How Can Video Modeling on Sharing and Taking Turns Help Reduce Behaviors?

J Appl Behav Anal. 2009 Spring; 42(i): 43–55.

Using Video Modeling to Teach Reciprocal Pretend Play to Children with Autism

Bridget Taylor, Activity Editor

Received 2006 Sep 14; Accepted 2007 Sep eleven.

Abstract

The purpose of the present study was to utilize video modeling to teach children with autism to engage in reciprocal pretend play with typically developing peers. Scripted play scenarios involving diverse verbalizations and play actions with adults as models were videotaped. Ii children with autism were each paired with a typically developing child, and a multiple-probe design beyond three play sets was used to evaluate the effects of the video modeling process. Results indicated that both children with autism and the typically developing peers acquired the sequences of scripted verbalizations and play actions chop-chop and maintained this performance during follow-up probes. In addition, probes indicated an increase in the hateful number of unscripted verbalizations also as reciprocal verbal interactions and cooperative play. These findings are discussed equally they relate to the evolution of reciprocal pretend-play repertoires in young children with autism.

Keywords: autism, pretend play, video modeling

Impairments in reciprocal pretend play are well documented in children with a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder (Jarrold, 2003; Lifter, 2000). The play of children with autism is characterized by repetitive behaviors and a lack of symbolic or social quality. Deficits in spontaneous language, fake, and social interactions in general may be critical variables that impede the development of play. The lack of the development of reciprocal pretend play may also be due to the social consequences non being every bit reinforcing for children with autism relative to their typically developing peers. This insensitivity to social stimuli could direct produce deficits in social beliefs (Dube, MacDonald, Holcomb, Mansfield, & Ahearn, 2004; Taylor, Hoch, Potter, Rodriguez, & Kalaigian, 2005).

A variety of behavioral instruction procedures accept been examined to teach play skills to children with autism (due east.chiliad., Stahmer, Ingersoll, & Carter, 2003). Pivotal response training has been shown to be effective in establishing sociodramatic play skills with adults equally play partners (Stahmer, 1995; Thorp, Stahmer, & Schreibman, 1995). In these studies, children caused play skills, and these skills generalized across toys and adults. Pierce and Shreibman (1997) found that using peer-implemented pivotal response grooming resulted in increases in the social behavior betwixt children with autism and their typically developing peers. Odom, Hoyson, Jamieson, and Strain (1985) used peer confederates to teach social responding in the context of play and found that play with peers increased in the context of adults. Odom and Watts (1991) suggested that peer-mediated social reinforcers are necessary to maintain peer social interactions and crave further study.

Modeling using play scripts too has been shown to be constructive in establishing cooperative play with peers. Goldstein and Cisar (1992) used sociodramatic scripts with iii children, two typically developing children and 1 child with autism, across three toys. They institute that subsequent to training, all children showed increases in theme-related social behavior during play. Jahr, Eldevik, and Eikeseth (2000) compared modeling to modeling plus exact rehearsal to teach sustained cooperative play and found the latter procedure to exist more effective in establishing cooperative play, both with the training partner and beyond novel settings and play partners.

Video modeling is a procedure that has been used to teach a diverseness of skills to children with autism effectively (Charlop & Milstein, 1989; Charlop-Christy, Le, & Freeman, 2000; Haring, Kennedy, Adams, & Pitts-Conway, 1987; LeBlanc et al., 2003; Reeve, Reeve, Townsend, & Poulson, 2007; Sherer et al., 2001; Shipley-Benamou, Lutzker, & Taubman, 2002). Video modeling typically involves presenting a videotaped sample of models engaged in a specific serial of scripted actions or verbalizations. The videotaped model is shown two or three times and and so the individual is provided with an opportunity to perform the scripted behaviors observed on the video. Video modeling tin can produce more rapid conquering and greater generalization than in vivo modeling (Charlop-Christy et al., 2000), and a number of studies take shown that prompting (other than the video) and reinforcement were not necessary for acquisition to occur (Charlop-Christy et al., 2000; D'Ateno, Mangiapanello, & Taylor, 2003; MacDonald, Clark, Garrigan, & Vangala, 2005).

