Upload
others
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
The Effects of Material Presence Verses Absence on Skill Acquisition
During Video Modeling
A Thesis Presented
by
Cara Grieco
The Department of Counseling and Applied Educational Psychology
In partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Master of Science
in the field of
Applied Behavioral Analysis
Northeastern University
Boston, MA
August 2011
NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY
Bouve College of Health Sciences Graduate School
Thesis Title: The Effects of Material Presence Versus Absence on Skill Acquisition During Video Modeling Author: Cara Grieco Department: Counseling and Applied Educational Psychology Approved for Thesis Requirements of Master of Science Degree ______________________________________________________ __________ Rebecca P. F. MacDonald ______________________________________________________ __________ Chata Dickson ______________________________________________________ __________ Susan Langer
The Effects of Material Presence Versus Absence on Skill Acquisition
During Video Modeling
by
Cara Grieco
B.A. Vassar College 2008
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Applied Behavior Analysis
in the Bouve College of Health Sciences Graduate School of Northeastern University, August 2011
Acknowledgements
I’d like to thank the New England Center for Children for providing me with the
opportunity to learn a great deal about Applied Behavior Analysis through both work and
study. I also commend The New England Center for Children for the excellent services it
provides to its students, and its dedication to research and the advancement of science. I
extend a special thanks to the faculty of the MABA program for instructing and
encouraging a new generation of behavior analysts.
I am extremely grateful to Becky MacDonald, the chairperson of my thesis
committee, for her guidance, expertise, and support, offered throughout my entire
Master’s program. I also extend gratitude to Chata Dickson and Sue Langer, members of
my thesis committee, for their time and contributions, and to Stephanie DeQuick for her
assistance with data collection.
Table of Contents The Effects of Material Presence Versus Absence on Skill Acquisition
During Video Modeling A. Abstract .................................................................................................... 2 B. Introduction
1. Video Modeling as a Teaching Procedure ................................. 3 2. Variations on the Video Modeling Procedure ............................ 4 3. Attending During Video Modeling ............................................. 7 4. Problem Statement and Experimental Question ......................... 9
C. Method 1. Participants .................................................................................... 10 2. Setting and Materials ..................................................................... 10 3. Independent Variables ................................................................... 12 4. Dependent Variables and Operational Definitions ........................ 12 5. Interobserver Agreement ............................................................... 14
6. Experimental Design ..................................................................... 16 7. Procedures ..................................................................................... 17
D. Results ...................................................................................................... 19 E. Discussion ................................................................................................. 23 F. References ................................................................................................. 28 G. Tables ....................................................................................................... 30 H. Figures ...................................................................................................... 37 I. Appendices .................................................................................................44t
MATERIAL PRESENCE VERSUS ABSENCE 2
Abstract
The purpose of the current study was to determine the effects of material presence and material
absence during video viewing on rate of skill acquisition using video modeling. Three young
boys diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder participated. A multiple baseline across
participants design and a multi-element within participants design was used to compare
acquisition rates of two pretend play scripts, one presented with the materials visible during
video viewing, and one presented with materials absent during video viewing. An analysis of
attending was conducted using a real-time measurement method to determine what stimuli
participants attended to during video viewing (video, materials, or other stimuli) in both
conditions. For two of the three participants, acquisition rate was faster in the materials absent
condition, and for one of the three participants, acquisition rate was faster in the materials
present condition. For the participants who learned faster in the materials absent condition,
duration of attending to video was higher in the materials absent condition, and duration
attending to other stimuli was similar across conditions. For the participant who learned faster in
the materials present condition, duration of attending to other stimuli was higher in the materials
absent condition, whereas duration of attending to video was similar across conditions. These
findings identify environmental arrangement during video viewing as a crucial component of the
video modeling procedure, as acquisition rates of all three participants were affected when this
aspect was manipulated.
MATERIAL PRESENCE VERSUS ABSENCE 3
The Effects of Material Presence Versus Absence on Skill Acquisition
During Video Modeling
Video modeling is a teaching procedure that utilizes a video prompt to model a skill. The
procedure usually consists of two to three presentations of a videotaped sample of a model
engaging in a complex behavior chain. The chain typically consists of a series of scripted
actions and verbalizations. An individual is prompted to watch the video and is then given the
opportunity to perform the modeled actions (Charlop & Milstein, 1989; MacDonald, Clark,
Garrigan, & Vangala, 2005). Through the video modeling procedure, complex behavior chains
can be acquired in relatively few sessions. Furthermore, no outside prompting or reinforcement
is necessary for skill acquisition to occur (Charlop-Christy, Le, & Freeman, 2000; D’Ateno,
Mangiapanello, & Taylor, 2003; MacDonald et al., 2005). These factors, along with ease of
implementation, cost-effectiveness, and high procedural integrity, make video modeling a useful
and important tool (Charlop-Christy et al., 2000). Furthermore, researchers have demonstrated
the utility of video modeling in terms of skill generalization. After exposing participants to a
single video modeling prompt, skills have generalized to untrained settings (Charlop & Milstein,
1989; Patterson & Arco, 2007).
Another factor that makes video modeling an important tool is the broadness of its
application. Through video modeling, a large variety of skills have been taught successfully to a
number of populations, particularly to individuals with autism and other related developmental
disabilities. Among the skills that have been targeted through video modeling are conversational
speech (Charlop & Milstein, 1989), perspective taking (LeBlanc, Coates, Daneshvar, Charlop-
Christy, Morris, & Lancaster; 2003), appropriate social behavior and methods for reducing
problem behavior (Delano, 2007), and daily living skills (Rehfeld, Dahman, Young, Cherry, &
MATERIAL PRESENCE VERSUS ABSENCE 4
Davis, 2003). Video modeling has also been an effective method for teaching pretend play skills
to children with autism (D’Ateno et al., 2003; MacDonald et al., 2005; MacDonald, Sacramone,
Mansfield, Wiltz, & Ahearn, 2009; Patterson & Arco, 2007). Pretend play is a skill that
naturally emerges in typically developing children, and is thought to contribute to social
development and language acquisition. Children with autism, on the other hand, fail to develop
appropriate play with toys. Toy manipulation by children with autism is characterized by
repetitive, stimulatory behavior (MacDonald et al., 2005). Video modeling has been an effective
tool for teaching complex pretend play sequences to children with autism, decreasing aberrant
behavior during play, and teaching reciprocal pretend play with a typically developing peer
(D’Ateno et al., 2003; MacDonald et al., 2005; MacDonald et al., 2009; Patterson & Arco,
2007).
Given the overwhelming effectiveness of video modeling as a teaching procedure, a large
subset of literature has focused on how to increase its efficacy even further. In their review
article, McCoy and Hermansen (2007) examined the impact of the model on the efficacy of
video modeling. A number of model types are used across video modeling procedures, including
adult models, peer/sibling models, and self as model. Furthermore, the point-of-view differs
across video modeling procedures; some videos are filmed from the point-of-view of the person
performing the task (e.g. only the hands are visible), whereas others are filmed straight on. The
authors’ review revealed no particular benefits of one model type or perspective of filming over
another. Interventions utilizing each model type have produced similar success rates (McCoy &
Hermansen, 2007; Sherer, Pierce, Paredes, Kisacky, Ingersoll, & Schreibman, 2001).
