Interactive Learning Environments

Video-Based Instruction for Individuals with Learning Disabilities: A Systematic

Review and Meta-analysis

Submission ID 249469306

Article Type Original Article

learning disability, video-based instruction, singl

Keywords e subject research, systematic review, qualitativ
e indicators, meta-analysis

For any queries please contact:

NILE-peerreview@journals.tandf.co.uk

Note for Reviewers:

To submit your review please visit https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/nile

For Peer Review Only - Anonymous PDF Cover Page

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

w
11
12
13

e
14

i
15
16
17

v
18
19

e
20
21
22
23

R
24
25
26
27

r
28
29

e
30
31

e
32
33
34
35

P
36
37
38

r
39
40
41

o
42
43
44

F
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 1 of 36
1
2
3
4 Video-Based Instruction for Individuals with Learning Disabilities: A
5
6 Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
7
8
9 The study's goal was to conduct a systematic review of studies investigating
10
video-based instruction in teaching skills to individuals with learning disabilities.

w
11
12 In addition, after assessing the quality of the studies, the percentage of
13

e
nonoverlapping data and the percentage of data that exceeded the median were
14

i
15 calculated to determine the effect sizes. As a result of the systematic review, a
16 descriptive analysis of a total of 19 single-subject studies was conducted. Then,
17

v
18 the studies were evaluated within the scope of Qualitative Indicators of Single-
19 Subject Research and it was determined that a total of nine studies met the

e
20
21 acceptability criteria. Meta-analyses were performed for nine studies. As a result
22 of the analyses performed, the percentage of nonoverlapping data and the
23

R
24 percentage of data exceeding the median results show that video-based
25 instruction is highly effective for children with learning disabilities. The findings
26
27
are discussed, along with recommendations for future research.

r
28
29 Keywords: learning disability; video-based instruction; single subject research;

e
30
31 systematic review; qualitative indicators; meta-analysis

e
32
33
34
Introduction
35

P
36 Individuals with learning disabilities (LD) have difficulties in various skills such as
37
38 understanding written material, reading words correctly, learning and applying

r
39
40 arithmetic rules, and mathematical reasoning (Peng & Fuchs, 2016). Additionally, they
41

o
42 require additional support to understand the language structure, process information,
43
44
and acquire academic skills (Bressane et al., 2024). For this reason, researchers working

F
45
46
47 on the education of individuals with LD identify and implement effective practices that
48
49 enable these individuals to actively participate in daily life and exist in social life by
50
51 supporting the areas they need.
52
53 There are studies investigating effective methods, techniques, or strategies for
54
55 individuals with LD. For instance, Bouck et al. (2018) examined the evidence
56
57
58
59
60

Page 2 of 36
1
2
3
4 supporting the concrete-representational-abstract (CRA) sequence, which aids students
5
6 with LD in mathematics. The findings of the study show that the CRA sequence is an
7
8 evidence-based practice. In another study, Gillespie and Graham (2014) aimed to
9
10
determine the effectiveness of writing strategies applied to individuals with LD. The

w
11
12
13
study's findings show that writing strategies are effective and meet the needs of

e
14
individuals with LD. There are studies that reveal effectiveness in different subjects

i
15
16
17 related to each LD area. In addition to these studies, in today's world, where the

v
18
19 widespread use of tools such as computers, tablets, and phones is increasing, there is

e
20
21 also a need for different learning paths and environments that enable individuals to
22
23 connect more with the teaching process. Studies have focused on the effectiveness of

R
24
25 learning environments with technological interaction, particularly in recent years (e.g.,
26
27

r
Chen et al., 2021). Video-based instruction (VBI) is one of the methods involving
28
29
technology. VBI, a type of intervention, presents the skill under study to participants

e
30
31
through videos. VBI supports instructional processes by enabling participants to relate

e
32
33
34 to the skill through audio and visual effects (Barman & Jena, 2023). There are various
35

P
36 types, like video modeling (VM) and video prompting (VP) (Rayner et al., 2009). VM
37
38 entails showing a video containing all of the target behavior steps, and then having the

r
39
40 participant perform these steps. VP, on the other hand, involves watching a video clip of
41

o
42 only one step of the target behavior and then performing that step. Students with LD
43
44 often struggle to learn in classroom environments where teachers do not feel well-

F
45
46
equipped and knowledgeable enough to effectively organize the teaching process
47
48
49
(Cortiella & Horowitz, 2014). More research needs to be done on models like VBI,
50
51 which have been shown to work in different areas of disability (e.g., Banda et al., 2011;
52
53 Park et al., 2019; Seok et al., 2018), so that people with LD can get help in the areas
54
55 where they are having trouble by using effective intervention.
56
57
58
59
60

Page 3 of 36
1
2
3
4 There are several studies in the literature that investigate VBI. Sun and Brock (2023)
5
6 conducted a systematic review of studies that used VBI to help secondary students with
7
8 intellectual disabilities acquire employment skills. The findings of the study provide
9
10
evidence that VBI is an effective intervention in preparing individuals with intellectual

w
11
12
13
disabilities for future employment. In another study, Kabashi and Kaczmarek (2017)

e
14
conducted a review of studies evaluating the effectiveness of VBI in improving the

i
15
16
17 social initiation skills of children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). This review

v
18
19 concludes that VBI has a significant impact. Hong et al. (2016) conducted a meta-

e
20
21 analysis of single-subject studies using VM, one of the types of VBI, to teach functional
22
23 living skills to individuals with ASD. They examined the qualitative indicators of the

R
24
25 studies with the Basic Design Standards developed by What Work Clearing House
26
27

r
(WWC). The effect sizes of the studies that met the standards were determined using
28
29
Tau-U calculations. The study's findings show that VM is moderately effective for

e
30
31
dependent variables and participants. In another study examining the effectiveness of

e
32
33
34 VM, Qi et al. (2018) conducted a systematic review of studies conducted to improve the
35

P
36 social communication skills of individuals with ASD. They examined the studies within
37
38 their scope in accordance with the WWC's Basic Design Standards. The findings of the

r
39
40 study revealed that VM is an effective practice for teaching social communication skills
41

o
42 to individuals with ASD. Only one study was found that examined the use of VBI in
43
44 teaching individuals with LD. In this study (Boon et al., 2020), a systematic review was

F
45
46
conducted on the studies in the literature on the use of VM, one of the types of VBI, for
47
48
49
students with LD receiving education within the scope of K–12 published until 2019.
50
51 The study analyzed a total of eight studies based on their descriptive qualifications and
52
53 effect sizes. According to researchers, VBI helps individuals with LD develop academic
54
55 and social skills. They also stressed the importance of diversifying studies to evaluate
56
57
58
59
60

Page 4 of 36
1
2
3
4 VM within effective practices and provide more evidence. When the literature is
5
6 examined, there is a need for a meta-analysis of studies that systematically compile all
7
8 of the studies, evaluate them in terms of qualitative indicators, and meet acceptability
9
10
criteria in order to determine the effectiveness of studies on the use of VBI in teaching

w
11
12
13
skills to individuals with LD. In response to this need, we conducted this review to

e
14
address the following research questions:

i
15
16
17

v
18 (1) What are the studies' participant characteristics (number, age, gender, diagnosis,
19

e
20 area of LD, implementers)?
21
22 (2) What are the studies' methodological features (dependent variable, independent
23

R
24 variable, VBI device, research model, setting, reliability)?
25
26 (3) What are the characteristics of the results of the studies (retention,
27

r
28 generalization, social validity, and main findings of the studies)?
29

e
30
(4) What is the quality of the studies on VBI according to Qualitative Indicators of
31

e
32
33
Single-Subject Research?
34
35 (5) What are the effect sizes related to the calculations of the percentage of data

P
36
37 exceeding the median (PEM) and the effect sizes related to the calculations of
38
the percentage of nonoverlapping data (PND) in the studies analyzed in this

r
39
40
41 study?

o
42
43 (6) What are the results obtained when the PEM and the PND effect sizes are
44

F
45 compared?
46
47
48
49 Method
50
51 In this study, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. For this purpose, we
52
53 followed the "Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)
54
55
Guidelines." With the guidelines, researchers can report transparently after the
56
57
58
59
60