Video modeling has been used to increment play statements during play with siblings (Taylor, Levin, & Jasper, 1999) and to teach children to initiate play with others (Nikopoulos & Keenan, 2003, 2004). In improver, Nikopoulos and Keenan have shown that video modeling was effective in extending length of play between adults and children with autism. D'Ateno et al. (2003) establish that they could establish complex pretend-play sequences with individual children with autism. They taught children to play with three play sets (due east.g., a tea set), incorporating both verbalizations and play actions using toys (e.g., drinking from a teacup). MacDonald et al. (2005) used video modeling to teach children similar pretend-play sequences, using figurines or characters in the play set up that required the child to talk and act for figurines. Both of these studies found rapid conquering of these complex sequences of play.

Video modeling has been shown to effect in rapid acquisition of long chains of alone play in children with autism without the employ of response prompting and reinforcement. The purpose of the present study was to assess the effects of video modeling to teach children with autism to engage in long sequences of reciprocal pretend play with typically developing peers. The targeted play included reciprocal verbal interaction chains and cooperative play across 3 sets of toys.

Method

Participants

Two pairs of children participated in this study. Each pair consisted of a child with autism and a typically developing child. Both children with autism were enrolled in a preschool that provided early intensive behavioral intervention that offered individualized programming 5 days per calendar week, half dozen hr per day, using the principles of applied beliefs analysis. A portion of the schoolhouse twenty-four hours was spent in an on-site integrated preschool classroom that consisted of 15 typically developing children.

The first participant, Colin, was a vii-year-one-time male child with a diagnosis of autism. At the first of this study, he had received 27 months of intensive intervention. He communicated using full sentences merely required prompting to initiate requests. He demonstrated two-stride imitation and pic-to-object matching. Video modeling had been used to teach Colin solitary play, across six play activities, during the yr prior to the written report. Prior exposure to video modeling did non include the videos used in the current study. Colin was integrated into a local kindergarten classroom v mornings a week with the support of a therapist and performed at the kindergarten course level on bookish skills. He spent his afternoons in the specialized preschool program. Colin'southward partner, Helen, was a 5-year-old typically developing girl who was enrolled in the integrated preschool classroom.

The second participant, Alden, was a 5-yr-former boy who also had a diagnosis of autism. He had received xvi months of intensive intervention when he began the study. He had adult a repertoire of play skills with a number of toys, only his play was solitary. He communicated using full sentences, which he used to depict events in his environment and to make requests. He had well-developing imitation and matching skills. Video modeling also had been used with Alden to teach solitary play, both in the classroom and at domicile with his mother. He had learned to play successfully with over a dozen toys using video modeling. Prior exposure to video modeling did not include the videos used in the current report. Alden was integrated into a preschool classroom for i 60 minutes a solar day, with the support of a therapist. His partner, Gerry, was a five-year-onetime typically developing boy who was enrolled in the integrated classroom.

Both typically developing peers were selected to participate as peer tutors considering they demonstrated many of the peer-selection criteria mentioned by Taylor (2001). They were cooperative in following adult instructions, assertive in play sessions, socially competent, and capable of keeping an interest in activities. Both peers had been taught previously to serve as peer tutors for children with autism (but not those in this study). Peer tutoring occurred informally beyond the school year and included prompts from teachers to share materials or to offering play directives. They had no prior feel with video modeling.

Setting

Baseline and video modeling sessions were conducted in a minor testing room to control for variables such equally racket and visual distracters present in the child'south classroom. The room independent two child-sized tables, two child-sized chairs, and one toy shelf with various toys on it. The materials necessary for the play activity being trained were placed in an open area on the floor. The video model was presented on a television with a VCR, which was placed on a table. One session per participant was conducted daily. All sessions were videotaped for later scoring. The video camera was held past the experimenter at a altitude of approximately 1.5 m from the children.

Materials

Three play sets were used to teach reciprocal pretend play. The play sets included a Fisher-Price Picayune People airport, a Fisher-Toll Little People Animal Sounds zoo, and a Playskool grill. Scripts were adult for each play gear up. Each play set had a base structure (airport, zoo, or grill) and seven characters or objects pertaining to the theme of the structure that were used in the video modeling scripts. All iii play sets were capable of making sounds and movements; even so, these features were disabled in the present study.

The aerodrome base of operations structure had an airport final with a snack bar and an fastened runway with a place to become gas and park the airplane. The characters included a boy rider and a pilot. The boosted objects included a taxi, a transport vehicle, a suitcase, an umbrella, and an aeroplane. The zoo base was the animate being business firm. The characters included a boy, a zookeeper, and three animals (a bird, a polar bear, and a lion). The objects included a truck and a bucket of fish. The grill consisted of a toy gas grill with a lid and places for utensils. It also had knobs used to start and adjust the heat on the grill. The boosted objects included a bottle of ketchup, a spatula, a fork, a cheeseburger, a hot dog and bun, and two paper plates.