Despite such interest in variations on the video modeling procedure and their effects on
skill acquisition, there is a lack of comparative studies in the literature. The comparative studies
MATERIAL PRESENCE VERSUS ABSENCE 5
that do exist, however, allow for a direct comparison between conditions and the effects of
different variables on rate of skill acquisition. Sherer et al. (2001), for example, suggest that
preference for model type (specifically self versus other) might be idiosyncratic. In their study,
three of five participants showed no preference for model type, whereas one of five had a faster
acquisition rate with self as model, and one of five had a faster acquisition rate with other as
model. Palechka and MacDonald (2010) conducted a direct comparison between two video
formats (an instructor created video versus a commercially available video) on skill acquisition.
For two of three participants, acquisition was faster when an instructor created video was used,
and for the other participant, there was no difference in the rate of acquisition between the two
conditions (Palechka & MacDonald, 2010).
Another variable that has been examined through direct comparison is in-vivo versus
video modeling. Whereas the typical video modeling procedure utilizes a videotaped prompt, in-
vivo modeling requires the participant to observe a live model performing the target task
(Charlop-Christy et al., 2000; Gena, Couloura, & Kysmissis, 2005). In a study conducted by
Charlop-Christy et al. (2000), two educational objectives were targeted per participant. One
objective was taught using a video prompt, whereas the other was taught using an in-vivo model.
Across four of the five participants, video modeling resulted in more efficient skill acquisition
and maintenance as compared to in-vivo modeling. A possible explanation of these findings is
that the use of a video prompt eliminates irrelevant stimuli, decreasing the probability of
overselectivity, which is a common problem among learners with autism and other related
developmental disabilities. Furthermore, children are typically motivated by television and
videos, so this learning procedure might be preferred over others (Charlop-Christy et al., 2000).
Although these results have never been replicated, the research conducted by Charlop-Christy et
MATERIAL PRESENCE VERSUS ABSENCE 6
al. (2000) emphasizes the efficacy of video modeling as a teaching tool, and highlights the
importance of isolating the factors that contribute to its effectiveness.
Factors such as model type, video format, and in-vivo versus videotaped modeling focus
on aspects of the stimulus that is being presented. A new avenue of research is analyzing the
pre-requisite skills necessary for successful video modeling (Weiss & Harris, 2001; Robinson,
2009; Tereshko, MacDonald, & Ahearn, 2010). According to this approach, certain skills in the
learner’s repertoire make him more or less likely to succeed using the video modeling procedure.
Weiss and Harris (2001) identified three necessary pre-requisite skills for successful video
modeling: motor imitation, and the ability to attend to a video, and delayed match-to-sample.
Delayed match-to-sample consists of the presentation of a sample stimulus, which is then
removed for a certain period of time. Following the period of stimulus removal, the comparisons
are presented. Tereshko et al. (2010) demonstrated that children who were unable to perform
delayed match-to-sample tasks were unable to learn an eight-step response chain using the video
modeling procedure. A segmented video modeling teaching procedure was introduced, in which
progressively longer response chains were presented across trials. This procedure was successful
in teaching the eight-step response chain to children who were initially unable to complete it.
Similarly, Robinson (2009) identified delayed object imitation as a possible prerequisite skill for
video modeling. Delayed object imitation consists of a model manipulating an object in vivo.
The object is removed for a specified period of time, and is then presented to the learner, who is
expected to perform the same object manipulation. Participants who were unable to learn
through video modeling also exhibited deficits in delayed object imitation. Following training of
successive discrimination skills (delayed match-to-sample and delayed object imitation), 2 of the
4 participants showed an increase in acquisition through video modeling. Through their studies,
MATERIAL PRESENCE VERSUS ABSENCE 7
Tereshko et al. (2010) and Robinson (2009) illustrated that by addressing the skill set of a learner
and making appropriate procedural modifications, the video modeling procedure can be an
effective teaching method even for those who were initially unable to learn through video
modeling.
An integral component of any video modeling procedure is the video viewing, as it is the
only source of prompting throughout the whole procedure. If a learner is unable to attend to the
video, then he will not be able to acquire new skills through this method. In their review article,
McCoy and Hermansen (2007) noted that although attending logically seems like an important
pre-requisite skill for successful video modeling, the majority of articles on video modeling do
not include information regarding the attending skills of the participants. The failure to include
such information might limit the interpretation of the findings reported in these studies.
Furthermore, studies that have reported on the attending skills of the participants supply very
little information. For example, Paterson and Arco (2007) simply state that the participants
selected for their study were able to watch television for at least 90 seconds, as per parent report.
Attending skills were assessed indirectly, and furthermore, the authors did not provide an
operational definition of this critical pre-requisite skill. Thus, it is not clear exactly what the
participants’ repertoires consisted of.
This lack of an operational definition of attending extends throughout the video modeling
literature. In 2010, Palechka and MacDonald conducted an analysis of the types of attending that
occur during video modeling. The analysis was conducted retrospectively; the three participants
had already successfully acquired the pretend play skills targeted by the video modeling
procedure. Two types of attending were examined; attending to video and attending to materials.
The researchers observed the video viewing portion of the video modeling session (on
MATERIAL PRESENCE VERSUS ABSENCE 8
videotape), which took place in a small room containing a chair, a table, and a portable DVD
player, as well as the materials (toys) that were to be manipulated immediately following video
viewing. The researchers used real time duration recording to capture the percentage of time that
the participant attended to the video and to the materials (materials were placed on the floor
adjacent to the participant). Attending to video was scored given any instance in which the
participant’s head and eyes were oriented towards the portable DVD player, and attending to
materials was scored given any instance in which the participants’ head and eyes were oriented
toward the toys. Overall attending was high for all participants across sessions. In regard to the
type of attending that occurred, attending to the video decreased as script mastery increased, and
attending to toys increased as script mastery increased (Palechka & MacDonald, 2010). Thus,
the attending repertoire of all three participants consisted of attention shifting between video and
materials. Given that all three participants acquired the pretend play skills that were targeted, it
is possible that the ability to shift attention between materials and toys is a pre-requisite for
successful video modeling.
Although Palechka and MacDonald (2010) suggest that attending to materials during
video viewing might be an important skill for successful video modeling, the relationship
between material presence and skill acquisition is unclear. On one hand, referencing the
materials during video viewing might increase the likelihood that the stimuli control the response
once the video prompt is removed. This is especially possible given the empirical evidence that
indicate delayed match-to-sample and delayed object imitation as prerequisite skills for
successful video modeling (Robinson, 2009; Tereshko et al., 2010). Attending to materials
during video viewing might account for the transfer of stimulus control from the video to the
materials. However, attending to materials during video viewing might hinder skill acquisition.
MATERIAL PRESENCE VERSUS ABSENCE 9
In their research, Landry and Bryson (2004) illustrate impaired disengagement of attention in
children with autism. For children with autism, disengaging attention from one stimulus in order
to engage with another stimulus is a difficult task. Therefore, shifting gaze between the video
and the materials might make learning through video modeling more difficult.
Another consideration concerns the importance of the video prompt. If the video is the
most relevant prompt during the video modeling procedure, attending to materials might distract
the learner from the important stimuli and therefore slow acquisition. At this moment, there is
no empirical evidence suggesting the superiority of material presence or material absence on
skill acquisition. Furthermore, video modeling procedures rarely specify whether materials
should be present or absent during video viewing. A study that directly compares these two
environmental arrangements might inform the video modeling procedure and make it even more
effective.