Page 5 of 36
1
2
3
4 systematic review process (Page et al., 2021).
5
6
7
8 Search Procedure
9
Between January 1, 1990, and December 7, 2023, we conducted a literature review to
10

w
11
12
review studies on video-based instruction in teaching skills to students with learning
13

e
14 disabilities. For the literature review, we used PsycINFO, JSTOR, ERIC, Academic

i
15
16 Search Complete, EbscoHost, Scopus, SpringerLink, Taylor & Francis, Web of Science,
17

v
18 Sage, and Wiley Online Library search engines. During the search process, we kept the
19

e
20 keywords "learning disab*" OR "specific learning disab*" OR "learning diff*" OR
21
22 "math* disab*" OR "dyscalculia" OR "math* disorder*" OR "dyslexia" OR "reading
23

R
24 diff*" OR "reading disorder*" OR "dysgraphia" OR "writing diff*" OR "writing
25
26 disorder*" for learning disability and searched respectively with the keywords related to
27

r
28
VBI. Within the scope of VBI, we used the keywords "video based intervention" OR
29

e
30
31 "video based instruction" OR video-based (Scanning 1), "video modeling" (Scanning 2),

e
32
33 "video feedback" (Scanning 3), "video prompting" OR "video prompt*" (Scanning 4),
34
35 "video self modeling" (Scanning 5), "video instruction" OR "video intervention*"

P
36
37 (Scanning 6). We reached 200 studies with Scanning 1; 115 studies with Scanning 2; 59
38

r
39 studies with Scanning 3; 38 studies with Scanning 4; 30 studies with Scanning 5; and
40
41 finally 69 studies with Scanning 6. As a result of the search in the databases, we

o
42
43 examined the titles and abstracts of 518 studies, which remained when duplicate studies
44

F
45 were removed from a total of 620 studies. As a result of the examinations, we
46
47
eliminated 447 studies because they were not suitable, and we could not reach the full
48
49
50 text of 7 of the remaining 71 studies. We downloaded and filed the 64 studies we could
51
52 reach on the computer and examined their citations and references. As a result of the
53
54 review, we could not access the full text of 10 of the 28 studies obtained in total. We
55
56 evaluated the 64 studies we accessed from the databases and the 18 studies we accessed
57
58
59
60

Page 6 of 36
1
2
3
4 as a result of the bibliography review within the scope of the inclusion and exclusion
5
6 criteria. Figure 1 illustrates the stages of the screening process.
7
8
9
10
Figure 1. PRISMA Flow Diagram of The Search Process.

w
11
12
13

e
14

i
15
16 Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
17

v
18 The inclusion criteria for this study were (a) an article published in English in an
19

e
20 international peer-reviewed journal between January 1, 1990, and December 7, 2023;
21
22 (b) at least one of the participants had a diagnosis of LD (dyscalculia, dyslexia,
23

R
24 dysgraphia) (only data obtained from participants with LD were analyzed in the
25
26 studies); (c) one of the independent variables was VBI; and (d) the studies were
27

r
28
designed with a single-subject research design.
29

e
30
31 We determined the following exclusion criteria: (a) using a research design other

e
32
33 than single-subject research designs; (b) participants with a diagnosis other than LD; (c)
34
35 literature studies on the use of VBI for students with LD; and (d) studies that did not

P
36
37 provide appropriate data for visual analysis. The search of the databases yielded 64
38

r
39 studies, of which we eliminated 16 for being irrelevant, 5 for being qualitative, 3 for
40
41 having a mixed design, and 5 for having quantitative research designs. We also

o
42
43 eliminated 6 for being literature reviews, and 13 for involving participants with various
44

F
45 types of disabilities. After reviewing the bibliography and citations, we eliminated 18
46
47
studies, of which 9 had qualitative research designs, 5 had quantitative designs, and 2
48
49
50 were literature reviews. We included the remaining 18 studies in the further analysis
51
52 process by consensus.
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 7 of 36
1
2
3
4 Descriptive Analysis Process
5
6 To carry out the descriptive analysis, we identified categories separately. Then, by
7
8 discussing the categories, creating common categories, and reaching a consensus on
9
10 their definition, we conducted a descriptive analysis of a total of 18 studies that met the

w
11
12 inclusion criteria. We evaluated the studies for the descriptive analysis based on (a)
13

e
14 participant characteristics (age, gender, diagnosis, field of LD, implementer), (b)

i
15
16
method characteristics (dependent variable, independent variable, device used for VBI,
17

v
18
19 research model, setting, reliability), and (c) results-related characteristics (maintenance,

e
20
21 generalization, social validity, and main findings of the studies). In line with these
22
23 analyzed characteristics, we created two separate tables: "demographic characteristics of

R
24
25 the study participants" and "characteristics related to the method and results." One of
26
27 the researchers listed the participant characteristics in the table, while the other listed

r
28
29 the characteristics related to the method and results. Then, the researchers came

e
30
31 together, examined the tables, and reached a consensus. After completing the

e
32
33
descriptive analysis processes, we assessed the studies based on qualitative indicators.
34
35

P
36
We performed a meta-analysis of the studies that were acceptable in terms of qualitative
37
38 criteria.

r
39
40
41 Meta-Analysis Process

o
42
43
44 Qualitative Indicators

F
45
46 The qualitative indicators of the studies were evaluated with the "Qualitative Indicators
47
48 of Single-Subject Research" developed by Horner et al. (2005). In this context, the
49
50 qualitative indicators of single-subject research are determined by five categories and a
51
52 total of 21 qualitative indicators. These categories are (1) participant and setting, (2)
53
54 dependent variable, (3) independent variable, (4) baseline, and (5) validity. Within the
55
56
scope of Qualitative Indicators of Single-Subject Research, for single-subject research
57
58
59
60

Page 8 of 36
1
2
3
4 to be acceptable, it must provide information on five characteristics. These
5
6 characteristics are (a) the functional definition of the procedure, (b) the functional
7
8 definition of results, (c) treatment integrity, (d) the functional relationship between
9
10
results obtained with the procedure, and (e) carrying out the experimental control with a

w
11
12
13
sufficient number of studies, researchers, and participants. In this context, qualitative

e
14
indicators included item 9 for (a) the functional definition of the procedure (described

i
15
16
17 with replicable precision); (b) items 14 and 15 for the functional definition of results

v
18
19 (the experimental effect has three proofs/representations and the design controlled the

e
20
21 threats for internal validity); (c) item 11 for treatment integrity; (treatment fidelity was
22
23 defined); (d) the functional relationship between results obtained with the procedure,

R
24
25 item 16 (the results presented a pattern that experimental control was demonstrated);
26
27

r
and finally (e) carrying out the experimental control with a sufficient number of studies,
28
29
researchers, and participants, item 17 (the experimental effects were replicated, external

e
30
31
validity was provided).

e
32
33
34
35 Effect size calculation

P
36
37 We used two different methods to figure out the effect size of studies that used VBI to
38

r
39 teach people with LD skills: (a) the analysis of the percentage of nonoverlapping data
40
41 (PND) (Scruggs et al., 1987) and (b) the analysis of the percentage of data exceeding

o
42
43 the median (PEM) (Ma, 2006).
44

F
45
46
47 Reliability
48
49 We collected three types of reliability data. First, we placed the studies identified in the
50
51 descriptive analysis process in tables separately from each other. We then collected
52
53 reliability data from all the studies we conducted. As a result, inter-coder reliability data
54
55 were collected from 100% (n=17) of the studies for descriptive analysis, 58.8% (n=10)
56
57
58
59
60

Page 9 of 36
1
2
3
4 for qualitative indicators, and 100% (n=9) of the studies for effect size calculations.
5
6 Reliability data were 96% for descriptive analysis, 98% for qualitative indicators, and
7
8 100% for effect size calculations.
9
10

w
11
12 Results
13

e
14
Results of Descriptive Analysis

i
15
16
17 We identified 18 studies to evaluate descriptively according to participant and method

v
18
19 characteristics. However, we excluded one study (Clare et al., 2000) from our

e
20
21 descriptive analysis because they did not specify which students had learning
22
23 disabilities. Therefore, we conducted a descriptive analysis with a total of 17 studies.