Videos

Two adults were videotaped acting out the sequence of pretend play. Prior inquiry has shown that adults are easy to train and very constructive as models to teach play to children (MacDonald et al., 2005). Two male models were used for the pair of male person children (Alden and Gerry), and the models for the male child-and-girl pair (Colin and Helen) were a male and a female. The models were matched for gender because we believed this would increment the likelihood of faux.

Each video was related to a designated play activity and contained 14 to 17 scripted verbalizations and fourteen to 17 actions associated with the play activities. These scripts were based on observations of typically developing children playing with these toys. Typical peers were videotaped playing with toys and an observer transcribed their verbalizations and actions. Samples from these transcripts were used to create the scripts for each toy. (Copies of the complete scripts can exist obtained from the start writer.) Scripts were recorded on a VHS-C camcorder and shown on a portable TV with a thirteen-in. screen and a VCR histrion. The Television set/VCR was placed on a table separate from the area in which the children played with the toy set.

Airport and Zoo

Adults on the video manipulated the characters, spoke for the characters, and manipulated the materials through the characters (doll as agent; Lifter, 2000). For example, in the aerodrome script the typically developing child's graphic symbol says "First nosotros need gas" and puts the nozzle in the gas tank of the aeroplane, then the child with autism's character says "I'll go my suitcase" and puts the suitcase in the compartment under the plane. In the zoo script, the typically developing child's character says "Can I feed him?" in the presence of the polar bear, and the kid with autism's grapheme says "Sure, he loves fish." Then the typically developing child'south character throws fish into the polar bear's den.

Grill

Adults on the video manipulated the materials and spoke to each other (child as agent; Lifter, 2000). For instance, the kid with autism says "Allow's check our food," and the typically developing child opens the grill lid and says "I recollect it'due south ready." They both apply utensils to take food off the grill.

Independent Variable

The presentation of video models that depicted scripted play interactions for the three sets of play materials was the independent variable. No reinforcement or prompting was provided to the participants with autism.

Dependent Measures

All sessions were videotaped and scored later for the occurrence of the following responses: (a) scripted verbalizations, (b) scripted play actions, (c) unscripted verbalizations, (d) unscripted play deportment, (east) cooperative play, and (f) reciprocal verbal interaction chains.

Information were scored from videotapes of all of the 4-min play sessions (baseline, training, and probes). Data for scripted behaviors were recorded for each child on his or her part of the script. For example, in the airport script the child with autism took the role of the passenger, and the typically developing child took the function of the pilot. Data were recorded on the number of scripted actions and verbalizations only for their assigned character. The number of scripted actions and verbalizations ranged from xiv to 17 for each child, depending on the script. A split coding system was developed to score unscripted behaviors. Unscripted behaviors were measured during baseline and probe sessions merely to appraise changes in unscripted play as a outcome of video modeling.

To appraise cooperative play and reciprocal verbal interaction bondage, samples of these behaviors were scored from videotaped sessions. These behaviors were measured during the first xc s of the two initial baseline sessions and two mastery probe sessions. A real-fourth dimension measurement method (Miltenberger, Rapp, & Long, 1999), which required 2d-past-second recording, was used to assess pct of intervals of cooperative play and duration (number of seconds) of reciprocal exact interaction bondage. Hateful elapsing of reciprocal chains was calculated by adding the number of consecutive seconds (during each interaction concatenation) in which each kid was talking to the other and dividing by the total number of reciprocal verbal interaction chains.

Scripted Verbalizations

Scripted verbalizations were defined as vocal statements that matched the statement of the video model. In addition, statements that were similar to the modeled response but not identical likewise were scored. This included the exchange or omission of a word. Repetitions of prior verbalizations used in the same session were non scored as scripted. The number of scripted verbalizations ranged between xiv to 17, depending on the script. Each child was scored on the occurrence of scripted verbalizations for his or her own portion of the script.