The purpose of the present study was threefold. The first purpose was to replicate the
findings of the video modeling literature, in which video modeling is an effective procedure for
teaching pretend play skills to children with autism (D’Ateno et al., 2003; MacDonald et al.,
2005; MacDonald et al., 2009; Patterson & Arco, 2007). The second purpose of the study was to
extend this literature by conducting a direct comparison between two environmental
arrangements (materials present during video viewing and materials absent during video
viewing), to determine the effects of these arrangements on skill acquisition. The third purpose
of the current study was to conduct an analysis of attending during video viewing (Palechka &
MacDonald, 2010), to determine what stimuli participants attend to when materials are present
and when materials are absent.
MATERIAL PRESENCE VERSUS ABSENCE 10
Method
Participants
The participants in the current study were Cole, Matthew, and Charles, three young boys
diagnosed with an Autism Spectrum Disorder. Cole (Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test- Fourth
Edition Form A: age equivalent: 5 years 4 months, raw score: 86, 63rd percentile) and Matthew
(Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test- Fourth Edition Form B: age equivalent: 5 years 5 months,
raw score: 90, 34th percentile) were five years old at the beginning of the study, and Charles
(Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test- Fourth Edition Form B: age equivalent: 3 years 10 months,
raw score: 84, 2nd percentile) was six years old. All three participants were students at a
preschool for children with autism, and received intensive one-on-one instruction based on the
principles of Applied Behavior Analysis. They attended school for six hours a day, five days a
week, and had individualized educational programs (IEPs) that outlined their academic
objectives. The IEPs of all participants contained a “play” objective, which aimed to increase
pretend play skills through the use of video modeling. Each of the boys had learned complex
pretend play scripts through video modeling in the past. Thus, video modeling was an effective
teaching procedure for these students. Furthermore, the results of an assessment indicated that
each participant demonstrated a number of skills (e.g. delayed match to sample, delayed
imitation) believed to be prerequisites for successful video modeling. Cole, Matthew, and
Charles communicated vocally through complete sentences.
Setting
All sessions took place in a research room that measured 2.7 by 4.3 meters, and was
separate from the students’ classrooms. The room contained a small chair and table, which was
used for video viewing. Play materials were placed on the floor adjacent to the table. In the
MATERIAL PRESENCE VERSUS ABSENCE 11
materials present condition, toys were visible during video viewing. The participant could shift
his gaze between the video and the materials by turning his head 90 degrees. In the materials
absent condition, materials were blocked by a 6-foot partition during video viewing. After video
viewing was complete, the partition was removed.
Materials
Materials used in the current study included a table and portable DVD player for video
viewing, two videos, and play materials corresponding to the sequences portrayed in the videos.
The videos used in the current study are those that were created by Palechka and MacDonald
(2010) for their instructor created video (ICV) condition. Both videos were filmed from a third
person perspective, and the sequences were acted out by an adult model. Only the hands of the
model were visible.
The sequences acted out in each video were created to be equivalent in complexity and
length, to control for confounds due to task difficulty. The sequence called “Sonya and the
Super Sundae” ran for 2 minutes and 48 seconds, and contained 27 actions and 32 vocalizations
(Appendix 1). The sequence called “Faster than a Speeding Frog” ran for 2 minutes and 49
seconds, and contained 28 actions and 30 vocalizations (Appendix 2).
Both play sequences included pieces from the Fisher Price “Little People” line. The play
materials for “Faster than a Speeding Frog,” included a Little People town and garage set, 11
Little People figurines, 1 vehicle, 4 props, and 2 floorboards (Appendix 3). The materials for
“Sonya and the Super Sundae,” included a Little People town and barn set, 8 Little People
figurines, 3 vehicles, 10 props, and 3 floorboards (Appendix 4).
MATERIAL PRESENCE VERSUS ABSENCE 12
Additional materials used in the current study were a 6-foot partition for blocking the
materials during the “materials absent” condition, and a video camera to record all sessions for
scoring purposes.
Independent Variables
The independent variables in the current study were exposure to video, and material
presence versus absence during video viewing. During baseline sessions, each participant was
given access to each play set prior to video exposure. Following baseline, each participant was
exposed to each video, followed by access to the corresponding play set. One video was paired
with material presence during video viewing, while the other was paired with material absence
during video viewing. Each script appeared in each condition twice, and the pairings were
counterbalanced across participants (Table 1).
Dependent Variables
Scripted actions. Scripted actions were scored per occurrence during the play portion of
each session. Scripted actions were defined as play actions that were included in the play
sequence. Scoring guidelines outlined the actions that met this definition (Appendices 5 and 6).
Scripted actions could occur in any order, and did not have to be carried out by the specific
character depicted in the video. For example, the scripted action “Eddie puts springs on feet”
was scored as correct if the participant put the springs on Michael’s feet.
Scripted vocalizations. Scripted vocalizations were scored per occurrence during the
play portion of each session. Scripted vocalizations were defined as vocalizations that were
included in the play sequence. Scoring guidelines outlined the vocalizations that met this
definition (Appendices 5 and 6). Scripted vocalizations did not have to occur in order, and did
not have to be carried out by the appropriate character in order to be scored as correct (for
MATERIAL PRESENCE VERSUS ABSENCE 13
example, if the participant was holding Sonya Lee while saying one of Michael’s lines, the
vocalization was still counted as correct). Due to the complexity of the script, partial vocals
(defined as at least 50% of the scripted vocalization) were scored as correct. Furthermore,
paraphrases that contained all the important elements of the scripted vocalization were scored as
correct (e.g. “Do you know where Sonya Lee is?” instead of “Where is Sonya Lee?”).
Percent script completion. Percent script completion was calculated by adding the
number of scripted actions and scripted vocalizations emitted by the participant during the play
portion of the session, dividing this number by the total number of scripted actions and
vocalizations, and multiplying it by 100.
Attending to video. The amount of time that the participant attended to the video was
scored for the video-viewing portion of all training sessions. Attending to video was defined as
any instance of the participant’s head oriented and eyes directed toward the portable DVD
screen, lasting for one second or longer (Palechka & MacDonald, 2010). This variable was
measured using a real-time measurement method (Miltenberger, Rapp, & Long, 1999), which
consisted of second-by-second scoring. Percent attending to video was calculated by dividing the
total number of seconds that the participant attended to the video by the total number of seconds
of the video-viewing, and multiplying this number by 100. Appendix 7 contains a photographed
example of a participant attending to video.
Attending to materials. The amount of time that the participant attended to the materials
was scored for the video-viewing portion of all training sessions in the “materials present”
condition. Attending to materials was defined as any instance of the participant’s head oriented
and eyes directed toward the play materials, lasting for one second or longer (Palechka &
MacDonald, 2010). This variable was measured using a real-time measurement method
MATERIAL PRESENCE VERSUS ABSENCE 14
(Miltenberger et al., 1999), which consisted of second-by-second scoring. Percent attending to
materials was calculated by dividing the total number of seconds that the participant attended to
the materials by the total number of seconds of the video-viewing, and multiplying this number
by 100. Appendix 7 contains a photographed example of a participant attending to materials.
Attending to other stimuli. The amount of time that the participant attended to other
stimuli was scored for the video-viewing portion of all training sessions. Attending to other
stimuli was defined as any instance of the participant’s head oriented and eyes directed toward
anything other than the materials or the DVD screen, including the ceiling, floor, table, wall,
DVD keyboard, camera, and self (e.g. hands, fingers), lasting for one second or longer (Palechka
& MacDonald, 2010). Attending to other stimuli also included any instance of eye closing,
laying face down on the table, and covering both eyes with hands, lasting for one second or
longer. This variable was measured using a real-time measurement method (Miltenberger et al.,
1999), which consisted of second-by-second scoring. Percent attending to other was calculated
by dividing the total number of seconds that the participant attended to other stimuli by the total
number of seconds of the video-viewing, and multiplying this number by 100. Appendix 7
contains a photographed example of a participant attending to other stimuli.