R
24
25 Table 1 provides the coding for the participant characteristics of the 17 analyzed
26
27 studies, while Table 2 provides the coding for the method and results characteristics.

r
28
29 The following section presents the results of the descriptive analysis.

e
30
31

e
32
33 Participant Characteristics
34
35 Only 49 students diagnosed with LD participated in the VBI studies, according to our

P
36
37 findings. When the findings regarding gender were analyzed, we found that 53.1%
38
(n=26) of the participants were girls and 46.9% (n=23) were boys. In addition, 42.85%

r
39
40
41 (n=21) of the participants were diagnosed as SLD (e.g., Edwards & Lambros, 2018),

o
42
43 while 57.15% (n=28) were diagnosed as LD (e.g., Miller & Little, 2018). In addition,
44

F
45 28.57% (n=14) of the participants had difficulty in reading, 44.89% (n=22) had
46
47 difficulty in math, and 26.53% (n=13) did not know in which area they had difficulties.
48
49
When we analyzed the ages of the participants, 26.53% (n=13) were between the ages
50
51
52
of 6–9, 24.48% (n=12) between the ages of 10–13, 34.69% (n=17) between the ages of
53
54 14–17, and 14.28% (n=7) between the ages of 18–21.
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 10 of 36
1
2
3
4 In 76.47% (n=13) of the studies, researchers conducted the instruction (e.g.,
5
6 Kellems et al., 2016). In one study, peers (Decker & Buggey, 2014); in two studies,
7
8 teachers (Cihak & Bowlin, 2019); and in one study, an assistant involved in the project
9
10
(O'Brien & Wood, 2011) conducted the instruction.

w
11
12
13

e
14 Methodological Characteristics

i
15
16
17 Dependent variables. Within the scope of mathematics skills, counting skills (e.g.,

v
18
19 Dueker & Day, 2022), fractions (e.g., Hughes, 2019), four operations skills (e.g.,

e
20
21 Kellems et al., 2020), and geometry skills (e.g., Satsangi et al., 2020) were taught.
22
23 Within the scope of reading skills, reading fluency (e.g., Hitchcock et al., 2004) and

R
24
25 reading comprehension skills (e.g., Hitchcock, 2004) were taught. Finally, writing skills
26
27

r
(e.g., Miller & Little, 2018) were practiced within the scope of academic skills. In
28
29
addition to academic skills, various skills such as activity engagement skills (King et al.,

e
30
31
2014), answering interview questions (O'Neill & Rehfeldt, 2017), and collaboration

e
32
33
34 skills (Lonnecker et al., 1994; O'Brien & Wood, 2011) were also taught. It was
35

P
36 determined that the ability to answer interview questions (O'Neill & Rehfeldt, 2017)
37
38 was also practiced within the scope of work and occupational skills.

r
39
40 Independent variables. Among the types of VBI, it is seen that there are studies
41

o
42 conducted only with VM (e.g., Cihak & Bowlin, 2009), only with VP (Kellems et al.,
43
44
2016), and both (both VP and VM) (Kellems et al., 2020). In addition, teaching with

F
45
46
47
VSM and VPM (e.g., Decker & Buggey, 2014; Miller & Little, 2018), which are VM
48
49 types, has also been conducted.
50
51 The device on which the videos are played. In some studies (e.g., Kellems et al., 2016),
52
53 videos used in teaching are presented on tablets. In addition, it was determined that it
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 11 of 36
1
2
3
4 was also played with handheld computers (e.g., Cihak & Bowlin, 2009), laptops (e.g.,
5
6 O'Neill & Rehfeldt, 2017), and desktop computers (O'Brien & Wood, 2011).
7
8 Research design. In 58.82% (n=10) of the studies, multiple probe designs across
9
10
participants or behaviors (e.g., Miller & Little, 2018) were used. 35.29% (n=6) of the

w
11
12
13
studies used multiple baseline designs across participants or behaviors (e.g., Hitchcock

e
14
et al., 2004). Finally, one study (Satsangi et al., 2021b) utilized a between-participants

i
15
16
17 alternating adaptation design.

v
18
19 Setting. All of the studies were conducted in school settings; in addition 70.58% (n=12)

e
20
21 in classroom settings (e.g., Hughes, 2019), 5.88% (n=1) in a private study room
22
23 (Kellems et al., 2020), 5.88% (n=1) in a special education office (Cihak & Bowlin,

R
24
25 2009), and finally 5.88% (n=1) in a room at school (Kellems et al., 2016).
26
27

r
Maintenance and generalization. Maintenance data were collected in 76.47% (n=13) of
28
29
the studies (e.g., Duaker & Day, 2020). In the studies, maintenance data were collected

e
30
31
2 weeks (Hughes, 2019; Lonnecker et al., 1994) or 3 weeks (e.g., King et al., 2014)

e
32
33
34 after the implementation process was completed. In some studies (e.g., Cihak & Bowlin,
35

P
36 2009), data were collected more than 6 weeks later. Some studies (e.g., Edwards &
37
38 Lambros, 2018) did not collect any maintenance data.

r
39
40 Generalization data were collected in 17.64% (n=3) of the studies (e.g.,
41

o
42 Lonnecker et al., 1994). When the limited number of generalization data collected was
43
44 examined, it was determined that one study collected generalization data across skills

F
45
46
(Hughes, 2019) and one study collected generalization data across environments
47
48
49
(Lonnecker et al., 1994).
50
51 Social validity. Social validity data were collected in 74.99% (n=12) of the studies (e.g.,
52
53 Kellems et al., 2016). In 52.94% (n=9) of the studies where social validity data were
54
55 collected, data were collected only from students, in 16.66% (n=2) from both teachers
56
57
58
59
60

Page 12 of 36
1
2
3
4 and students, and finally in 8.33% (n=1) from parents, teachers and students. It is seen
5
6 that social validity data have been collected through various methods, including semi-
7
8 structured interviews (e.g., Cihak & Bowlin, 2009), focus group interviews (e.g.,
9
10
Hitchcook et al., 2004), and questionnaires (e.g., Kellems et al., 2020). Differently,

w
11
12
13
O'Brien & Wood (2011) collected data in more than one way. The researchers asked

e
14
teachers to provide feedback via e-mail throughout the study process. In addition, the

i
15
16
17 researchers kept observation notes in order to socially evaluate the appropriateness,

v
18
19 effectiveness and efficiency of the video modeled instruction. The observation notes

e
20
21 included students' comments on the process and their evaluations with each other.
22
23 Finally, social validity data were collected from the students through a questionnaire.

R
24
25 Reliability. Treatment integrity data were reported in 76.47% (n=13) of studies (e.g.,
26
27

r
Satsangi et al., 2020). Interobserver agreement data were reported in 100% of studies
28
29
(e.g., Satsangi et al., 2021b). In 76.47% (n=13) of the studies, both treatment integrity

e
30
31
data and interobserver agreement data were collected. In four studies with interobserver

e
32
33
34 agreement data (e.g., Decker & Buggey, 2014), it was determined that no information
35

P
36 on treatment integrity data was provided.
37
38 Main findings of the studies. We determined that 79.59% (n=39) of the participants

r
39
40 acquired the skills studied. 20.41% (n=10) (e.g., Hitchcock et al., 2004) did not perform
41

o
42 at the determined criterion but made positive progress compared to the baseline.
43
44 We determined that maintenance data were collected from 77.55% (n=38) of the

F
45
46
participants. We observed that 81.57% (n=31) of the participants whose maintenance
47
48
49
data were collected maintained the acquired skills after the implementation sessions
50
51 were completed. We determined that the participants in the Kellems et al. (2016) study
52
53 performed well in some maintenance sessions and poorly in others.
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 13 of 36
1
2
3
4 We observed that generalization data were collected from 14.28% (n=7) of the
5
6 participants. As a result of the sessions on generalization to different environments or
7
8 skills, we determined that all the students were able to generalize the skills they
9
10
acquired.