Scripted Play Deportment

Scripted deportment were defined every bit motor responses that matched the actions of the video model and resulted in the same change in the environs as seen in the model. If the child engaged in the complete scripted sequence, a play action was scored. For example, getting into the airplane was scored only if the character was put in the plane and left there, or feeding fish to the bear at the zoo was counted merely if the grapheme was used to throw the fish to the bear. The number of scripted deportment ranged between xiv and 17, depending on the script. Each child was scored on the occurrence of scripted play deportment for his or her ain portion of the script.

Unscripted Verbalizations

Novel unscripted verbalizations included verbalizations that were non modeled in the video script merely were appropriate to the context of the toy (e.yard., talking nigh arriving at grandma's business firm in the airport script or talking for animals that exercise not talk in the script). These behaviors were scored using a data sheet that had a variety of possible types of vocalizations that were non function of the script as well as a column for recording other unscripted vocalizations that the kid emitted but that were not listed on the data canvas. For example, in the airport play set up the script concluded with the plane flying away, but if the kid continued to play with the airplane by landing it and said "Here we are at grandma'south business firm," this was scored as an unscripted verbalization. Unscripted verbalizations were scored only during baseline and mastery probe sessions considering the goal was to assess changes in unscripted play as a result of the video modeling.

Unscripted Play Actions

Novel unscripted play included a play action that was not modeled in the video script but that was advisable to the context of the toy. For instance, again using the airplane play set, landing the airplane and getting out of the plane were scored as unscripted actions. These behaviors were again scored using a data sheet like to the one described for unscripted verbalizations.

Cooperative Play

The percentage of intervals of cooperative play were measured during baseline and mastery probes. Cooperative play was defined as the kid beingness inside 0.33 m of the peer and engaged in the same activeness in interdependent or shared play. Interdependent play included handing materials to the peer (e.g., giving the peer ketchup when preparing nutrient that was cooked on the grill or having the characters ride in the same vehicle). Information technology also included participating in the same action and talking well-nigh the same scripted or unscripted topic (e.k., each kid cooking a different food on the same grill and talking well-nigh what they were cooking).

Reciprocal Verbal Interaction Concatenation

The duration of reciprocal verbal interaction chains was measured during baseline and mastery probes. The chain was divers equally a sequence of two or more verbalizations between a participant and peer. A chain began when 1 child responded with a contextually advisable verbalization to the other kid'southward statement or request and ended when no verbalizations occurred for 2 s. An example of a verbal interaction chain was one child saying, "May I have the ketchup?" and the peer responding by maxim "certain," and the 1st child and then maxim "Cheers, this hamburger is good." These interaction chains included scripted and unscripted verbalizations.

Experimental Design

A multiple-probe pattern across play sets was used to assess the effects of the video modeling intervention on reciprocal pretend play. The play sets were taught in the same order for each pair of children starting with the airport, and so the zoo, and finally the grill. Both children in each pair were required to perform at or above mastery levels on scripted verbalizations and scripted play actions before training could begin on the next play ready. Baseline sessions were conducted prior to the introduction of preparation for each play ready, and mastery probes were conducted subsequent to conquering of each new play prepare.

Process

Baseline

During baseline sessions, the play sets were arranged on the floor prior to the pair of children entering the room. For the drome and zoo play sets, the characters were positioned to the left and correct of the play area. When the children arrived, they were prompted to sit down on the floor in forepart of the play prepare. The child with autism was e'er directed to sit on the left and the typical peer to sit down on the right, considering these positions coincided with the positions of the characters they would be assuming during video modeling grooming. Once the children were seated, the experimenter gave the instruction "It's time to play." The children were immune 4 min to play with the toys. An adult stood just backside the children and did not give any boosted instructions or physical cues to ensure that the toy rather than the adult controlled reciprocal play, while the experimenter video taped each session. If a kid spoke to the experimenter or tried to get out the area before the end of 4 min, the experimenter said "Play with your toys" and directed the child back to the play set up.

Video Viewing

During video viewing sessions, the materials were gear up up in the same mode as baseline, and a Television/VCR was set up on a table in the corner of the room with two chairs in front of information technology. The children entered the room and were directed to sit in the chairs to watch the video; again the kid with autism was seated on the left and the typically developing child was seated on the right. The airport and zoo scripted roles were determined by the specific grapheme each child was assigned to play with, and the children were positioned in front of those characters in the context of both the video and play set. The position of the child lone defined his or her role for the grill script. They watched the video model twice and and then were directed immediately to the play materials and told "Information technology'southward time to play." As in baseline, the children were allowed four min to play with the toys while the developed stood behind them. No prompts or reinforcement was delivered during these sessions. Video viewing sessions connected until the child with autism demonstrated mastery level operation on all actions and verbalizations for his portion of the cooperative play script. Mastery level was divers as accurateness on xiii of the 15 actions and 12 of the xiv verbalizations for the airport, 12 of the 14 actions and 13 of the 17 verbalizations for the zoo, and 13 out of the xvi actions and 12 of the 14 verbalizations for the grill.

