Video-based modeling: Differential effects due to treatment protocol

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2012.08.003Get rights and content

Abstract

Identifying evidence-based practices for individuals with disabilities requires specification of procedural implementation. Video-based modeling (VBM), consisting of both video self-modeling and video modeling with others as model (VMO), is one class of interventions that has frequently been explored in the literature. However, current information related to differential effects that occur based on variations in procedural implementation is not available. The purpose of this study was to analyze VBM with individuals with disabilities using improvement rate difference meta-analytic procedures. The impact of type of VBM and type of model was investigated as well as the differential effects that occur when VBM is implemented alone or as a component of a package. In addition, the quality of research is assessed. Results yielded an overall large effect size of .81 CI.834 [.80, .82] with a range from −.26 to .96. No statistically significant differences were found based on type of VBM. However, when disaggregated by model, differential effects were indicated with VMO with adult as model demonstrating the greatest magnitude of change. Additionally, VMO with reinforcement demonstrated greater effects then when delivered alone or as part of a package. Implications for practice and future research are discussed.

Highlights

► Meta-analysis of video based modeling (VBM) for individuals with disabilities. ► Differential effects do not exist based on the type of VBM implemented. ► The type of model utilized moderates the effect of VBM on targeted outcomes. ► Variations in procedural implementation of VBM appear to influence intervention effect size.

Introduction

Educational reform and recent legislation such as No Child Left Behind (NCLB; U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Deputy Secretary, 2001) and revisions to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, 2004) obligate schools to utilize research-based teaching practices. Given the emphasis on isolating evidence based practices for individuals with disabilities, the literature base has been proliferated with seemingly efficacious and promising interventions (Odom, 2009). Video-based modeling (VBM) has received much attention as a practice with considerable potential for enhancing multiple skills for individuals with disabilities (Rayner et al., 2009, Shukla-Mehta et al., 2010). However, questions remain regarding the impact of variations in procedural implementation on the efficacy of the intervention (Shukla-Mehta et al., 2010).

VBM induces simulation of observed skills or behaviors by exposing the target individual to a model correctly demonstrating the target skill or behavior via a video-recording (Delano, 2007, Hitchcock et al., 2003). Additionally, VBM is an educational tool that allows for a precise enactment of the targeted skill that can be modeled to a number of students at numerous times and locations (Biederman and Freedman, 2007, Corbett and Abdullah, 2005). VBM provides a feasible and efficient means for capitalizing on the educational benefits of imitation and modeling as it allows for unlimited exposure to a variety of examples (Ayres, Maguire, & McClimon, 2009). Even if empirical evidence indicated statistically identical outcomes between in vivo and video-based modeling, VBM would be more valuable due to the additional advantages related to time and cost, as well as continuity across settings (Biederman and Freedman, 2007, Delano, 2007, Mechling et al., 2005, Rayner et al., 2009).

Two categories of VBM that will be discussed include video modeling with other as model (VMO) and video self-modeling (VSM). VMO involves the individual watching a video of another adult or peer, either known or unknown, demonstrating the desired skill with the expectation that the behavior will be imitated (Bellini and Akullian, 2007, Shukla-Mehta et al., 2010). VSM involves the target individual performing as the model for the creation of the video (Dowrick, 1999, Shukla-Mehta et al., 2010). VSM is comprised of two distinct subcategories including positive self-review and feedforward (Dowrick, 1999, McCoy and Hermansen, 2007). Feedforward involves video-recording the individual while he or she is being assisted in performing a skill to the best of his or her ability, with the implementation of additional interventions including coaching, instruction, and reinforcement, which ensure that each step or component of the skill is correctly demonstrated by the target individual, with or without prompts or cues (Dowrick, 1999, Dowrick et al., 2006, Hitchcock et al., 2003). The individual then views an edited video which has had the assistance and incorrect performances removed. Positive self-review, on the other hand, involves recording the individual engaged in natural activities and then editing out examples of undesired behavior or inaccurate performance (Dowrick et al., 2006, Hitchcock et al., 2004). The final video model is then a sample of the individual engaged in only positive exemplars of the targeted outcome (Dowrick, 1999, Hitchcock et al., 2003).

