0222-y
Scott, R., Collins, B., Knight, V., & Kleinert, H. (2013). Teaching
adults with moderate intellectual disability ATM use via the iPod.
Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities,
48, 190–199.
Sindelar, P. T., Rosenberg, M. S., & Wilson, R. J. (1985). An adapted
alternating treatments design for instructional research. Education
& Treatment of Children, 8, 67–76.
Smith, K. A., Sheply, S. B., Alexander, J. L., Davis, A., & Ayres,
K. M. (2015). Self-instruction using mobile technology to learn
functional skills. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 11,
93–100. doi:10.1016/j.rasd.2014.12.001
Smith, M., Ayres, K., Mechling, L., & Smith, K. (2013). Comparison of
the effects of video modeling with narration vs. video modeling on the
functional skill acquisition of adolescents with autism. Education and
Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 48, 164–178.
Sparapani, N., Morgan, L., Reinhardt, V. P., Schatschneider, C., &
Wetherby, A. M. (2016). Evaluation of classroom active engage-
ment in elementary students with autism spectrum disorder. Jour-
nal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 46, 782–796. doi:10.
1007/s10803-015-2615-2
Sparrow, S. S., Cicchetti, D. V., & Balla, D. A. (2005). Vineland
Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition: Parent and teacher
survey form. San Antonio, TX: Pearson Education.
Taber-Doughty, T., Bouck, E. C., Tom, K., Jasper, A. D., Flanagan,
S. M., & Bassette, L. (2011). Video modeling and prompting: A
comparison of two strategies for teaching cooking skills to students
with mild intellectual disabilities. Education and Training and
Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 46, 499–513.
Journal of Special Education Technology 33(3)
Taber-Doughty, T., Patton, S. E., & Brennan, S. (2008). Simultaneous
and delayed video modeling: An examination of system effective-
ness and student preferences. Journal of Special Education Tech-
nology, 23, 1–18.
Taylor, J. L., & Mailick, M. R. (2013). A longitudinal examination of
10-year change in vocational and educational activities for adults
with autism spectrum disorders. Developmental Psychology, 50,
699–708. doi:10.1037/a0034297
Van Laarhoven, T., Zurita, L. M., Johnson, J. W., Grider, K. M., &
Grider, K. L. (2009). Comparison of self, other, and subjective
video models for teaching daily living skills to individuals with
developmental disabilities. Education and Training in Develop-
mental Disabilities, 44, 509–522.
Wang, H., & Koyama, T. (2014). An analysis and review of the
literature and a three-tier video modeling intervention model.
Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 8, 746–758. doi:10.
1016/j.rasd.2014.03.010
Wheeler, A. J., Miller, R. A., Springer, B. M., Pittard, N. C., Phillips,
J. F., & Myers, A. M. (2001). Murdoch center program library (3rd
ed.). Raleigh, NC: Murdoch Center Foundation.
Wolery, M., Gast, D. L., & Ledford, D. (2014). Comparison designs.
In D. L. Gast & J. R. Ledford (Eds.), Single case research meth-
odology: Applications in special education and behavioral
sciences (2nd ed.). Florence, KY: Taylor & Francis.
Woodman, A. C., Mailick, M. R., Anderson, K. A., & Esbensen, A. J.
(2014). Residential transitions among adults with intellectual dis-
ability across 20 years. American Journal of Intellectual and
Developmental Disabilities, 119, 496–515. doi:10.1352/1944-
7558-119.6.496
Author Biographies
Kaylee Stahr Wynkoop is an assistant professor at Indiana
University of Pennsylvania. She teaches courses in the special
education program. Her research interests include using tech-
nology to improve the independent living skills of students with
autism spectrum disorder and intellectual disabilities as well as
helping teachers use technology in the classroom.
Rachel E. Robertson is an assistant professor of Special Edu-
cation at the University of Pittsburgh. She teaches and conducts
research in applied behavior analysis, behavior disorders, and
autism spectrum disorders.
Rachel Schwartz, BCBA, is currently pursuing her PhD in
Special Education at the University of Pittsburgh. Her research
interests include the identification and examination of behavior
analytic strategies for adults with autism and intellectual dis-
abilities as well as issues of self-determination, choice and
social inclusion across the lifespan.