w
11
12
13
When we analyzed the 12 studies in which social validity data were collected,

e
14
we observed that teachers, students, and families expressed positive opinions about

i
15
16
17 VBI, and the skills acquired.

v
18
19 Table 1. Summary of the participant characteristics

e
20 Source Participant(s) Implementer
21 Number Age Gender Diagnosis SL Area
22 Cihak and 3 15/16/18 2F, 1M LD Reading Teacher
23 Bowlin (2009)

R
24 Decker and 6 8-12 4F, 2M SLD Reading Peers
25 Buggey (2014)
26 Dueker and 1 6 1F SLD Unspecified Researcher
Day (2022)
27

r
Edwards and 2 12/13 1F, 1M SLD Unspecified Researcher
28 Lambros
29 (2018)

e
30 Hitchcock et. 2 6/7 1F, 1M SLD Reading Teacher
31 al. (2004)
Hughes (2019) 2 11/14 2F SLD Mathematics Researcher

e
32
33 Kellems et. al. 1 20 1F SLD Mathematics Researcher
(2016)
34
Kellems et. al. 7 13-14 4F, 3M LD Mathematics Researcher
35

P
(2020)
36 King et. al. 2 7-9 2M SLD Unspecified Researcher
37 (2014)
38 Lonnecker et. 2 7-9 2M LD Unspecified Researcher

r
39 al. (1994)
40 Miller and 3 9 2F, 1M LD Reading Researcher
41 Little (2018)

o
O’Brien and 3 17-19 1F, 2M LD Unspecified Project
42 Wood (2011) Assistant
43 O’Neill and 3 20/20/21 2F, 1M LD Unspecified Researcher
44 Rehfeldt

F
45 (2017)
46 Satsangi and 3 14/15/16 3F SLD Mathematics Researcher
47 Hammer
48 (2019)
Satsangi et. al. 3 14/15/17 3M SLD Mathematics Researcher
49
(2020)
50 Satsangi et. al. 3 16 2F, 1M SLD Mathematics Researcher
51 (2021a)
52 Satsangi et. al. 3 15/16/16 1F, 2M SLD Mathematics Researcher
53 (2021b)
54
55 Abbreviations: F: Female; LD: Learning Disabilities; M: Male; SLD: Specific Learning Disabilities
56
57 Table 2. Summary of the method and results-related characteristics
58
59
60

Page 14 of 36
1
2
3
4
5 Author(s) Dependent Independent Device Experimental Setting M G SV IOA TI
6 Variable Variable Used for Design
7 VM
8 Cihak and Geometry VM Handheld MPD Special + - + + +
9 Bowlin skills Computers educati (6 (T, (%100) (%100)
(2009) on weeks S)
10 office later)

w
11 Decker Reading VM (VSM, Unclear MBD Class + - - + -
12 and fluency VPM) (2,4,6 (%96)
13 Buggey weeks

e
14 (2014) later)

i
15 Dueker Prerequisite VM Tablet MBD Special + - - + +
16 and Day numeracy educati (3 (%98.4 (%99.63)
(2022) skills on weeks 2)
17

v
class later)
18 Edwards Reading VM (VSM) Unclear MBD - - - + + +
19 and fluency (S) (%92) (%100)

e
20 Lambros
21 (2018)
22 Hitchcock Reading VSM Unclear MBD Class + - + + +
23 et. al. fluency and (1,6 (P, (%96) (%99)

R
24 (2004) comprehens months T,
ion later) S)
25
Hughes Simplifying VM Unclear MPD Class + + + + -
26 (2019) fractions (2 (Skill) (S) (%99)
27

r
weeks
28 later)
29 Kellems Calculation VP Tablet MPD A room + - + + +

e
30 et. al. a tip, unit at (3 (S) (%97.8 (%100)
31 (2016) price school weeks 4)
comparison, later)

e
32
adjusting a
33 recipe
34 Kellems Addition VM and VP Tablet MPD A + - + + +
35

P
et. al. and private (1,2,3,4 (S) (%92,3
36 (2020) subtraction, study weeks -100)
37 operations, room at later)
38 multiplicati school
on and

r
39
40 division
King et. On task VM Laptop MPD Class + - - + + (%100)
41 al. (2014) behavior (3

o
42 weeks
43 later)
44 Lonnecker Cooperative VM (VSM) Unclear MBD Class + + - + -

F
45 et. al. behaviors, (2 (Setting (%80)
46 (1994) Inappropriat weeks )
47 e behavior later)
Miller and Writing VM (VSM) Tablet MPD Class + - + + + (%100)
48
Little skills (1,3 (S) (%94)
49 (2018) months
50 later)
51 O’Brien Cooperative VM Desktop MBD Class + - + + +
52 and Wood discussion (T, (%86.2 (%91.6)
53 (2011) group S) ve
54 behaviors %84)
55 O’Neill Answering VM Laptop MPD Class + (1,4 - - + -
56 and interview months (%86)
57 questions later)
58
59
60

Page 15 of 36
1
2
3
4 Rehfeldt
5 (2017)
6
7 Satsangi Solve VM Tablet MPD Class - - + + +
and geometry (S) (%100) (%100)
8 Hammer word
9 (2019) problems
10 Satsangi Solve VM Tablet MPD Class + (3 - + + +

w
11 et. al. geometry weeks (S) (range: (%100)
12 (2020) word later) %96,6)
13 problems

e
14 Satsangi Drawing VM Tablet MPD Class - - + + +
et. al. graphed (S) (range: (%100)

i
15
(2021a) linear %98,6)
16 equations
17 Satsangi Drawing VM Tablet Alternating Class - + + + +

v
18 et. al. linear practices (S) (range: (%100)
19 (2021b) equation %100)

e
20 graphs
21
22
23
Abbreviations: G: Generalization; IOA: Inter Observer Agreement; M: Maintenance; MBD: Multiple Baseline Design; MPD: Multiple

R
24
25 Probe Design; P: Parents; SV: Social Validity; S: Students; T: Teachers; TF: Treatment Integrity; VM: Video Model; VP: Video
26
27 Prompting; VPM: Video Peer Modeling; VSM: Video Self Modeling,

r
28
29

e
30 Results of Quality Indicators of the Studies
31

e
32 We have tabulated the results of the evaluation of the studies in terms of qualitative
33
34 indicators (Table 3). Some of the studies (e.g., Cihak & Bowlin, 2009) did not meet all
35

P
36 the qualitative indicators, but met the qualitative indicators critical for the acceptability
37
38 criterion. Some studies (e.g., Satsangi & Hammer, 2019) met all qualitative indicators.

r
39
40
We did not include studies that did not meet the qualitative acceptability criteria (e.g.,
41

o
42
43 Decker & Buggey, 2014) in the meta-analysis process. Thus, we performed meta-
44
analysis calculations for a total of nine studies.

F
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 16 of 36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

w
11
12
13

e
14

i
15
16
17

v
18
19 Table 3. Summary of quality evaluation for single-subject designs

e
20
Quality Indicators
and

Decker and

Dueker and

Edwards and

Hitchcock et.

Kellems et.

Kellems et.

King et. al.

Miller and

O’Brien and

O'Neill and

Satsangi and

Satsangi et.

Satsangi et.

