Journal of Positive Behavior

Interventions
Volume 11 Number 4
October 2009 198-207
Generalized Effects of Video Modeling © 2009 Hammill Institute
on Disabilities

on Establishing Instructional Stimulus 10.1177/1098300708325263

http://jpbi.sagepub.com
hosted at
Control in Children With Autism http://online.sagepub.com

Results of a Preliminary Study

Christos K. Nikopoulos
Brunel University
Caroline Canavan
Stewartstown, United Kingdom
Panagiota Nikopoulou-Smyrni
Brunel University

Video modeling has been suggested as a powerful treatment tool that has concentrated on increasing a variety of skills in
children with autism. However, it has rarely been examined as a behavioral procedure for eliminating kinds of behaviors
(e.g., noncompliance), a target that is often included in children’s support plans. The present study provides preliminary
effects of video modeling on establishing instructional stimulus control over a simple behavior (cleaning up a toy) that
required the termination of an ongoing activity. Three children with autism participated, and experimental control was
accomplished using a multiple-baseline-across-subjects design. The results showed that this procedure can be effective for
children with lower baseline levels of disruptive behaviors and more developed imitation skills. Successful responding gen-
eralized across stimuli and subjects and was maintained at a 1-month follow-up assessment. Specific guidelines for build-
ing video modeling into real teaching situations are also discussed.

Keywords: video modeling; autism; instructional stimulus control

A pplied behavior analysis (ABA) has an impressive

history of significant research and strategy develop-
ment in the treatment of autism since the 1960s, with the
generalization of communication, social, academic, and
self-help skills or eliminating the occurrence of prob-
lematic, inappropriate or challenging behaviors (e.g.,
studies of Ferster (Ferster, 1961; Ferster & DeMyer, Heflin & Alberto, 2001).
1961), Lovaas (Lovaas, Berberich, & Perloff, 1991; Furthermore, several formats of these instructional
Lovaas, Freitas, Nelson, & Whalen, 1967), Wolf (Baer, strategies have been designed, yielding remarkable
Wolf, & Risley, 1968, 1987; Wolf, Risley, Johnston, results; for example, embedded instruction (Johnson,
Harris, & Allen, 1967; Wolf, Risley, & Mees, 1964) and McDonnell, Holzwarth, & Hunter, 2004) and discrete-
Risley (Risley & Wolf, 1966). ABA has been regarded as trial training (Lovaas, 2003; Newman, Reeve, Reeve, &
the best empirically evaluated intervention (Simpson, Ryan, 2003; Sarokoff & Sturmey, 2004). The integration
2001) and therefore as the treatment of choice for indi- of a variety of ABA instructional formats is important
viduals with autism since 1981 (DeMyer, Hingtgen, & because more comprehensive programs can be struc-
Jackson, 1981). All these years, a vast range of instruc- tured, and as a result, even better learning outcomes can
tional strategies incorporating the principles of ABA, be achieved (e.g., Weiss, 2001, 2005). Learning through
such as positive reinforcement, stimulus control, and
discrimination learning, have been developed in an effort
Authors’ Note: We are grateful to the principal and all staff members of
to bring out the best in each individual with autism Sandelford Special Needs School, Coleraine, United Kingdom, for their
(Dunlap, Kern, & Worcester, 2001). These strategies cooperation in conducting this study. A special thanks to all the children
have focused on producing positive changes in the who participated in the study. We would also like to thank the anonymous
core deficits of autism by promoting the acquisition and reviewers for their valuable comments on earlier drafts of this article.