In addition to the two specific types of VBM, both have additional variations in protocol. First, recording can be conducted either from a third person or first-person perspective. The first-person perspective, referred to as point-of-view modeling, is filmed from the perspective of the viewer (Shukla-Mehta et al., 2010) without actually displaying the model, Additionally, VBM interventions have been implemented either alone, as a primary component of an intervention, or as part of an intervention package (Shukla-Mehta et al., 2010). Analysis of VBM with clear delineation between each type of VBM, and the variables for each type, as well as differentiation regarding effects based on whether the intervention was delivered alone or as part of a package continues to be a gap in the research (Bellini and Akullian, 2007, Shukla-Mehta et al., 2010).

Two meta-analyses (Baker et al., 2009, Bellini and Akullian, 2007) have previously evaluated the impact of VBM on targeted skills. Both meta-analyses utilized mean percent of non-overlapping data (PND) as the primary indicator of effectiveness across studies. Bellini and Akullian (2007) evaluated the impact of VMO and VSM, for increasing a variety of skills for individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) whereas Baker et al. (2009) evaluated the use of VBM with participants with emotional disabilities as a primary diagnosis. Information about individual participant outcomes was not noted and the range of the reported mean PNDs, 29–100% (Bellini & Akullian, 2007) and 14–100% (Baker et al., 2009), indicated variable results. Utilizing Kruskall–Wallis, Bellini and Akullian (2007) indicated no statistically significant differences in results between VMO and VSM, types of targeted skills, and age groups. Baker et al. (2009) disaggregated the included studies based on targeted skill categories regardless of the type of VBM implemented, noting the majority of studies reviewed implemented video feedback. Neither meta-analyses evaluated differential effects that occur when VBM is implemented alone or with other components. The obtained range of results in both meta-analyses seem to indicate implementation factors may moderate the effectiveness of the intervention

Although these quantitative synthesis (Baker et al., 2009, Bellini and Akullian, 2007) provide useful information and do indicate VBM to be an effective intervention, several limitations exist. First, the inability to calculate p-values or confidence intervals with PND prevents meaningful comparison of results across studies and participants based on overlap (Kavale, 2010, Parker et al., 2009, Vannest et al., 2010a) and limits one of the benefits of meta-analysis, which is the ability to assess for variability based on study features (Kavale, 2010, Scruggs and Mastropieri, 1998).

Second, the reviews failed to evaluate differential effects that might occur due to variations in procedural implementation. Consideration as an evidence-based intervention that is transferable into practice requires explicit description of all components of the independent variable in order to promote replication both in future research and applied settings (Horner et al., 2005). Identifying “video modeling” as an effective intervention, is imprecise, as the term is used liberally to embody a wide variety of interventions employing the theory of modeling via video recordings (Delano, 2007). When VBMs are evaluated without segregating based on the type of VBM employed as well as the additional components included in the intervention, the comparisons cannot be considered equivalent (Shukla-Mehta et al., 2010). Bellini and Akullian (2007) acknowledged the grouping of VBM with other interventions as a limitation in terms of evaluating the benefits of VBM alone. Partitioning the current VBM literature according to variations in delivery of the intervention by model, presentation, and additional components will allow for analyses that identify differential effects due to procedural implementation variables.

The purpose of this meta-analysis is to quantitatively analyze studies utilizing VBM to provide specificity regarding the implementation factors that yield the greatest magnitude of change on targeted outcomes. The following questions are addressed: (a) Are there differential effects on participant outcomes based on the type of VBM? (b) Does the model influence the magnitude of effect on outcomes? (c) Are there differential effects based on whether VBM is used alone, with reinforcement, or as part of an intervention package?