Additional Coaching for Typical Peers

Because both typical peers did not initiate the script viewed on the video, additional coaching was needed. Coaching was provided to Helen prior to Sessions iii and 4 for the aerodrome script, and for Gerry coaching was provided prior to Session 5 for the airport and Session 4 for the grill. The experimenter encouraged them to say and do everything the model said and did in the video for their character or role. They also were encouraged to "talk a lot." No additional prompting was given during the training or probe sessions.

Mastery Probes

Once mastery criteria were met in the context of video modeling instruction sessions, mastery probes were conducted without the video. During these probes, the children were presented with the toy set, instructed to sit to the left or right of the materials, and given the educational activity to play. If the child with autism demonstrated an accuracy level of 13 of the 15 actions and 12 of the 14 verbalizations for the airport, 12 of the fourteen actions and thirteen of the 17 verbalizations for the zoo, and 13 of the 16 actions and 12 of the xiv verbalizations for the grill for two sequent sessions without the video model, they met mastery criteria for the play set and preparation could brainstorm on a new play set.

Follow-Upward Probes

Follow-up probes were conducted to determine maintenance over time without access to the toys or videos. These probes were introduced approximately 1 month following mastery of the airport and zoo. Three follow-upward probes were conducted on the drome. They were assessed after the zoo was mastered and then once again later the grill was mastered. Follow-upward probes (1 for Colin and Helen, ii for Alden and Gerry) were conducted on the zoo after the grill was mastered. These probe sessions were identical to baseline and mastery probe sessions.

Interobserver Agreement

Interobserver agreement was calculated in 45% of sessions for scripted verbalizations and actions. Interobserver agreement for play actions was 95% for the drome, 95% for the zoo, and 92% for the grill. Understanding for verbalizations was 96% for the airport, 96% for the zoo, and 96% for the grill. Understanding data for unscripted behaviors were collected in 33% of the sessions. Agreements for unscripted play actions were scored if both observers recorded the same play action, and disagreements were scored if the observers recorded different play actions. The same procedures were used to score agreements and disagreements for unscripted verbalizations. Agreement for unscripted play deportment was 100% for the airport, 91% for the zoo, and 91% for the grill. Understanding for unscripted verbalizations was 96% for the aerodrome, 100% for the zoo, and 98% for the grill. Agreement data for cooperative play and reciprocal exact interaction bondage were collected in 83% of the sessions. Agreements were scored if both observers scored the occurrence or nonoccurrence of cooperative play and verbal interaction chains within each i-s observation interval. Interobserver agreement was calculated by dividing the number of intervals of agreements by the number of intervals of agreements plus disagreements, and this ratio was converted to a pct. Agreement for cooperative play was 95%, and agreement for reciprocal verbal interaction chains was 95% across play sets.

Results

Scripted behaviors for the starting time pair of children are shown in the left (Colin) and correct (Helen) panels of Effigy 1. Colin exhibited depression levels of scripted verbalizations (M =  0.33 per session; range, 0 to 1) and scripted actions (Thou =  4.67 per session; range, four to five) during baseline for the airport; these increased to xiv verbalizations (of 14) and 13.v deportment (range, xiii to 14) per session on mastery probes. He exhibited low levels of scripted verbalizations (Yard =  0) and scripted actions (Grand =  0.8 per session; range, 0 to 2) during baseline for the zoo; these increased to 16 verbalizations (of 17) and 12 actions (of xiv) per session on mastery probes. He exhibited low levels of scripted verbalizations (M =  0.43 per session; range, 0 to 2) and scripted actions (K =  5.67 per session; range, 2 to 8) during baseline for the grill; these increased to 12.5 verbalizations (of 14) and 15.5 deportment (range, fifteen to 16) per session on mastery probes. Helen showed like increases in scripted verbalizations and deportment subsequent to video modeling training.

Number of scripted verbalizations and scripted actions demonstrated by Colin and Helen with the drome, zoo, and grill.