Interobserver Agreement
Tables 2 and 3 summarize interobserver agreement across all dependent variables and
participants. In order to measure interobserver agreement for script completion, a second
independent observer scored 41% of sessions across all participants and conditions. Both the
primary and secondary observers referred to scoring guidelines to increase objectivity
(Appendices 5 and 6). Interobserver agreement was calculated by dividing the number of
MATERIAL PRESENCE VERSUS ABSENCE 15
agreements by the number of agreements plus disagreements, and multiplying this number by
100.
Interobserver agreement was collected across 50% of baseline sessions for Cole, 33% of
baseline sessions for Matthew, and 38% of baseline sessions for Charles. Interobserver
agreement for Cole was 100% for actions, and 100% for vocalizations. Interobserver agreement
for Matthew was 87% for actions (range 85-88%) and 100% for vocalizations. Interobserver
agreement for Charles was 100% for actions and 100% for vocalizations.
Interobserver agreement was collected across 40% of video viewing sessions for Cole,
44% of video viewing sessions for Matthew, and 38% of video viewing sessions for Charles.
Interobserver agreement for Cole was 90% for actions (range 81-96%) and 91% for vocalizations
(range 83-97%). Interobserver agreement for Matthew was 91% for actions (range 86-96%) and
96% for vocalizations (range 88-100%). Interobserver agreement for Charles was 93% for
actions (range 86-96%) and 87% for vocalizations (range 72-97%).
Interobserver agreement was collected across 33% of no video sessions for Cole, 50% of
no video sessions for Matthew, and 100% of no video sessions for Charles. Interobserver
agreement for Cole was 96% for actions (range 93-100%) and 98% for vocalizations (range 97-
100%). Interobserver agreement for Matthew was 93% for actions (range 89-96%) and 95% for
vocalizations (range 94-97%). Interobserver agreement for Charles was 87% for actions (range
86-89%) and 97% for vocalizations.
In order to measure interobserver agreement for attending to video, attending to
materials, and attending to other stimuli, an independent observer scored 40% of sessions, across
all conditions and participants. Interobserver agreement was calculated by dividing the number
MATERIAL PRESENCE VERSUS ABSENCE 16
of agreements by the number of agreements plus disagreements, and multiplying this number by
100.
Interobserver agreement was collected for 38% of materials present sessions for Cole,
40% of materials present sessions for Matthew, and 43% of materials present sessions for
Charles. Interobserver agreement for Cole was 92% for attending to video (range 89-95%), 93%
for attending to materials (range 92-95%), and 97% for attending to other stimuli (range
96-100%). Interobserver agreement for Matthew was 96% for attending to video (range 94-
98%), 96% for attending to materials (range 94-98%), and 100% for attending to other stimuli
(range 99-100%). Interobserver agreement for Charles was 88% for attending to video (range 85-
92%), 90% for attending to materials (range 87-93%), and 90% for attending to other stimuli
(range 85-96%).
Interobserver agreement was collected for 43% of materials absent sessions for Cole,
50% of materials absent sessions for Matthew, and 33% of materials absent sessions for Charles.
Interobserver agreement for Cole was 96% for attending to video (range 94-98%) and 96% for
attending to other stimuli (range 94-98%). Interobserver agreement for Matthew was 99% for
attending to video (range 98-100%) and 99% for attending to other stimuli (range 98-100%).
Interobserver agreement for Charles was 88% for attending to video (range 84-90%) and 88% for
attending to other stimuli (range 84-90%).
Experimental Design
A multi-element design within participants and a multiple baseline design across
participants was used in the study. The multiple baseline across participants component
demonstrated the effect of the video modeling procedure on pretend play skills, while the multi-
MATERIAL PRESENCE VERSUS ABSENCE 17
element within participants component allowed for a direct comparison of acquisition rates
between the materials present and the materials absent conditions.
Procedures
Baseline. During the baseline condition, the experimenter brought the participant to the
research room, where the play materials were set up on the floor. Play materials were set up to
mirror the initial scenes of the video model. The experimenter set a timer for five minutes,
pointed to the toys, and stated, “It’s time to play”. The experimenter did not interact with the
participant, unless she had to redirect his attention to the toys. For example, if the participant
stood up and walked to the door, the experimenter neutrally guided him back to the toys. After
five minutes elapsed, the experimenter said, “Playing with toys is all done,” and walked the
participant back to his classroom. During all baseline, video viewing, and no video sessions, the
experimenter was in the room with a video camera, recording the entire session for scoring
purposes. The experimenter positioned herself as not to interfere with video viewing or toy play.
Video Viewing: Materials Present. Following baseline, all participants were exposed to
video viewing sessions. In the “materials present” condition, the experimenter brought the
participant to the research room, where a portable DVD player was set up on a small table, and
the corresponding play materials were set up on the floor adjacent to the table. The experimenter
guided the participant to sit at the table, and said, “It’s time to watch a video.” The participant
was then exposed to two viewings of the video model, with a two-second pause between
viewings. The participant was positioned such that he could attend to the video screen by
looking straight ahead, and he could attend to the materials by turning his head 45 degrees.
Following the two video viewings, the experimenter set a timer for five minutes, pointed to the
toys, and said, “It’s time to play.” The experimenter did not interact with the participant, unless
MATERIAL PRESENCE VERSUS ABSENCE 18
it was to redirect his attention to the toys. The discriminative stimulus that signified the
beginning of the play portion (“It’s time to play”) was altered for Charles after 3 training
sessions to, “It’s time to play; do what you saw in the movie.” After the five minutes elapsed,
the experimenter said, “Playing with toys is all done,” and walked the participant back to his
classroom. During the play portion of most video viewing sessions, Cole and Matthew requested
more time after the five minutes elapsed. Following this request, the experimenter allowed the
participant to continue playing until he completed the play sequence.
Video Viewing: Materials Absent. The “materials absent” condition was identical to the
“materials present” condition in all aspects but one. In the “materials absent” condition, play
materials were blocked by a six-foot partition during video viewing. Therefore, materials were
not visible while the participant was watching the video model. The participant was positioned
such that he could attend to the video by looking straight ahead. If the participant turned his
head 45 degrees, he would see the partition. Following video viewing, the experimenter
removed the partition, and continued with procedures identical to those in the “materials present”
condition.
No Video. No video sessions were run once the participant met mastery criteria for both
scripts. Mastery criteria were met once the participant completed 80% of the script for two
consecutive training sessions. No video sessions were identical to baseline sessions. During the
play portion of most no video sessions, Cole and Matthew requested more time after the timer
went off. Following this request, the experimenter allowed the participant to continue playing
until he completed the play sequence.
MATERIAL PRESENCE VERSUS ABSENCE 19
Results
Total percentage script completion for each participant is depicted in Figure 1. Cole met
mastery criteria for script completion in 8 sessions in the materials present condition, and in 5
sessions in the materials absent condition. Matthew met mastery criteria for script completion in
5 sessions in the materials present condition, and in 4 sessions in the materials absent condition.
Charles met mastery criteria for script completion in 6 sessions in the materials present
condition, and did not meet mastery criteria for script completion in the materials absent
condition. Due to time constraints, training ceased following 9 sessions in the materials absent
condition. However, one no video session was conducted prior to the end of the study, in which
Charles performed 78% of the play sequence (20 scripted actions and 25 scripted vocalizations).
It is likely that Charles would have met mastery criteria had training continued. Table 8
summarizes the number of sessions needed to meet mastery criteria for each participant in each
condition.