Satsangi et.
Wood (2011)
et. al. (1994)
21

Little (2018)
Day (2022)

al. (2021b)
al. (2021a)
Lonnecker
al. (2004)

al. (2020)

al. (2016)

al. (2020)
Lambros

Hammer
Rehfeldt
22
Buggey

Hughes
Bowlin
(2009)

(2014)

(2018)

(2019)

(2014)

(2017)

(2019)
Cihak

23

R
24 Participants and Settings
1. The participants were Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
25 described adequately
2. The selection process N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y
26 was described
27 adequately

r
3. The setting was Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N N Y Y Y Y Y
28 described adequately
Dependent Variable
29 4. Described with Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

e
30 operational precision
5. Measurable Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
31 6. The measurement Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

e
32 was defined with
replicable precision
33 7. Repetitive Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
measurements were
34 made
35 8. Interobserver Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

P
agreement data were
36 reported
37 Independent variable
9. Described with Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
38 replicable precision*
10. Systematically Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

r
39 manipulated
40 11. Treatment fidelity Y N Y Y Y N Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Y
was defined*
41 Baseline

o
42
43
44

F
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 17 of 36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

w
11
12
13

e
14

i
15
16
17

v
18
19 12. Phase provided Y N Y N N Y Y Y Y N N N Y Y Y Y Y

e
20 evidence for the design
(pattern) before the
21 application
13. Described with Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
22 replicable precision
23 Validity

R
14. The experimental Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
24 effect has three
25 proofs/representations*
15. The design Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
26 controlled the threats for
internal validity*
27

r
16. The results Y Y Y N N N Y Y Y Y N N N Y Y Y Y
28 presented a pattern that
experimental control
29 was demonstrated*

e
17. The experimental Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
30 effects were replicated,
31 external validity was
provided*

e
32 18. The dependent Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
33 variable is socially
important
34 19. The magnitude of Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
change in the dependent
35

P
variable resulting from
36 the application is
socially important
37 20. The independent Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
variable is cost effective
38 and/or practical

r
39 21. The independent Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
variable was applied
40 over extended time in
41 the presence of typical

o
42
43
44

F
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 18 of 36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

w
11
12
13

e
14

i
15
16
17

v
18
19 (natural)

e
20 contexts/persons
Quality Score/Total 20/21 19/21 21/21 19/21 19/21 18/21 21/21 21/21 20/21 19/21 18/21 18/21 18/21 21/21 21/21 21/21 21/21
21 Score
22
23

R
24
25
26
27

r
28
29

e
30
31

e
32
33
34
35

P
36
37
38

r
39
40
41

o
42
43
44

F
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 19 of 36
1
2
3
4
5
Results of Effect Size Calculations
6
7
8 Within the scope of the study, we calculated the PND and PEM effect sizes of the
9
10 studies (n=9) that met the acceptability criteria in terms of qualitative indicators. The

w
11
12 calculation results for the effect sizes are presented in Table 4. Effect size calculations
13

e
14 were performed by examining 49 different graphs. When the effect size calculations are

i
15
16
analyzed, it is seen that VBI is highly effective in both PEM and PND calculations.
17

v
18
19
Large effect size, moderate effect size and small effect size calculations for both PND

e
20
21 and PEM are also included in the table.
22
23

R
24 The effect size ratios of the PND and PEM calculations of the studies evaluated
25
26 within the scope of meta-analysis are given in Table 5. When Table 5 is examined, it is
27

r
28 observed that all of the studies are highly effective within the scope of PEM
29

e
30 calculations, eight studies are highly effective, and one study is moderately effective
31

e
32 within the scope of PND. Display quotations of over 40 words, or as needed.
33
34
35

P
36
Table 4. Summary of the effect size results for the included studies
37
38
Authors PND (%) PEM (%)

r
39
40 Cihak and Bowlin (2009) 100 100
41 Dueker and Day (2022) 100 100

o
42 Kellems et. al. (2020) 96,5 97,9
43 Kellems et. al. (2016) 100 100
44 King et. al. (2014) 100 100

F
45 Satsangi and Hammer (2019) 100 100
46 Satsangi et. al. (2020) 100 100
47 Satsangi et. al. (2021a) 100 100
48 Satsangi et. al. (2021b) 86,6 100
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 20 of 36
1
2
3
4 Table 5. Summary of the PND and PEM effect size statistics for the dependent
5
6 variables
7
8 PND PEM
9
10 Large effect Moderate Small effect Large effect Moderate Small effect

w
11
12
size(> 90%) effect size size (<70%) size(> 90%) effect size size (<70%)
13 (70–89%) (70–89%)

e
14
Dependent F % F % F % F % F % F %

i
15
16 variable
17

v
18 VM 39 84,78 7 15,22 - - 43 93,47 3 6,53 - -
19
VP 3 100 - - - - 3 100 - - - -

e
20
21
22
23

R
24
25 Discussion
26
In the current study, we reviewed and analyzed studies on VBI in teaching skills to
27

r
28
29 individuals with LD. We examined 17 single-subject studies with a total of 49

e
30
31 participants, examining the effectiveness of VBI in individuals with LD between the

e
32
33 ages of 6 and 21. We investigated nine studies' effects and evidence base. The meta-
34
35 analysis of the studies identified a significant PEM effect size. On the other hand, the

P
36
37 meta-analysis of most studies identified a significant PND effect size, but very few
38

r
39 studies identified a moderate PND effect size. This study's meta-analysis revealed that
40
41 VBI demonstrated high effectiveness in both PEM and PND effect size calculations

o
42
43 across all studies.
44

F
45
46
47 Descriptive Analysis
48
49 It is observed that the participants in the trainings carried out with VBI with individuals
50
51 with LD are mostly between the ages of 6-13. Given that the diagnosis processes of
52
53 individuals with LD typically take place during primary and secondary school periods,
54
55 it can be understood that the majority of VBI studies involve individuals of primary and
56
57
58
59
60

Page 21 of 36
1
2
3
4 secondary school age. Similarly, Boon et al. (2020) found that the majority of the
5
6 participants in the VM interventions consisted of school-age individuals with LD.
7
8 Additionally, when the findings obtained as a result of this study are examined, it can be
9
10
seen that there are studies conducted with individuals between the ages of 18-21. It is

w
11
12
13
important to teach vocational skills (e.g., being able to answer interview questions;

e
14
O’Neill & Rehfeldt, 2017) with VBI during the transition to adulthood. Therefore, we

i
15
16
17 can say that there is a need for more studies using VBI with age groups in the transition

v
18
19 to adulthood. In some of the studies, specific areas in which the participants experienced

e
20
21 learning difficulties were specified, while in others, it was determined that only the
22
23 difficulties related to any field were not mentioned. It is also seen that the majority of

R
24
25 the participants have learning difficulties related to the field of mathematics.
26
27

r
Considering the studies on mathematics learning disabilities (MLD), which have
28
29
increased in recent years (Nelson & Powell, 2018; Nelson et al., 2022), it can be

e
30
31
understood why a large proportion of studies on VBI are conducted with individuals

e
32
33
34 with MLD.
35

P
36 The implementation of the skills taught in the studies was mostly carried out by
37
38 researchers. In a limited number of studies, it was carried out by peers (Decker and

r
39
40 Buggey, 2014), teachers (Cihak & Bowlin, 2019; Hitchcock et al., 2004) and project
41

o
42 assistants (O'Brien & Wood, 2011). Our findings align with those of the Boon et al.
43
44 (2020) study. Considering that the skills taught in the studies generally consist of

F
45
46
academic skills, greater involvement of teachers and peers in the studies may contribute
47
48
49
to generalization processes.
50
51 We found that the majority of the skills taught through VBI were mathematical
52
53 ones. The outcomes of the review by Boon et al. (2020) are also in line with this
54
55 outcome. We determined that numbers, counting, fractions, operations, and geometry
56
57
58
59
60

Page 22 of 36
1
2
3
4 skills were studied within the scope of mathematics skills. Generally, studies have
5
6 examined the effectiveness of VBI in teaching a limited number of skills in the field of
7
8 numbers and operations. Future studies could investigate the effectiveness of VBI in
9
10
teaching other skills related to the learning domain of numbers and operations, as well

w
11
12
13
as other learning domains such as measurement, data analysis, and probability. In

e
14
addition, it is seen that a small number of studies on fluent reading, reading

i
15
16
17 comprehension and writing skills have been carried out within the scope of academic

v
18
19 skills. Apart from academic skills, it was determined that collaboration skills and the

e
20
21 ability to answer interview questions were also taught through VBI. It is important that
22
23 employment opportunities can be created for individuals with LD and that these

R
24
25 individuals have job skills (Gerber, 2012). For this reason, we think that there is a need
26
27

r
to diversify studies to determine the effectiveness of VBI in teaching vocational skills.
28
29
This study's findings demonstrate the use of VM and VP, two VBI types, in

e
30
31
research. Examining the literature reveals that some studies (e.g., Kellems & Edwards,

e
32
33
34 2016) consider VP as a subtype of VM, while others (e.g., Aljehany & Bennett, 2020;
35