Scripted behaviors for the second pair of children are shown in the left (Alden) and correct (Gerry) panels of Effigy 2. Alden exhibited low levels of scripted verbalizations (M =  0) and scripted actions (M =  iii.5 per session; range, iii to iv) during baseline for the drome; these increased to 12 verbalizations (range, 10 to fourteen) and 13.half dozen actions (range, 13 to fifteen) per session on mastery probes. He exhibited low levels of scripted verbalizations (1000 =  0.iv per session; range, 0 to one) and scripted actions (M =  2.4 per session; range, i to 4) during baseline for the zoo; these increased to sixteen verbalizations (range, 15 to 17) and 13.5 actions (range, 13 to 14) per session on mastery probes. He exhibited low levels of scripted verbalizations (M =  0.33 per session; range, 0 to ane) and scripted deportment (M =  3.v per session; range, 1 to 5) during baseline for the grill; these increased to ix.5 verbalizations (range, viii to 11) and 13.iii deportment (range, 12 to 15) per session on mastery probes. Gerry showed similar increases in scripted verbalizations and actions.

Number of scripted verbalizations and scripted actions demonstrated by Alden and Gerry with the drome, zoo, and grill.

Across play sets Colin exhibited a hateful of ane.five (grill), ii.5 (zoo), and 3.5 (airport) unscripted verbalizations and a hateful of 2 to three unscripted actions (data not shown). Afterward video modeling, he showed a hateful of 2.5 (grill) and iv (aerodrome and zoo) unscripted verbalizations and a hateful of one to three unscripted deportment beyond play sets. During baseline, Alden exhibited few verbalizations beyond play sets. He exhibited a mean of 1 to 2.5 unscripted actions beyond play sets. After video modeling, he showed increases in unscripted verbalizations to a mean of 7.five (zoo) and 5.five (grill). His play actions were primarily scripted during mastery probes.

Cooperative play (information not shown) for Colin occurred in 17%, 0.06%, and 15% of intervals during baseline for the aerodrome, zoo, and grill, respectively, and increased to 87%, 85%, and 90% of intervals on mastery probes for the airport, zoo, and grill, respectively. Cooperative play for Alden occurred in six%, 0.5%, and 3.five% of intervals during baseline for the airport, zoo, and grill, respectively, and increased to 78%, 74.five%, and 67% of intervals on mastery probes for the drome, zoo, and grill, respectively.

The hateful numbers of reciprocal verbal interaction chains (data non shown) for Colin during baseline were 0 for the airport and zoo and 0.5 for the grill; these increased to a mean of v for the airport and 6 for the zoo and grill on mastery probes. The mean durations of reciprocal verbal interaction chains for Colin in baseline were 0 south for the airport and zoo and i.5 southward for the grill; these increased to a hateful of 7.five southward, 10 s, and seven s for the airport, zoo, and grill, respectively, on mastery probes. The hateful number of reciprocal verbal interaction chains for Alden during baseline was 0 for all three play sets; these increased to a hateful of 3, 7, and 4.iii for the airport, zoo, and grill, respectively, on mastery probes. The hateful durations of reciprocal exact interaction chains for Alden in baseline was 0 south for all 3 play sets; these increased to 20 s, 8.v s, and 8.75 due south on mastery probes for the grill.

Discussion

In this study, video modeling produced extended sequences of reciprocal pretend play between children with autism and typically developing peers beyond 3 commercially available play sets. Prior to video educational activity in that location was footling appropriate play between the children. This is peculiarly interesting considering the typical children had extensive play skills in their classroom with other typical children. They engaged in pretend play with a diversity of toys and used language in their play, but in the presence of children with autism, these behaviors were not evident. Both pairs of children exhibited rapid acquisition of verbalizations and play actions, and this performance was maintained over fourth dimension. These acquired chains of play included up to 17 actions with verbalizations embedded into the play scenarios. In addition, these play chains were acquired without the employ of response prompting other than the video, and in that location was no experimenter-delivered reinforcement.

An analysis of unscripted play revealed slight differences between children. Although Colin primarily acquired the scripted behaviors and relatively few unscripted behaviors, Alden showed increases in unscripted verbalizations with 2 of the toys following training. This could have occurred considering Alden had a more extensive history of learning pretend play using video modeling both at abode and at school. In full general, the children engaged in more novel verbalizations than actions beyond scripts. The emergence of any unscripted play, whether verbalization or activity, was encouraging because children with autism tend to have very express repertoires of play; thus, increasing play in whatsoever manner is significant. Acquiring play skills may too go far more than likely that natural social consequences for interaction will come to exert an influence on the beliefs of the children with autism. That is, social consequences that were ineffective may come up to have some value for these children through this grooming.