Number of completed scripted actions and vocalizations for Cole are depicted in Figure
2. During baseline, number of completed scripted actions was low across both play sets. Once
video viewing began, number of scripted actions immediately increased in both conditions. In
the materials present condition, number of scripted actions increased to 22 (out of 27) in the first
no video session, and in the materials absent condition, number of scripted actions increased to
25 (out of 28) in the first no video session. As time elapsed, Cole’s performance in the no video
sessions (which spanned a period of months) regressed. However, rates remained higher than
baseline, with number of scripted actions at 19 in the materials present condition, and 22 in the
materials absent condition.
MATERIAL PRESENCE VERSUS ABSENCE 20
Cole did not complete any scripted vocalizations during baseline in either play set. Once
video viewing began, number of scripted vocalizations immediately increased in both conditions.
In the materials present condition, number of scripted vocalizations increased to 31 (out of 32) in
the first no video session, and in the materials absent condition, number of scripted vocalizations
increased to 27 (out of 30) in the first no video session. As time elapsed (the no video condition
spanned a period of months), Cole’s performance in the no video sessions regressed. However,
rates remained higher than baseline, with number of scripted vocalizations at 16 in the materials
present condition, and 21 in the materials absent condition. For Cole, there was a bigger
discrepancy between conditions in the acquisition of scripted actions as compared to scripted
vocalizations.
Number of completed scripted actions and vocalizations for Matthew are depicted in
Figure 3. During baseline, number of completed scripted actions was low across both play sets.
Once video viewing began, number of scripted actions immediately increased in both conditions.
In the materials present condition, number of scripted actions increased to 24 (out of 28) in video
viewing sessions 37 and 39, and in the materials absent condition, number of scripted actions
increased to 26 (out of 27) in video viewing session 41. In the first no video session, Matthew
performed 22 scripted actions in the materials present condition, and 25 scripted actions in the
materials absent condition. As time elapsed (the no video condition spanned a period of months),
Matthew’s performance in the no video sessions regressed for the sequence associated with the
materials absent condition. However, rates remained higher than baseline, with number of
scripted actions at 22.
Matthew did not complete any scripted vocalizations during baseline in either play set.
Once video viewing began, number of scripted vocalizations immediately increased in both
MATERIAL PRESENCE VERSUS ABSENCE 21
conditions. In the materials present condition, number of scripted vocalizations increased to 28
(out of 30) in video viewing session 42, and in the materials absent condition, number of scripted
vocalizations increased to 29 (out of 32) in video viewing session 41. In the no video sessions,
Matthew emitted 26 scripted vocalizations in the materials present condition, and 28 scripted
vocalizations in the materials absent condition. As time elapsed (the no video condition spanned
a period of months), Matthew’s performance in the no video sessions regressed for sequence
associated with materials absent condition. However, rates remained higher than baseline, with
number of scripted vocalizations at 21. For Matthew, there was a similar differentiation between
conditions in the acquisition of scripted actions as compared to scripted vocalizations.
Number of completed scripted actions and vocalizations for Charles are depicted in
Figure 4. During baseline, number of completed scripted actions was low across both play sets,
and remained low in both conditions during video viewing sessions 49 through 51. The
discriminative stimulus signifying the beginning of the play portion was changed in video
viewing session 52, and number of scripted actions immediately increased in both conditions. In
the materials present condition, number of scripted actions increased to 25 (out of 27) in the no
video session, and in the materials absent condition, number of scripted actions stabilized,
ranging from 18-21 (out of 28).
Charles did not complete any scripted vocalizations during baseline in either play set, and
number of scripted vocalizations remained low in both conditions during video viewing sessions
49 through 51. Once the discriminative stimulus was changed, number of scripted vocalizations
immediately increased in both conditions. In the materials present condition, number of scripted
vocalizations increased to 29 (out of 32) in the no video session, and in the materials absent
condition, number of scripted vocalizations increased to 25 (out of 30) in the no video session.
MATERIAL PRESENCE VERSUS ABSENCE 22
For Charles, there was a slightly larger differentiation between conditions in the acquisition of
scripted vocalizations as compared to scripted actions.
Attending data for Cole are depicted in Figure 5 and Table 9. In the materials present
condition, Cole attended to the video for an average of 71% (range 54-86%) of the duration of
the training video. He attended to the materials for an average of 21% (range 12-35%) of the
duration of the training video. Lastly, Cole attended to other stimuli for an average of 9% (range
2-20%) of the duration of the training video. In the materials absent condition, Cole attended to
the video for an average of 90% (range 82-97%) of the duration of the training video. He
attended to other stimuli for an average of 10% (range 3-18%) of the duration of the training
video. Although attending to video was higher in the materials absent condition, attending to
other stimuli was similar between the two conditions.
Attending data for Matthew are depicted in Figure 6 and Table 10. In the materials
present condition, Matthew attended to the video for an average of 89% (range 82-96%) of the
duration of the training video. He attended to the materials for an average of 10% (range 4-16%)
of the duration of the training video. Lastly, he attended to other stimuli for an average of 1%
(range 0-2%) of the duration of the training video. In the materials absent condition, Matthew
attended to the video for an average of 99% (range 98-99%) of the duration of the training video.
He attended to other stimuli for an average of 1% (range 1-2%) of the duration of the training
video. Attending data for Matthew showed a similar trend to attending data for Cole. Attending
to video was higher in the materials absent condition, and attending to other stimuli was similar
between the two conditions.
Attending data for Charles are depicted in Figure 7 and Table 11. In the materials present
condition, Charles attended to the video for an average of 72% (range 60-89%) of the duration of
MATERIAL PRESENCE VERSUS ABSENCE 23
the training video. He attended to the materials for an average of 17% (range 3-26%) of the
duration of the training video. Lastly, Charles attended to other stimuli for an average of 11%
(range 5-20%) of the duration of the training video. In the materials absent condition, Charles
attended to the video for an average of 76% (range 64-88%) of the duration of the training video.
He attended to other stimuli for an average of 24% (range 12-36%) of the duration of the training
video. Attending data for Charles followed a different trend than the attending data for the other
two participants. Attending to video was slightly higher in the materials absent condition;
however, the difference was not as great as the differences observed in the other participants’
data. Furthermore, attending to other stimuli was higher in the materials absent condition.
Discussion
In this study, three young boys diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder learned two
complex pretend play sequences through video modeling, thus replicating the findings that video
modeling is an effective procedure for teaching pretend play to this population (D’Ateno et al.,
2003; MacDonald et al., 2005; MacDonald et al., 2009; Patterson & Arco, 2007). For two of the
three participants (Cole and Matthew), acquisition rate was faster when materials were absent
during video viewing compared to when they were present. For one of the three participants
(Charles), acquisition rate was faster when materials were present during video viewing. For this
participant, mastery criteria in the materials absent condition were never reached.
The findings regarding attending reported by Palechka and MacDonald (2010) were also
replicated, as all three participants shifted their gaze between the video and the materials when
they were present. These findings were extended through a more in-depth analysis, which
included attending to other stimuli. In the current study, all three participants spent the majority
of the video viewing portion of the session attending to the video, regardless of whether
MATERIAL PRESENCE VERSUS ABSENCE 24
materials were present or absent. For all three participants, attending to video was higher in the
materials absent condition as compared to the materials present condition. However, the
differences observed between attending to video in the two conditions were much larger for two
participants (Cole and Matthew) than they were for the third participant (Charles). Furthermore,
all three participants spent a portion of time attending to the materials when they were present
during video viewing. Across both conditions, all participants also spent time attending to other
stimuli (e.g. the ceiling, the wall, their hands) during video viewing. For Cole and Matthew, who
learned faster in the materials absent condition, attending to other stimuli was similar across
conditions, whereas for Charles, who learned faster in the materials present condition, attending
to other stimuli was higher in the materials absent condition.