Section snippets

Search method

Studies were identified through an electronic search utilizing the ERIC and PsycInfo database through the Cambridge Scientific Abstracts (CSA) database. Additionally, the Education Full Text database through the Wilson search engine was also utilized. The search was limited to peer-reviewed studies and the following Boolean string searches were conducted: modeling or “observational learning” and disability or autism or ADHD or “attention deficit hyperactivity disorder” or behavior disorder or “

Descriptive summary of studies

Of the 56 studies included in the analysis, 42 utilized VMO as the intervention and 18 included VSM. The total exceeds the total number of studies because four of the articles included both VMO and VSM (Cihak and Shrader, 2008, Marcus and Wilder, 2009, Sherer et al., 2001, Van Laarhoven et al., 2009). A total of 177 participants were included in the studies. The VMO studies included participants ranging in age from 2 to 72 with diagnoses of either ASD or intellectual disability. The VSM studies

Discussion

The current evidence base for VBM does not precisely identify the variation in treatment effect that occurs due to variations in procedural implementation (Bellini and Akullian, 2007, Delano, 2007, Shukla-Mehta et al., 2010). The purpose of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the evidence base for the use of VBM as an intervention for individuals with disabilities with a specific focus on the differential effects due to the type of VBM implemented and procedural variables. Overall results

References1 (87)

  • K.M. *Ayres et al.

    A comparison of video modeling perspectives for students with autism

    Journal of Special Education Technology

    (2007)
  • K.M. Ayres et al.

    Acquisition and generalization of chained tasks taught with computer based video instruction to children with autism

    Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities

    (2009)
  • S.D. Baker et al.

    Review of video modeling with students with emotional and behavioral disorders

    Education and Treatment of Children

    (2009)
  • A. Bandura

    Social learning of moral judgments

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (1969)
  • S. Bellini et al.

    A meta-analysis of video modeling and video self-modeling interventions for children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorders

    Exceptional Children

    (2007)
  • M.A. *Bidwell et al.

    Using video modeling to teach a domestic skill with an embedded social skill to adults with severe mental retardation

    Behavioral Interventions

    (2004)
  • G.B. Biederman et al.

    Modeling skills, signs and lettering for children with down syndrome, autism and other severe developmental delays by video instruction in classroom setting

    Journal of Early and Intensive Behavior Intervention

    (2007)
  • E. *Boudreau et al.

    Improving the pretend play skills of preschoolers with autism spectrum disorders: The effects of video modeling

    Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities

    (2010)
  • T. *Buggey

    Video self-modeling applications with students with autism spectrum disorder in a small private school setting

    Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities

    (2005)
  • T. *Buggey et al.

    Training responding behaviors in students with autism: Using videotaped self-modeling

    Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions

    (1999)
  • H. *Cannella-Malone et al.

    Comparing video prompting to video modeling for teaching daily living skills to six adults with developmental disabilities

    Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities

    (2006)
  • M.H. *Charlop et al.

    Teaching socially expressive behaviors to children with autism through video modeling

    Education and Treatment of Children

    (2010)
  • M.H. *Charlop et al.

    Using video modeling to increase variation in the conversation of children with autism

    Journal of Special Education Technology

    (2008)
  • M.H. *Charlop et al.

    Teaching autistic children conversational speech using video modeling

    Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis

    (1989)
  • M.H. *Charlop-Christy et al.

    Using video modeling to teach perspective taking to children with autism

    Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions

    (2003)
  • M.H. *Charlop-Christy et al.

    A comparison of video modeling with in vivo modeling for teaching children with autism

    Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders

    (2000)
  • D.F. *Cihak et al.

    Does the model matter? Comparing video self-modeling and video adult modeling for task acquisition and maintenance by adolescents with autism spectrum disorders

    Journal of Special Education Technology

    (2008)
  • S.K. *Clare et al.

    Self-modeling as a treatment for increasing on-task behavior

    Psychology in the Schools

    (2000)
  • C. *Conyers et al.

    An evaluation of in vivo desensitization and video modeling to increase compliance with dental procedures in persons with mental retardation

    Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis

    (2004)
  • C. Coyle et al.

    A videotaped self-modeling and self-monitoring program to decrease off-task behavior in children wiht autism

    Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability

    (2004)
  • B.A. Corbett et al.