Qualitative changes in play, as measured past cooperative and reciprocal verbal interaction chains, were particularly interesting. They indicate that the children did non exhibit cooperative play prior to the video modeling process. Following the introduction of video modeling, the children engaged in cooperative play throughout the play sessions. In improver, the children were engaged in reciprocal exact interactions either by talking for the characters or speaking for themselves (as in the action involving the grill). This increase in verbal interactions and cooperative play was achieved without prompting (other than the video) and without extrinsic reinforcement. Information technology may be that the typically developing child'southward scripted verbalizations and play deportment served as discriminative stimuli, thereby occasioning the response of the kid with autism. Notwithstanding, these social interactions potentially fix the occasion for the child with autism to contact the natural community of social reinforcers (Baer & Wolf, 1970).

Determining the operant mechanism that produced the observed change in behavior in this written report was non the purpose of this research. Although video modeling is ofttimes referred to as a procedure that does not require explicit prompting or extrinsic reinforcement (east.thousand., Charlop-Christy, Le, & Daneshvar, 2003; Taylor et al., 1999), it must be noted that the presentation of the video itself is an explicit prompt. Children with autism often do not learn typical play skills through the social situations they see in the natural environment. One possible reason for the effectiveness of video modeling is that it provides a detached opportunity to observe play without the many distractions oft present in the natural environment. Those children who readily imitate observed actions can acquire a repertoire presented on a videotape when provided the materials and an opportunity to play. This may be most likely to occur in children with a history of being taught to imitate the actions of others. Moreover, if imitation has been regularly reinforced, this history of reinforcement may foster generalization to the videotaped skill (see Nikopoulos & Keenan, 2007). Thus, video modeling can be an constructive prompting strategy that capitalizes on a history of extrinsic reinforcement for imitating others, with little reliance on physical prompting.

A limitation of this study was the lack of extended novel play. However, the increase in cooperative play was significant. These children did not engage in whatsoever cooperative play prior to video modeling and, subsequent to training, engaged in high levels of cooperative play that included exact reciprocal interactions. Another limitation of the study was the lack of generalization to other natural play settings and different play materials using the same themes. An additional limitation was the potential that the presence of an adult backside the child could have established stimulus control and therefore exerted some level of control over responding. Lastly, future inquiry should accost the upshot of generalization of these newly acquired play repertoires to novel settings, peers, and play materials.

In this written report, video modeling was an effective and efficient strategy for pedagogy sequences of cooperative play. Given the opportunity to observe videos of social interactions in the context of play, these children engaged in reciprocal play interactions with typically developing peers. This represents an important qualitative modify in their play behavior. Information technology is promising that these interactive play skills were achieved with relatively short exposure to training and in the absence of response prompting and reinforcement.