Downloaded from pbi.sagepub.com at GEORGIAN COURT UNIV on March 5, 2015

198
 Nikopoulos et al. / Video Modeling 199

observation or modeling constitutes an important com- Keenan, 2006; Shipley-Benamou et al., 2002). Potentially,
ponent of most instructional formats, probably because this advanced capability of video modeling for transfer-
the functioning of children with autism in mainstream ring treatment gains in generalized conditions could be
educational settings frequently demands skills that have explained if it was viewed as an antecedent strategy (Cuvo
not yet been learned (Buggey, Toombs, Gardener, & & Davis, 1998; Heflin & Alberto, 2001), which exerts
Cervetti, 1999). Moreover, visually cued instructions stimulus control over children’s performances. It may be a
have increasingly emerged and been incorporated in case that all relevant stimuli are captured close enough
interventions, because children with autism have been together in terms of the two-dimensional television screen,
suggested to perform particularly well in visual discrim- enhancing the acquisition of the stimulus control of the
ination tasks (Marks et al., 2003; O’Riordan & Plaisted, successful imitative responding (Charlop-Christy et al.,
2001; O’Riordan, Plaisted, Driver, & Baron-Cohen, 2000).
2001; Quill, 1997; Shipley-Benamou, Lutzker, & However, with the exception of Schreibman et al.
Taubman, 2002). Hence, considering both modeling and (2000), who used a video priming procedure to reduce
visually cued instructions as important elements of many challenging behaviors associated with transition situa-
instructional packages, the use of video models in the tions, research on video modeling has concentrated on
treatment of autism in a variety of different formats was increasing a variety of skills. In fact, theirs was the only
a logical outgrowth (Ayres & Langone, 2005). study to suggest that video modeling could be harnessed
Indeed, video modeling as a whole has been proposed as an alternative behavioral systematic procedure for elim-
as an effective instructional strategy for teaching a variety inating a kind of behavior (i.e., problematic) in children
of skills to children with autism (e.g., Delano, 2007). It with autism. Therefore, the present study was designed to
can be defined as the occurrence of a behavior by an provide preliminary data about the effectiveness of video
observer that is the same or similar to the behavior shown modeling to establish instructional stimulus control over
by a model on a videotape (e.g., Grant & Evans, 1994), another behavior (i.e., cleaning up a toy) that required the
while the model can be a peer, a sibling, an adult, or even termination of an ongoing activity. Interestingly enough, it
oneself (Bellini & Akullian, 2007). The list of video mod- has been suggested that even simple requests, such as “sit
eling achievements is growing fast and includes, for down,” “look at me,” “give me a hug,” and “put away your
example, the teaching of generalized purchasing skills toy,” may result in noncompliance accompanied by
(Alcantara, 1994; Haring, Kennedy, Adams, & Pitts- tantrum or aggressive behaviors (Ducharme, Atkinson, &
Conway, 1987; Haring, Breen, Weiner, Kennedy, & Poulton, 2000; Smith & Lerman, 1999). It was further
Bednersh, 1995), daily living skills (Shipley-Benamou assessed whether success using one toy could increase the
et al., 2002), conversational skills (Charlop & Milstein, probability of success with new toys in the absence of any
1989; Charlop-Christy, Le, & Freeman, 2000; Sherer video presentation (i.e., generalization across stimuli;
et al., 2001), social language skills (Maione & Mirenda, Nikopoulos & Keenan, 2004b).
2006), generative spelling (Kinney, Vedora, & Stromer,
2003), perspective taking (Charlop-Christy & Daneshvar,
Method
2003; LeBlanc et al., 2003), socially relevant behaviors
and play skills (Baharav & Darling, 2008; D’Ateno,
Mangiapanello, & Taylor, 2003; Dauphin, Kinney, &
Participants
Stromer, 2004; Gena, Couloura, & Kymissis, 2005; Hine Three white British children (here given the pseudo-
& Wolery, 2006; MacDonald, Clark, Garrigan, & Vangala, nyms Daniel, Jessica, and Lewis) aged 7 to 9 years who
2005; Nikopoulos & Keenan, 2003, 2004a, 2004b, 2007; were attending a special school for children with severe
Parsons, 2006; Reagon, Higbee, & Endicott, 2006; learning difficulties participated in this study. They all met
Simpson, Langone, & Ayres, 2004; Sturmey, 2003; Taylor, the criteria of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of
Levin, & Jasper, 1999), and reducing disruptive transition Mental Disorders, fourth edition, text revision (American
behaviors (Schreibman, Whalen, & Stahmer, 2000). Psychiatric Association, 2000) for autism, and indepen-
Significantly, findings suggest that video modeling dent diagnoses of autism had been conferred by outside
offers many advantages over traditional teaching methods agencies. Furthermore, the Childhood Autism Rating
when it is used in diverse contexts and targeting a wide Scale (CARS; Schopler, Reichler, & Renner, 2002) was
variety of skills, and it can effectively promote generaliza- administered for the adaptive behavior rating of the
tion across different settings and conditions (e.g., Apple, children. The CARS has been suggested as a valid and
Billingsley, & Schwartz, 2005; Charlop-Christy et al., reliable behavioral rating scale widely used in the diagno-
2000; Delano, 2007; Nikopoulos, 2007; Nikopoulos & sis of children with autism and pervasive developmental