The results of the current study have important implications. For all three participants,
acquisition rate was faster in one condition compared to the other. Therefore, environmental
arrangement is a crucial component of the video modeling procedure. Up to this point, very few
video modeling procedures have specified whether materials should be present or absent during
video viewing. According to the data provided in the current study, failure to take this factor
into account might actually slow a learner’s progress. Furthermore, this study is the first to
provide a direct comparison between acquisition rate when materials are present and acquisition
rate when materials are absent. Therefore, any video modeling procedures which have specified
environmental arrangement during video viewing have done so without the aid of empirical data.
The data provided in the current study also elucidate the idiosyncrasies among learners.
Among the three participants, two different trends emerged. For two of the three participants,
material presence hindered acquisition, whereas for one participant, material presence fostered
acquisition. The behavioral processes that underlie this outcome are uncertain. However, the
MATERIAL PRESENCE VERSUS ABSENCE 25
analysis of attending might lend some clues. For the two participants who learned faster in the
materials absent condition, environmental arrangement did not affect duration of attending to
other stimuli; it only affected duration of attending to video. Duration of attending to video was
higher in the materials absent condition as compared to the materials present condition. It is
possible that for these two participants, material presence distracted attention away from the
video, which is the only source of prompting in the video modeling procedure. This might have
led to a slower rate of acquisition in the material present condition. Furthermore, material
presence might have evoked gaze shifting, which is difficult for children with autism (Landry &
Bryson, 2004). For these participants, engaging in gaze shifting when materials were present
might have impaired learning.
For the participant who learned faster in the materials present condition, environmental
arrangement did not have as large an effect on attending to video as compared to the other two
participants. It did, however, affect duration of attending to other stimuli. It is possible that for
this participant, material presence served as a discriminative stimulus for attending to relevant
stimuli. Material presence might have redirected the participant’s attention from other stimuli
back to relevant stimuli, leading to a faster rate of acquisition.
There are many limitations to the current study. A major limitation is that for Cole and
Matthew, the play portion of the training and probe sessions were longer than the time allotted in
baseline. This factor decreases experimental control, as duration of play was not held consistent
across sessions. However, it must be noted that Cole and Matthew did not ask for extra time
during baseline sessions; these requests only occurred after training began. The scripts used in
the current study required complex figure manipulation, such as placing characters in vehicles,
attaching small pieces to one another, and balancing pieces on top of one another. Due to
MATERIAL PRESENCE VERSUS ABSENCE 26
deficits in fine motor skills, Cole and Matthew required a lot of time to complete such actions.
Therefore, acquisition of the play sequence is most likely the factor that evoked the mand for
more time. Another factor that decreases experimental control of the current study is the change
in the discriminative stimulus that was presented to Charles prior to the play portion of the
session. However, additional instructions were required for Charles in order to evoke skill
acquisition.
Another limitation of the current study is that the room set-up during video viewing was
slightly different across conditions. For true experimental control, the only difference should
have been material presence or absence. However, since a partition was used to block materials
in the materials absent condition, partition presence versus absence was another difference
between conditions. From a logistical standpoint, it was necessary to use a partition due to the
size of the play materials, as well as the amount of time required to set them up. However, future
research should try to keep the room set-up more consistent across conditions. For example,
rather than using a partition in the materials absent condition, the experimenter can set up the
play materials on a dolly in the hallway, and then wheel them into the room following video
viewing.
The results of the current study suggest a number of exciting avenues for future research.
Firstly, other researchers should try to replicate the study using different materials and play
sequences, to determine if the same trends emerge among participants. If similar trends do
emerge across studies, future research might examine a way to determine which environmental
arrangement is most beneficial for a specific learner. It might also be helpful to examine what in
the learner’s history accounts for the emergence of different trends in attending. This might
make it possible to pre-teach attending skills to make video modeling more effective for a
MATERIAL PRESENCE VERSUS ABSENCE 27
learner. Furthermore, future research should examine whether adding additional discriminative
stimuli to the environment (e.g. materials, pictures) fosters the acquisition rate of children who
are likely to attend to other stimuli during video modeling.
The data collected in the current study elucidate the importance of environmental
arrangement during the video viewing portion of the video modeling procedure. Thus, it is
important to continue this line of research, and broaden the knowledge base with additional
empirically-based information.
MATERIAL PRESENCE VERSUS ABSENCE 28
References
Charlop, M. H. & Milstein, J. P. (1989). Teaching autistic children conversational speech using
video modeling. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 22, 275-285.
Charlop-Christy, M.H., Le, L. & Freeman, K.A. (2000). A comparison of video modeling and in vivo
modeling for teaching children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders,
30, 537-552.
D’Ateno, P., Mangiapanello, K., & Taylor, B. (2003). Using video modeling to teach complex play
sequences to preschoolers with autism. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 5, 5-11.
Delano, M. E. (2007). Video modeling intervention for individuals with autism. Remedial and Special
Education, 28, 33-42.
Gena, A., Couloura, S., & Kymissis, E. (2005). Modifying the affective behavior of preschoolers with
Autism using in-vivo or video modeling and reinforcement contingencies. Journal of Autism and
Developmental Disorders, 35, 545-556.
Landry, R., & Bryson, S. E. (2004). Impaired disengagement of attention in young children with
autism. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 1115-1122.
LeBlanc, L.A., Coates, A.M., Daneshvar, S., Charlop-Christy, M.H., Morris, C., & Lancaster, B.M.,
(2003). Using video modeling and reinforcement to teach perspective-taking skills to children
with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36, 253-257.
MacDonald, R., Clark, M., Garrigan, E., & Vangala, M. (2005). Using video modeling to teach
pretend play to children with autism. Behavioral Interventions, 20, 225-238.
MacDonald, R.P.F., Sacramone, S.R., Mansfield, R., Wiltz, K., & Ahearn, W.H. (2009). Using video
modeling to teach reciprocal pretend play to children with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 42, 43-55.
MATERIAL PRESENCE VERSUS ABSENCE 29
McCoy, K., & Hermansen, E. (2007). Video modeling for individuals with autism: A review of model
types and effects. Education and Treatment of Children, 30, 183-213.
Miltenberger, R.G., Rapp, J. T., & Long, E. S. (1999). A low-tech method for conducting real-time
recording. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 32, 119-120.
Palechka, G., & MacDonald, R. (2010). A comparison of the acquisition of play skills using
instructor-created video models and commercially available videos. Education and Treatment of
Children, 33, 457-474.
Patterson, C.R., & Arco, L. (2007). Using video modeling for generalizing toy play in children with
autism. Behavior Modification, 31, 660-681.
Rehfeld, R. A., Dahman, D., Young, A., Cherry, H. & Davis, P. (2003). Teaching a simple, meal
preparation skill to adults with severe and mental retardation using video modeling. Behavioral
Intervention, 18, 209-218.
Robinson, Meghan, "Examining Prerequisite Skills for Learning Through Video Modeling" (2009).
Applied Behavioral Analysis Master's Theses. Paper 11. http://hdl.handle.net/2047/d20000009
Sherer, M., Pierce, K.L., Paredes, S., Kisacky, K. L., Ingersoll, B., & Schreibman, L. (2001).