P
36 Thomas et al.., 2020) consider both types separately. When we examined the findings of
37
38 the current study, we came across studies in which the two types were conceptually

r
39
40 confused. We have included all studies, as both types are covered under VBI.
41

o
42 A large proportion of the videos used in the studies were presented via tablets
43
44 (e.g., Kellems et al., 2020; Miller & Little, 2018; Satsangi et al., 2020). In a limited

F
45
46
number of studies, we determined that videos were also presented via handheld
47
48
49
computers (Cihak & Bowlin, 2009), laptop computers (King et al., 2014; O'Neill &
50
51 Rehfeldt, 2017) and desktop computers (O'Brien & Wood, 2011). The findings of our
52
53 study showed that VBI instruction presented with various technological tools was
54
55 effective for individuals with LD. When studies on VBI in the literature are examined,
56
57
58
59
60

Page 23 of 36
1
2
3
4 there are studies comparing the devices on which videos are played in terms of
5
6 effectiveness and efficiency according to their type or characteristics in teaching for
7
8 different types of disabilities (e.g., Mechling & Ayres, 2012; Mechling & Youhouse,
9
10
2012; Miltenberger & Charlop; 2015). We think that there is a need for studies

w
11
12
13
comparing the effectiveness and efficiency of devices on which videos are played for

e
14
individuals with LD. In addition, future studies can investigate the effectiveness of VBI

i
15
16
17 teaching with smartphones, which are widely used today.

v
18
19 Most of the examined studies utilized multiple probe designs and their

e
20
21 derivatives, spanning across behaviors and participants. Furthermore, researchers have
22
23 employed both a multiple baseline design and an alternating adaptation design in their

R
24
25 studies. This finding indicates that studies using VBI for individuals with LD typically
26
27

r
focus on the effectiveness of instruction. Future research may conduct studies
28
29
comparing VBI with other methods and VBI types, in addition to teaching skills to

e
30
31
individuals with LD with VBI.

e
32
33
34 When the environments in which the studies were carried out were evaluated,
35

P
36 we determined that all the teaching was carried out in the schools where the participants
37
38 attended. This can be explained by the fact that most of the skills studied are academic.

r
39
40 In addition, it is seen that studies on vocational skills are carried out in structured
41

o
42 classroom environments. In the future, studies can be designed to teach these skills in
43
44 natural environments to prepare for real-life situations and generalize the skills. In

F
45
46
addition, practices that train parents as implementers can also be designed to support
47
48
49
families to both sustain and participate in effective teaching and learning processes in
50
51 their home environments.
52
53 We determined that maintenance data were collected in 76.47% of the studies,
54
55 and in most of the studies, data were collected after 2 and 4 weeks. In a limited number
56
57
58
59
60

Page 24 of 36
1
2
3
4 of studies, data are collected after 6 weeks as part of long-term maintenance data. In
5
6 more than half of the studies, it was stated that individuals with LD maintained the
7
8 skills they acquired. In a limited number of studies (Kellems et al., 2016; Kellems et al.,
9
10
2020), some participants maintain the skills they have acquired, while others cannot.

w
11
12
13
Given participants for whom maintenance data were not collected and participants who

e
14
were unable to maintain the skills they acquired, further studies collecting long-term

i
15
16
17 maintenance data are needed.

v
18
19 This study revealed that only a small percentage of the reviewed studies

e
20
21 collected generalization data. Examining the data collected from a limited number of
22
23 participants reveals that they collected data on generalizations across skills and

R
24
25 environments. Research also reveals that some individuals struggle to generalize the
26
27

r
skills they have acquired. Our findings are consistent with some of the reviews
28
29
conducted with other special needs groups in the literature (e.g., Sun & Brock, 2023)

e
30
31
and differ from others (e.g., Kabashi & Kaczmarek, 2017). Data on generalization

e
32
33
34 becomes crucial when considering studies on academic skills. Each of these academic
35

P
36 skills can serve as a prerequisite for another academic skill. For this reason, conducting
37
38 generalization studies on different materials, environments, participants, and skills

r
39
40 related to the academic skills taught plays a critical role in the acquisition of academic
41

o
42 skills to be taught in the future. In addition, generalization studies also strengthen the
43
44 external validity of the studies carried out. Therefore, there are more requirements for

F
45
46
generalization studies.
47
48
49
Twelve studies collected social validity data, as the current review demonstrates.
50
51 Social validity data from the studies show that children with LD, their families, and
52
53 teachers express positive opinions about the use of VBI in skill teaching. In line with
54
55 the current study, we also analyzed data regarding who the social validity data was
56
57
58
59
60

Page 25 of 36
1
2
3
4 collected from and which data collection tools were used. Our findings are like those of
5
6 Boon et al. (2020), when examined, in the majority of studies, data was collected only
7
8 from students. We recommend collecting social validity data from families and teachers
9
10
for future research, given their significant roles in teaching academic skills.

w
11
12
13
It is noteworthy that interobserver agreement data was collected in all studies.

e
14
Observers who collected data independently within the scope of the studies obtained

i
15
16
17 consistent data regarding the intervention processes. However, certain studies do not

v
18
19 report treatment integrity data. This may create limitations in terms of VBI's reliability

e
20
21 in teaching skills to individuals with LD. Studies that focus more on collecting
22
23 treatment integrity data are needed.

R
24
25 As a result of the descriptive analysis we conducted, we identified similarities
26
27

r
and differences with Boon et al. (2020). Similarly, in both studies, descriptive
28
29
information on participant characteristics (number, age, gender), research design,

e
30
31
dependent variable, independent variable, setting, implementer, maintenance and

e
32
33
34 generalization, treatment integrity, interobserver reliability, and social validity were
35

P
36 analyzed. Unlike the current study, Boon et al. (2020) provided information on the way
37
38 the instruction was delivered in the form of one-to-one or group instruction and the

r
39
40 number of sessions conducted. In the current study, unlike Boon et al. (2020),
41

o
42 information on the types of devices on which the videos were played and the main
43
44 findings of the studies were included. In addition, more variables related to

F
45
46
generalization, maintenance and social validity data were examined.
47
48
49
50 Quality Indicators of the Studies
51
52 When we evaluated the studies within the scope of the 21-item Qualitative Indicators of
53
54 Single-Subject Research proposed by Horner et al. (2005), we determined that only nine
55
56 of the 17 studies met the acceptability criteria. Some studies (e.g., Dueker & Day, 2022;
57
58
59
60

Page 26 of 36
1
2
3
4 Satsangi & Hammer, 2019) met all of the indicators in the 21 items, while others (e.g.,
5
6 Cihak & Bowlin, 2009) met the acceptability criteria, although not all of them. Within
7
8 the scope of the review conducted by Boon et al. (2020), no review and analysis process
9
10
were carried out for the quality indicators of the studies. In the existing literature, it can

w
11
12
13
be stated that the studies examining the studies using VBI with individuals with LD are

e
14
quite limited. To evaluate the quality indicators of the studies examined within the

i
15
16
17 scope of the current study and the studies to be carried out in the future and to compare

v
18
19 them with the results of the current study, studies that consider different criteria, such as

e
20
21 the What Work Clearinghouse criteria, are needed.
22
23

R
24
Effect Sizes of the Studies
25
26 We used PEM and PND to calculate the effect sizes of studies using VBI in teaching
27

r
28
skills to individuals with LD. Our findings show that the studies have large effect sizes.
29

e
30
31 In the literature, we did not come across a study that calculated the effect size of studies

e
32
33 on teaching individuals with LD with VBI. In addition, there are effect sizes for VBI
34
35 types calculated in meta-analyses conducted with other disability groups. Unlike the

P
36
37 findings of our study, it is seen that VBI types have a moderate effect on individuals
38

r
39 with developmental disabilities (Mason et al., 2013) and individuals with ASD
40
41 (Aljehany & Bennet, 2020; Hong et al., 2016).