References

• Baer D.Chiliad, Wolf M.M. The entry into natural communities of reinforcement. In: Ulrich R, Stachnik T, Mabry J, editors. Control of human behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 319–324) Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman; 1970. [Google Scholar]
• Charlop 1000.H, Milstein J.P. Instruction autistic children conversational spoken communication using video modeling. Journal of Applied Beliefs Analysis. 1989;22:275–285. [PMC gratis commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Charlop-Christy Thou.H, Le Fifty, Daneshvar Southward. Using video modeling to teach perspective taking to children with autism. Periodical of Positive Behavior Interventions. 2003;5:12–21. [Google Scholar]
• Charlop-Christy Chiliad.H, Le L, Freeman K.A. A comparison of video modeling with in vivo modeling for teaching children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 2000;30:537–552. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• D'Ateno P, Mangiapanello G, Taylor B. Using video modeling to teach complex play sequences to a preschooler with autism. Journal of Positive Beliefs Interventions. 2003;v:5–11. [Google Scholar]
• Dube W.Five, MacDonald R.P.F, Holcomb Due west.L, Mansfield R.C, Ahearn W.H. Toward a behavioral analysis of articulation attention. The Behavior Annotator. 2004;27:197–207. [PMC gratis article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Goldstein H, Cisar C.Fifty. Promoting interaction during sociodramatic play: Didactics scripts to typical preschoolers and classmates with disabilities. Journal of Practical Beliefs Analysis. 1992;25:265–280. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Haring T.G, Kennedy C.H, Adams M.J, Pitts-Conway 5. Teaching generalization of purchasing skills across customs settings to autistic youth using videotape modeling. Journal of Practical Beliefs Analysis. 1987;nineteen:159–171. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Jahr E, Eldevik S, Eikeseth Due south. Teaching children with autism to initiate and sustain cooperative play. Enquiry in Developmental Disabilities. 2000;21:151–169. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Jarrold C. A review of enquiry into pretend play in autism. Autism. 2003;vii:379–390. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• LeBlanc L, Coates Chiliad, Daneshvar S, Charlop-Christy M, Morris C, Lancaster B. Using video modeling and reinforcement to teach perspective-taking skills to children with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 2003;36:253–257. [PMC gratis article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Lifter K. Linking assessment to intervention for children with developmental disabilities or at-chance for developmental delay: The development play assessment (DPA) musical instrument. In: Gitlin-Weiner Thou, Sandgrund A, Schaefer C, editors. Play diagnosis and assessment (2nd ed., pp. 228–261) New York: Wiley; 2000. [Google Scholar]
• MacDonald R, Clark 1000, Garrigan Eastward, Vangala M. Increasing play using video modeling. Behavioral Interventions. 2005;20:225–238. [Google Scholar]
• Miltenberger R.G, Rapp J.T, Long E.S. A low-tech method for conducting real-time recording. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 1999;32:119–120. [Google Scholar]
• Nikopoulos C.K, Keenan M. Promoting social initiations in children with autism using video modeling. Behavioral Interventions. 2003;eighteen:87–108. [Google Scholar]
• Nikopoulos C.K, Keenan M. Effects of video modeling on social initiations by children with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 2004;37:93–96. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Nikopoulos C.Thou, Keenan M. Using video modeling to teach complex social sequences to children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 2007;36:678–693. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Odom Southward.50, Hoyson Chiliad, Jamieson B, Strain P.S. Increasing handicapped preschoolers' peer social interactions: Cantankerous-setting and component analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 1985;18:3–16. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Odom S.L, Watts E. Reducing teacher prompts in peer-initiation interventions through visual feedback and correspondence grooming. Journal of Special Pedagogy. 1991;25:26–43. [Google Scholar]
• Pierce Grand, Schreibman 50. Multiple peer utilise of pivotal response training to increase social behaviors of classmates with autism: Results from trained and untrained peers. Periodical of Applied Behavior Analysis. 1997;xxx:157–160. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Reeve S.A, Reeve G.F, Townsend D.B, Poulson C.L. Establishing a generalized repertoire of helping behavior in children with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 2007;40:123–136. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Sherer M, Pierce G.L, Paredes Due south, Kisacky Chiliad.L, Ingersoll B, Schreibman L. Enhancing conversational skills in children with autism via video technology: Which is better, "self" or "other" every bit a model. Behavior Modification. 2001;25:140–158. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Shipley-Benamou R, Lutzker J, Taubman Yard. Teaching daily living skills to children with autism through instructional video modeling. Journal of Positive Beliefs Interventions. 2002;4:165–175. [Google Scholar]
• Stahmer A.C. Teaching symbolic play skills to children with autism using pivotal response training. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 1995;25:123–141. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Stahmer A.C, Ingersoll B, Carter C. Behavioral approaches to promoting play. Autism. 2003;7:401–413. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Taylor B.A. Teaching peer social skills to children with autism. In: Maurice C, Greenish G, Foxx R.Thousand, editors. Making a difference: Behavioral intervention for autism. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed; 2001. pp. 83–96. [Google Scholar]
• Taylor B.A, Hoch H, Potter B, Rodriguez A, Kalaigian G. Manipulating establishing operations to promote initiations toward peers in children with autism. Research in Developmental Disabilities. 2005;26:385–92. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Taylor B.A, Levin 50, Jasper S. Increasing play related statements in children with autism toward their siblings: Effects of video-modeling. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities. 1999;eleven:253–264. [Google Scholar]
• Thorp D.M, Stahmer A.C, Schreibman L. Teaching sociodramatic play to children with autism using pivotal response preparation. Periodical of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 1995;25:265–282. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

smithdowen1979.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2649844/

Share this post