Enhancing conversation skills in children with autism via video technology. Which is better,
“self” or “other” as a model? Behavior Modification, 25, 140-158.
Tereshko, L., MacDonald, R., & Ahearn, W. H. (2010). Strategies for teaching children with autism to
imitate response chains using video modeling. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 4(3),
479-489.
Weiss, M.J., & Harris, S.L. (2001). Reaching out, joining in: Teaching social skills to young children
with autism. Bethesda, MD: Woodbine House, Inc.
MATERIAL PRESENCE VERSUS ABSENCE 30
Table 1
Environmental Arrangements and Play Sequences for Each Participant
Participant Materials Present Materials Absent
Cole Faster than a Speeding Frog Sonya Lee and the Super Sundae
Matthew Sonya Lee and the Super Sundae Faster than a Speeding Frog
Charles Faster than a Speeding Frog Sonya Lee and the Super Sundae
MATERIAL PRESENCE VERSUS ABSENCE 31
Table 2
Summary of Interobserver Agreement (Average and Range) for Script Completion for All
Participants
Participant Dependent Variable Baseline Training Mastery Probes
Cole
Scripted Actions
100%
90%
(range 81-96%)
96%
(range 93-100%)
Scripted Vocalizations 100% 91% (range 83-97%)
98% (range 97-100%)
Matthew
Scripted Actions
87%
(range 85-88%)
91%
(range 86-96%)
93%
(range 89-96%)
Scripted Vocalizations 100% 96% (range 88-100%)
95% (range 94-97%)
Charles
Scripted Actions 100% 93% (range 86-96%)
87% (range 86-89%)
Scripted Vocalizations 100% 87% (range 72-97%)
97%
MATERIAL PRESENCE VERSUS ABSENCE 32
Table 3
Summary of Interobserver Agreement (Average and Range) for Attending for All Participants
Participant Dependent Variable Materials Present Materials Absent
Cole
Attending to Video 92% (range 89-95%)
96% (range 94-98%)
Attending to Materials 93% (range 92-95%)
N/A
Attending to Other 97% (range 96-100%)
96% (range 94-98%)
Matthew
Attending to Video 96% (range 94-98%)
99% (range 98-100%)
Attending to Materials 96%
(range 94-98%)
N/A
Attending to Other 100% (range 99-100%)
99% (range 98-100%)
Charles
Attending to Video 88% (range 85-92%)
88% (range 84-90%)
Attending to Materials 90% (range 87-93%)
N/A
Attending to Other 90% (range 85-96%)
88% (range 84-90%)
MATERIAL PRESENCE VERSUS ABSENCE 33
Table 4
Number of Sessions Required to Meet Mastery Criteria for Each Participant in Each Condition
Participant Materials Present Materials Absent
Cole 8 5
Matthew 5 4
Charles 6 9*
*Not mastered
MATERIAL PRESENCE VERSUS ABSENCE 34
Table 5
Summary Data (Average and Range Across Sessions) for Cole for Attending During Video
Viewing
Materials Present Materials Absent
Attending to Video 70% (range 54-86%)
90% (range 82-97%)
Attending to Materials 21%
(range 12-25%)
N/A
Attending to Other 9% (range 2-20%)
10% (range 3-18%)
MATERIAL PRESENCE VERSUS ABSENCE 35
Table 6
Summary Data (Average and Range Across Sessions) for Matthew for Attending During Video
Viewing
Materials Present Materials Absent
Attending to Video 89% (range 82-96%)
99% (range 98-99%)
Attending to Materials 10%
(range 4-16%) N/A
Attending to Other 1% (range 0-2%)
1% (range 1-2%)
MATERIAL PRESENCE VERSUS ABSENCE 36
Table 7
Summary Data (Average and Range Across Sessions) for Charles for Attending During Video
Viewing
Materials Present Materials Absent
Attending to Video 72% (range 60-89%)
77% (range 64-88%)
Attending to Materials 17% (range 3-26%)
N/A
Attending to Other 11% (range 5-20%)
24% (range 12-36%)
MATERIAL PRESENCE VERSUS ABSENCE 37
Sessions
Perc
entS
cript
Com
pletio
n
Sd changed
Figure 1. Data for percent script completion across all three participants. Open diamonds
represent the script trained in the materials present condition, and closed squares represent the
script trained in the materials absent condition.
MATERIAL PRESENCE VERSUS ABSENCE 38
-202468
10121416182022242628
1 2 3 5 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 45 46 64 70
Scrip
ted A
ctio
ns
Sessions
-202468
101214161820222426283032
1 2 3 5 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 45 46 64 70
Scrip
ted V
ocali
zatio
ns
Sessions
Materials PresentMaterials Absent
Baseline Video Viewing No Video
Baseline Video Viewing No Video
Cole
Figure 2. Number of completed scripted actions and scripted vocalizations for Cole. Open
diamonds represent the script trained in the materials present condition, and closed squares
represent the script trained in the materials absent condition.
MATERIAL PRESENCE VERSUS ABSENCE 39
-202468
10121416182022242628
4 6 7 8 30 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 53 69
Scrip
ted A
ctio
ns
Sessions
-202468
101214161820222426283032
4 6 7 8 30 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 53 69
Scrip
ted V
ocali
zatio
ns
Sessions
Materials PresentMaterials Absent
Baseline Video Viewing No Video
Baseline Video Viewing No Video
Matthew
Figure 3. Number of completed scripted actions and scripted vocalizations for Matthew. Open
diamonds represent the script trained in the materials present condition, and closed squares
represent the script trained in the materials absent condition.
MATERIAL PRESENCE VERSUS ABSENCE 40
-202468
10121416182022242628
9 10 11 12 31 33 47 48 49 50 51 52 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 65 66 67 68
Scrip
ted A
ctio
ns
Sessions
-202468
101214161820222426283032
9 10 11 12 31 33 47 48 49 50 51 52 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 65 66 67 68
Scrip
ted V
ocali
zatio
ns
Sessions
Materials PresentMaterials Absent
Charles Baseline Video Viewing No Video
Baseline Video Viewing No Video
Sd changed
Sd changed
Figure 4. Number of completed scripted actions and scripted vocalizations for Charles. Open
diamonds represent the script trained in the materials present condition, and closed squares
represent the script trained in the materials absent condition.
MATERIAL PRESENCE VERSUS ABSENCE 41
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
14 15 18 19 22 24 26 27
Perc
ent D
urati
on
SessionsAttending to Video Attending to Materials Attending to Other
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
13 16 17 20 21 22 25
Perc
ent D
urati
on
SessionsAttending to Video Attending to Other
Cole
Materials Present
Materials Absent
Figure 5. Percent duration of attending to video, attending to materials, and attending to other
stimuli for Cole across both conditions.
MATERIAL PRESENCE VERSUS ABSENCE 42
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
34 36 37 39 42
Perc
ent D
urati
on
Sessions
Attending to Video Attending to Materials Attending to Other
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
35 38 40 41
Perc
ent D
urati
on
Sessions
Attending to Video Attending to Other
Matthew
Materials Present
Materials Absent
Figure 6. Percent duration of attending to video, attending to materials, and attending to other
stimuli for Matthew across both conditions.
MATERIAL PRESENCE VERSUS ABSENCE 43
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
49 51 55 57 58 60 62
Perc
ent D
urati
on
Sessions
Attending to Video Attending to Materials Attending to Other
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
50 52 54 56 59 61 63 65 66
Perc
ent D
urati
on
Sessions
Attending to Video Attending to Other
Charles
Materials Present
Materials Absent
Figure 7. Percent duration of attending to video, attending to materials, and attending to other
stimuli for Charles across both conditions.