o
42
43
44
Limitations

F
45
46
This study has some limitations. The first of these is that only studies examining the
47
48
49 effectiveness of VBI in skill teaching were examined within the scope of this study.
50
51 Studies explaining the educational processes or intervention steps of interventions in the
52
53 teaching of VBI types were not included in the evaluation. Second, the studies evaluated
54
55 within the scope of the current study were limited to the analysis of the studies
56
57
58
59
60

Page 27 of 36
1
2
3
4 published in refereed journals and accessed by searching the identified databases. For
5
6 this reason, we did not evaluate studies such as theses or conference proceedings that
7
8 were not published in refereed journals within the scope of this study. Another
9
10
limitation of the current study is that we only examined studies published in English.

w
11
12
13

e
14 Conclusion

i
15
16 Considering all this information, VBI can be a powerful teaching tool for individuals
17

v
18 with LD to acquire various skills. The difficulties experienced by individuals with LD
19

e
20 in academic and social skills continue to be an important problem in terms of both
21
22 school environments and daily life skills. Therefore, the finding that VBI can be
23

R
24 effective and functional in teaching skills is important. In addition, the findings of a
25
26 limited number of studies in terms of the acquisition of vocational skills by these
27

r
28
individuals are promising that effective processes can be maintained in the teaching of
29

e
30
31 these skills. There is a need for comprehensive studies that prepare individuals with LD

e
32
33 for work and professional life and enable them to generalize their acquired skills to real
34
35 employment environments. In conclusion, our current study extends the findings of

P
36
37 previous studies. Especially considering the widespread use of technology-based
38

r
39 interventions in teaching skills to individuals with special needs, we think that the
40
41 current study has remarkable findings for individuals with LD. In addition, in line with

o
42
43 the benefits provided by technology, we think that applications such as VBI are an
44

F
45 important resource for all professionals involved in the learning-teaching process in
46
47
terms of providing instructional support in every environment and in accordance with
48
49
50 individual needs. Moreover, we would like to point out that VBI has high social validity
51
52 in various contexts due to the pervasive nature of mobile devices.
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 28 of 36
1
2
3
4 Declaration of Conflicting Interests
5
6 The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
7
8 authorship, and/or publication of this article.
9
10

w
11
12
Funding
13

e
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or
14

i
15
publication of this article.
16
17

v
18
19 References

e
20
21 * Denotes articles included in the meta-analysis.
22
23 Aljehany, M. S., & Bennett, K. D. (2020). A comparison of video prompting to least-to-

R
24
25 most prompting among children with autism and intellectual disability. Journal
26
27 of Autism and Developmental isorders, 50(5), 1714-1724.

r
28
29 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-019-03929-x

e
30
31 Banda, D. R., Dogoe, M. S., & Matuszny, R. M. (2011). Review of video prompting

e
32
33
studies with persons with developmental disabilities. Education and Training in
34
35

P
36 Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 514-527.
37
38 Barman, M., & Jena, A. K. (2023). Effect of interactive video-based instruction on

r
39
40 learning performance in relation to social skills of children with intellectual
41

o
42 disability. International Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 69(5), 683-696.
43
44 https://doi.org/10.1080/20473869.2021.2004535

F
45
46 Boon, R. T., Urton, K., Grünke, M., & Ko, E. H. (2020). Video modeling interventions
47
48 for students with learning disabilities: A systematic review. Learning
49
50 Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 18(1), 49-69.
51
52
Bouck, E. C., Satsangi, R., & Park, J. (2018). The concrete–representational–abstract
53
54
55 approach for students with learning disabilities: An evidence-based practice
56
57
58
59
60

Page 29 of 36
1
2
3
4 synthesis. Remedial and Special Education, 39(4), 211-228.
5
6 https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932517721712
7
8 Bressane, A., Zwirn, D., Essiptchouk, A., Saraiva, A. C. V., de Campos Carvalho, F. L.,
9
10
Formiga, J. K. S., ... & Negri, R. G. (2024). Understanding the role of study

w
11
12
13
strategies and learning disabilities on student academic performance to enhance

e
14
educational approaches: A proposal using artificial intelligence. Computers and

i
15
16
17 Education: Artificial Intelligence, 6, 100196.

v
18
19 Chen, Y. C., Lu, Y. L., & Lien, C. J. (2021). Learning environments with different

e
20
21 levels of technological engagement: a comparison of game-based, video-based,
22
23 and traditional instruction on students’ learning. Interactive Learning

R
24
25 Environments, 29(8), 1363-1379.
26
27

r
https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1628781
28
29
*Cihak, D. F. (2009). Using video modeling via handheld computers to improve

e
30
31
geometry skills for high school students with learning disabilities. Journal of

e
32
33
34 Special Education Technology, 24(4), 17-29.
35

P
36 https://doi.org/10.1177/016264340902400402
37
38 Clare, S. K., Jenson, W. R., Kehle, T. J., & Bray, M. A. (2000). Self‐modeling as a

r
39
40 treatment for increasing on‐task behavior. Psychology in the Schools, 37(6),
41

o
42 517-522. https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6807(200011)37:6%3C517::AID-
43
44 PITS4%3E3.0.CO;2-Y

F
45
46
Cortiella C., Horowitz S. H. (2014). The state of learning disabilities: Facts, trends and
47
48
49
emerging issues. National Center for Learning Disabilities.
50
51 Decker, M. M., & Buggey, T. (2014). Using video self-and peer modeling to facilitate
52
53 reading fluency in children with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning
54
55 Disabilities, 47(2), 167-177. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219412450618
56
57
58
59
60

Page 30 of 36
1
2
3
4 *Dueker, S. A., & Day, J. M. (2022). Using standardized assessment to identify and
5
6 teach prerequisite numeracy skills to learners with disabilities using video
7
8 modeling. Psychology in the Schools, 59(5), 1001-1014.
9
10
https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22473

w
11
12
13
Edwards, N. M., & Lambros, K. M. (2018). Video self-modeling as a reading fluency

e
14
intervention for dual language learners with disabilities. Contemporary School

i
15
16
17 Psychology, 22(4), 468-478. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40688-018-0207-9

v
18
19 Gerber, P. J. (2012). The impact of learning disabilities on adulthood: A review of the

e
20
21 evidenced-based literature for research and practice in adult education. Journal
22
23 of Learning Disabilities, 45(1), 31-46.

R
24
25 https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219411426858
26
27

r
Gillespie, A., & Graham, S. (2014). A meta-analysis of writing interventions for
28
29
students with learning disabilities. Exceptional children, 80(4), 454-473.

e
30
31
https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402914527238

e
32
33
34 Hitchcock, C. H., Prater, M. A., & Dowrick, P. W. (2004). Reading comprehension and
35

P
36 fluency: Examining the effects of tutoring and video self-modeling on first-grade
37
38 students with reading difficulties. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27(2), 89-103.

r
39
40 https://doi.org/10.2307/1593644
41

o
42 Hong, E. R., Ganz, J. B., Mason, R., Morin, K., Davis, J. L., Ninci, J., ... & Gilliland,
43
44 W. D. (2016). The effects of video modeling in teaching functional living skills

F
45
46
to persons with ASD: A meta-analysis of single-case studies. Research in
47
48
49
Developmental Disabilities, 57, 158-169.
50
51 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2016.07.001
52
53 Horner, R. H., Carr, E. G., Halle, J., McGee, G., Odom, S., & Wolery, M. (2005). The
54
55 use of single-subject research to identify evidence-based practice in special
56
57
58
59
60

Page 31 of 36
1
2
3
4 education. Exceptional Children, 71(2), 165-179.
5
6 https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290507100203
7
8 Hughes, E. M. (2019). Point of view video modeling to teach simplifying fractions to
9
10
middle school students with mathematical learning disabilities. Learning

w
11
12
13
Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 17(1), 41-57.

e
14
Kabashi, L., & Kaczmarek, L. A. (2017). Evaluating the efficacy of video-based

i
15
16
17 instruction (VBI) on improving social initiation skills of children with autism

v
18
19 spectrum disorder (ASD): A review of literature. Review Journal of Autism and

e
20
21 Developmental Disorders, 4, 61-81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40489-016-0098-5
22
23 Kellems, R. O., & Edwards, S. (2016). Using video modeling and video prompting to