    Video modeling: Why does it work for children with autism?

    Journal of Early and Intensive Behavior Intervention

    (2005)
  • M.E. Delano

    Video modeling interventions for individuals with autism

    Remedial and Special Education

    (2007)
  • P.W. Dowrick et al.

    Video feedforward for reading

    Journal of Special Education

    (2006)
  • P.W. *Dowrick et al.

    Video feedforward in the support of a man with intellectual disability and inappropriate sexual

    Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability

    (1997)
  • J.B. Ganz et al.

    A meta-analysis of single-case research studies on aided augmentative and alternative communication systems with individuals with autism spectrum disorders

    Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders

    (2011)
  • A. *Gena et al.

    Modifying the affective behavior of preschoolers with autism using “in-vivo” or video modeling and reinforcement contingencies

    Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders

    (2005)
  • T.G. *Haring et al.

    Teaching generalization of purchasing skills across community settings to autistic youth using videotape modeling

    Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis

    (1987)
  • N.H. Hepting et al.

    Requesting by preschoolers with developmental disabilities: Videotaped self-modeling and learning of new linguistic structures

    Topics in Early Childhood Special Education

    (1996)
  • Hintze, J. (2010). NCSS (Number Cruncher Statistical System), NCSS, “Meta-analysis Module” LLC. Kaysville, Utah....
  • C.H. Hitchcock et al.

    Video self-modeling intervention in school-based settings: A review

    Remedial and Special Education

    (2003)
  • C.H. *Hitchcock et al.

    Reading comprehension and fluency: Examining the effects of tutoring and video self-modeling on first-grade students with reading difficulties

    Learning Disability Quarterly

    (2004)
  • G. Holmbeck

    Toward terminological, conceptual, and statistical clarity in the study of mediators and moderators: Examples from the child-clinical and pediatric psychology literature

    Journal of Counseling and Clinical Psychology

    (1997)
  • R.H. Horner et al.

    The use of single-subject research to identify evidence-based practice in special education

    Exceptional Children

    (2005)
  • Cited by (31)

    • Self-Instruction Using Mobile Technology to Learn Functional Skills

      2015, Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders
      Citation Excerpt :

      In some instances, video modeling can be less time consuming (McCoy & Hermansen, 2007) and more cost efficient (Mason et al., 2013) than in vivo modeling. Lastly, the presentation of a video as a model allows any instructor providing services to individuals with disabilities to provide a consistent and precise model of the target skill each time the model is presented (Mason et al., 2013). As research using VBI has evolved, so has the medium in which video is presented.

    • Using video prompting via iPads to teach price comparison to adolescents with autism

      2014, Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders
      Citation Excerpt :

      Each student was shown a total of 18 video clips of price comparison task analysis step by step. Because the literature is inconsistent regarding the effectiveness of video prompting in comparison to video prompting with MTL prompting (Mason et al., 2013), all students underwent video prompting first. If a student did not benefit (i.e., independent completion of 50% of critical task analysis steps) from video prompting during 10 trials (i.e., two sessions), MTL prompting was added in addition to video prompting (Cannella-Malone et al., 2012).

    • An analysis and review of the literature and a three-tier video modeling intervention model

      2014, Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders
      Citation Excerpt :

      Mechling and Moser (2010) reported that students with ASD had no preferences and would watch videos starring themselves, adults, or peers. Several studies have suggested that children with ASD can learn equally effectively regardless of whether themselves, a familiar model, or an unfamiliar model are used and whether the models are adults or peers (Ayres & Langone, 2007; Ihrig & Wolchik, 1988; Mason et al., 2013; Nikopoulos & Keenan, 2003; Sherer et al., 2001; Shukla-Mehta et al., 2010). However, Ayres and Langone (2007) suggested that (a) using adult models requires less training and results in faster filming than using student peer models does; (b) when teaching functional skills, using self-models might be more effective than using peers or adult models; and (c) when teaching social skills, third-person modeling might be more powerful than self-modeling.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text