MATERIAL PRESENCE VERSUS ABSENCE 44
Appendix 1
Script for “Faster than a Speeding Frog”
MATERIAL PRESENCE VERSUS ABSENCE 45
Appendix 2
Script for “Sonya Lee and the Super Sundae”
MATERIAL PRESENCE VERSUS ABSENCE 46
Appendix 3
Materials for “Faster than a Speeding Frog” Play Sequence
MATERIAL PRESENCE VERSUS ABSENCE 47
Appendix 4
Materials for “Sonya and the Super Sundae” Play Sequence
MATERIAL PRESENCE VERSUS ABSENCE 48
Appendix 5 Scoring Guidelines for “Faster than a Speeding Frog”
Faster Than a Speeding Frog: Action Guidelines General Scoring rules
If a character walks they must contact the ground, they cannot fly Actions are scored + if they are with the wrong character Vehicles must contact the ground, they cannot fly over or be lifted Actions still count if a character/piece is placed somewhere and then falls off Actions can occur out of order from the original script
Crosses street Feet contact the ground, can float or step
Jumps on Eddie’s head Freddie the frog jumps up, and feet contact the top of Eddie’s head
Leapfrogs over Freddie Eddie jumps (can be lifted) over Freddie and lands on the other side
Leapfrogs over Eddie Freddie jumps (can be lifted) over Eddie and lands on the other side
Jumps on spring Eddie’s feet contact the springs, and he bounces upward
Falls down Comes back to ground, contacts the ground either on his back, side or standing
Picks up spring Eddie picks up any of the springs. Child can hang spring on Eddie’s hand or can hold it up in front of him.
Puts springs on feet Child attaches springs to Eddie’s feet, either by holding them on his feet, or by placing the marble in the figurine. Springs do not have to stay attached for whole duration. Mark as + if child attaches springs, even momentarily.
Jumping with springs on feet Jumps at least once with the springs attached to his feet (springs are either held on, or attached by marble)
Does a flip Flips at least once, with or without springs on feet
Lands in cloud upside down Sits on top of cloud, head first Sits in cloud right side up Sits on top of cloud, feet first
Reaches for springs and knocks them down
Springs are on top of the cloud, and then fall out of the cloud. Eddie may or may not touch them. Springs can be brought to the top of the cloud with Eddie, or may be placed on top of cloud separately.
Drives in toward cloud Fire truck moves toward cloud, can float or make contact with ground.
Gets out of truck At least one fireman gets out of his seat
Raises ladder
Child extends ladder to cloud. Ladder may not extend all the way or child may extend truck
Climbs up ladder Fireman moves to the top of the ladder and sits in the yellow seat. Can either float or step up to yellow seat.
Reach toward firefighter Child moves Eddie toward firefighter, tips him toward firefighter, or moves Eddie to the edge of the cloud toward fire truck
Pull down ladder Ladder is put back to its original position
Backs away Fire truck moves away from cloud Jumps, gains attention Frog jumps, or makes some other attention getting response
Takes yo-yo Yo-yo (string or whole thing) goes to frog. Child can lay string on frog, or hold it up in front of the figurine.
Winds up and jumps Jumps next to cloud, but does not land in cloud
Jumps and lands in cloud Sits on top of cloud, body can be in any orientation Ties yo-yo string to cloud Child lays a piece of yo-yo string on cloud
Jumps down holding yo-yo Eddie jumps down to ground with yo-yo and/or Freddie Stands in the middle of his friends Eddie is placed in the middle of his friends
Faster Than a Speeding Frog: Vocal Guidelines General Scoring rules:
Scored as + if it is complete and matches the script. Scored as + if it is a partial vocal (at least 50%) or a paraphrase of a vocal (example: script says “Help us eat the
world biggest ice cream sundae” and student says “Let’s eat the world’s largest ice cream cone”) Student does not have to be holding/manipulating character for + Scored as + if it is with the wrong character Vocals are only counted once, but do not count against student if they repeat them Scored as + if they occur out of order from the original script
MATERIAL PRESENCE VERSUS ABSENCE 49
Appendix 6
Scoring Guidelines for “Sonya and the Super Sundae”
Sonya Lee and the Super Sundae: Action Guidelines General Scoring rules
If a character walks they must contact the ground, they cannot fly Actions are scored + if they are with the wrong character Vehicles must contact the ground, they cannot fly over or be lifted Actions still count if a character/piece is placed somewhere and then falls off Actions can occur out of order from the original script
Sits in truck Sonya is placed in the driver’s seat of the dump truck
Drive to sand box The truck pulls up to the park and the sandbox from off set Turns around to dump sand Truck turns around so the back side is facing the sandbox
Dumps sand Back of truck tips up and sand pile either falls or is placed on the sandbox Turns to face forward Truck turns around so that the front of the truck is facing the sandbox
Drives away Truck leaves the park scene. Can exit on either side. Walks away Sonya leaves the park scene. Can exit on either side.
Enters on tractor Farmer Jed is in tractor, and tractor is moved toward the sand box Gang sits in tractor At least one of the gang is placed in a tractor seat
Tractor drives toward snow mound Child orients the tractor toward the snow mound, and moves it toward snow Cow jumps in snow Cow bounces or glides at least once along the mound of cotton balls
Cow does a flip in the snow Cow flips at least once in the mound of cotton balls Gang stands in the snow At least one of the gang stands in or next to the mound of cotton balls Farmer stands in the snow Farmer Jed stands in or next to the mound of cotton balls Gang walks over to milk At least one of the gang moves toward the milk, can glide or step Farmer walks over to milk Farmer Jed moves toward the milk, can glide or step
Drive toward snow Sonya and truck enter (can fly in but must be placed on the set, oriented toward snow pile)
Backs up and pushes Backs up and drives forward at least once
Breaks through snow Student can part snow with hands and have the truck drive through or they can use the truck to part the snow
Gang sits in truck and fire truck At least 1 character sits in the truck, rest of the gang can sit in truck or fire truck Put ice cream in truck Ice cream cones are placed in truck or fire truck
Truck - Drive to the middle of town Truck moves to the middle of the town set (can fly in but must be placed on the set)
Fire truck - Drive to the middle of town Fire truck moves to the middle of the town set (can fly in but must be placed on the set)
Put chocolate topping on ice cream Chocolate topping is placed on top of one of the ice creams. Put whipped cream on ice cream White topping is placed on top of one of the ice creams.
Flies in on helicopter Child must lift the helicopter off the ground. Character does not have to be present.
Spin propellers Child must spin the propellers at least once, either when helicopter is on the ground, or when it is in the air.
Drops cherry on ice cream Cherry can be dropped or placed. Must hit the ice cream topping. Does not have to stay placed.
Sonya Lee and the Super Sundae: Vocal Guidelines General Scoring rules:
Scored as + if it is complete and matches the script. Scored as + if it is a partial vocal (at least 50%) or a paraphrase of a vocal (example: script says “Help us eat the
world biggest ice cream sundae” and student says “Let’s eat the world’s largest ice cream cone”) Student does not have to be holding/manipulating character for + Scored as + if it is with the wrong character Vocals are only counted once, but do not count against student if they repeat them Scored as + if they occur out of order from the original script
MATERIAL PRESENCE VERSUS ABSENCE 50
Appendix 7
Photographs of participant attending to video, attending to materials, and attending to other
stimuli
Attending to video
Attending to materials
Attending to other stimuli