R
24
25 teach core academic content to students with learning disabilities. Preventing
26
27

r
School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 60(3), 207-214.
28
29
https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2015.1067875

e
30
31
*Kellems, R. O., Eichelberger, C., Cacciatore, G., Jensen, M., Frazier, B., Simons, K.,

e
32
33
34 & Zaru, M. (2020). Using video-based instruction via augmented reality to teach
35

P
36 mathematics to middle school students with learning disabilities. Journal of
37
38 Learning Disabilities, 53(4), 277-291.

r
39
40 https://doi.org/10.1177/002221942090645
41

o
42 *Kellems R. O., Frandsen K., Hansen B., Gabrielsen T., Clarke B., Simons K.,
43
44 Clements K. (2016). Teaching multi-step math skills to adults with disabilities

F
45
46
via video prompting. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 58, 31–44.
47
48
49
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2016.08.013
50
51 *King, B., Radley, K. C., Jenson, W. R., Clark, E., & O'Neill, R. E. (2014). Utilization
52
53 of video modeling combined with self‐monitoring to increase rates of on‐task
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 32 of 36
1
2
3
4 behavior. Behavioral Interventions, 29(2), 125-144.
5
6 https://doi.org/10.1002/bin.1379
7
8 Lonnecker, C., Brady, M. P., McPherson, R., & Hawkins, J. (1994). Video self-
9
10
modeling and cooperative classroom behavior in children with learning and

w
11
12
13
behavior problems: Training and generalization effects. Behavioral

e
14
Disorders, 20(1), 24-34. https://doi.org/10.1177/019874299402000103

i
15
16
17 Ma, H. H. (2006). An alternative method for quantitative synthesis of single-subject

v
18
19 researches: percentage of data points exceeding the median. Behavior

e
20
21 Modification, 30(5), 598–617. https://doi.org/10. 1177/0145445504272974.
22
23 Mason, R. A., Davis, H. S., Boles, M. B., & Goodwyn, F. (2013). Efficacy of point-of-

R
24
25 view video modeling: A meta-analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 34(6),
26
27

r
333-345. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932513486298
28
29
Mechling, L. C., & Ayres, K. M. (2012). A comparative study: Completion of fine

e
30
31
motor office related tasks by high school students with autism using video

e
32
33
34 models on large and small screen sizes. Journal of Autism and Developmental
35

P
36 Disorders, 42, 2364-2373. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-012-1484-1
37
38 Mechling, L. C., & Youhouse, I. R. (2012). Comparison of task performance by

r
39
40 students with autism and moderate intellectual disabilities when presenting
41

o
42 video models on large and small screen sizes. Journal of Special Education
43
44 Technology, 27(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1177/016264341202700101

F
45
46
Miller, K. M., & Little, M. E. (2018). Examining the effects of SRSD in combination
47
48
49
with video self-modeling on writing by third grade students with learning
50
51 disabilities. Exceptionality, 26(2), 81-105.
52
53 https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2017.1283622
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 33 of 36
1
2
3
4 Miltenberger, C. A., & Charlop, M. H. (2015). The comparative effectiveness of
5
6 portable video modeling vs. traditional video modeling interventions with
7
8 children with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Developmental and Physical
9
10
Disabilities, 27, 341-358. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-014-9416-y

w
11
12
13
Nelson, G., Hunt, J. H., Martin, K., Patterson, B., & Khounmeuang, A. (2022). Current

e
14
knowledge and future directions: Proportional reasoning interventions for

i
15
16
17 students with learning disabilities and mathematics difficulties. Learning

v
18
19 Disability Quarterly, 45(3), 159-171.

e
20
21 https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948720932850
22
23 Nelson, G., & Powell, S. R. (2018). A systematic review of longitudinal studies of

R
24
25 mathematics difficulty. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 51(6), 523-539.
26
27

r
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219417714773
28
29
O'Brien, C., & Wood, C. L. (2011). Video modeling of cooperative discussion group

e
30
31
behaviors with students with learning disabilities in a secondary content-area

e
32
33
34 classroom. Journal of Special Education Technology, 26(4), 25-40.
35

P
36 https://doi.org/10.1177/016264341102600403
37
38 O'Neill, J., & Rehfeldt, R. A. (2017). Computerized behavioral skills training with

r
39
40 selection-based instruction and lag reinforcement schedules for responses to
41

o
42 interview questions. Behavior Analysis: Research and Practice, 17(1), 42–54.
43
44 https://doi.org/10.1037/bar0000043

F
45
46
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C.
47
48
49
D., ... & Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline
50
51 for reporting systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews, 10(1), 1-11.
52
53 Park, J., Bouck, E., & Duenas, A. (2019). The effect of video modeling and video
54
55 prompting interventions on individuals with intellectual disability: A systematic
56
57
58
59
60

Page 34 of 36
1
2
3
4 literature review. Journal of Special Education Technology, 34(1), 3-16.
5
6 https://doi.org/10.1177/0162643418780464
7
8 Peng, P., & Fuchs, D. (2016). A meta-analysis of working memory deficits in children
9
10
with learning difficulties: Is there a difference between verbal domain and

w
11
12
13
numerical domain? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 49(1), 3-20.

e
14
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219414521667

i
15
16
17 Rayner, C., Denholm, C., & Sigafoos, J. (2009). Video-based intervention for

v
18
19 individuals with autism: Key questions that remain unanswered. Research in

e
20
21 Autism Spectrum Disorders, 3(2), 291-303.
22
23 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2008.09.001

R
24
25 *Satsangi, R., Hammer, R., & Hogan, C. D. (2019). Video modeling and explicit
26
27

r
instruction: A comparison of strategies for teaching mathematics to students
28
29
with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 34(1), 35-

e
30
31
46. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12189

e
32
33
34 *Satsangi, R., Hammer, R., & Bouck, E. C. (2020). Using video modeling to teach
35

P
36 geometry word problems: A strategy for students with learning disabilities.
37
38 Remedial and Special Education, 41(5), 309-320.

r
39
40 https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932518824974
41

o
42 *Satsangi, R., Billman, R. H., Raines, A. R., & Macedonia, A. M. (2021a). Studying the
43
44 impact of video modeling for algebra instruction for students with learning

F
45
46
disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 55(2), 67-78.
47
48
49
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466920937467
50
51 *Satsangi, R., Billman, R. H., & Raines, A. R. (2021b). Comparing video modeling to
52
53 teacher-led modeling for algebra instruction with students with learning
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 35 of 36
1
2
3
4 disabilities. Exceptionality, 29(4), 249-264.
5
6 https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2020.1801436
7
8 Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., & Casto, G. (1987). The quantitative synthesis of
9
10
single subject research: Methodology and validation. Remedial and Special

w
11
12
13
Education, 8(2), 24–33.

e
14
Seok, S., DaCosta, B., McHenry-Powell, M., Heitzman-Powell, L. S., & Ostmeyer, K.

i
15
16
17 (2018). A systematic review of evidence-based video modeling for students with

v
18
19 emotional and behavioral disorders. Education Sciences, 8(4), 170.

e
20
21 https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci8040170
22
23 Sun, X., & Brock, M. E. (2023). Systematic review of video-based instruction to teach

R
24
25 employment skills to secondary students with intellectual and developmental
26
27

r
disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 38(3), 288-300.
28
29
https://doi.org/10.1177/01626434221094793

e
30
31
Thomas, E. M., DeBar, R. M., Vladescu, J. C., & Townsend, D. B. (2020). A

e
32
33
34 comparison of video modeling and video prompting by adolescents with
35

P
36 ASD. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 13, 40-52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-
37
38 019-00402-0

r
39
40 Qi, C. H., Barton, E. E., Collier, M., & Lin, Y. L. (2018). A systematic review of single-
41

o
42 case research studies on using video modeling interventions to improve social
43
44 communication skills for individuals with autism spectrum disorder. Focus on

F
45
46
Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 33(4), 249-257.
47
48
49
https://doi.org/10.1177/1088357617741282
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 36 of 36