Downloaded from pbi.sagepub.com at GEORGIAN COURT UNIV on March 5, 2015

200 Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions

disorders (Stella, Mundy, & Tuchman, 1999). In addition, with adults and his peers and instead preferred solitary
a Likert-type questionnaire (e.g., Sommer & Sommer, activities (e.g., playing with a limited number of toys, such
1997) with a specified section for comments was designed as wooden animals, sand, and water, or looking out the
and given to the teachers and classroom assistants to pro- window). Also, Lewis rarely used any nonverbal behaviors,
vide any additional information in relation to the behav- such as facial expressions, body posture, or gestures, to
ioral characteristics of these children. Following a regulate social interaction. Eye contact was minimal, and
complete description of the study and its objectives, for- he had a rather lengthy history of noncompliance with
mal written parental consent was obtained for all partici- task-related requests. As a result, Lewis often displayed a
pants. Ethical approval had already been granted by the variety of challenging or aggressive behaviors toward
institution of the authors at that time. others. His imitation repertoire was especially limited, and
Daniel was a verbal boy aged 7 years with autism. His he regularly engaged in a few stereotyped behaviors, such
score on the CARS was 36 points, indicating a moderate as wringing his hands or persistent preoccupation with
range of autism. He displayed a nervous disposition and parts of objects.
would have sought attention on a regular basis for reas-
surance. Also, he rarely initiated any social interaction Setting
with other adults or children. He mainly showed interest
in only a few toys or games, such as computers, and his One classroom of the school was used throughout this
imitation repertoire was at an average level for his age. study. That is, children viewed the videotapes and were
His teachers reported that although Daniel was often assessed during all conditions in the same room shown in
noncompliant with their instructions, he never exhibited the videotape. A 17-inch television placed in a locked
any other problematic behaviors, such as aggression, dis- cupboard was used, and a chair was placed approxi-
ruption, or tantrums. Instead, during any instructional mately 1.5 meters away. All sessions were recorded by a
situations, he seemed to ignore any requests delivered to camcorder mounted on a tripod for subsequent analysis.
him and carried on with his prior occupation. Finally,
Daniel sometimes followed set patterns of behavior, Stimulus Materials
because he preoccupied with a few stereotyped interests
Toys. Toys used across the various conditions were a
that were abnormal either in intensity or in focus and
wooden shape matching board, Lego blocks, a puzzle,
engaged in a few repetitive motor mannerisms.
and images to color in (drawings). These toys were
Jessica was a partially deaf 8-year-old girl who was
chosen from a variety of other toys available in the
classified in the severe range of autism, with a CARS
children’s classroom. Thus, children were familiar
score of 41.5 points. Her speech was limited to babbles,
enough with them and no instructions were needed that
vocalizations, crying, and noises, but no words. She
could have interfered with the validity of the variables
lacked social and emotional reciprocity with others and
being measured.
peers, preferring solitary activities such as playing with
computers or dressing up. Despite efforts from her Videotape. An unfamiliar typically developing peer
teachers, Jessica experienced difficulties in attending to was used as the primary model for the construction of a
and completing requested tasks, and she was often argu- videotape, approximately 30 seconds long. In the video,
mentative and noncompliant with such requests. On such the experimenter was shown switching the television off
occasions, she might display aggressive behaviors and then leading the model to a particular toy that was
toward others. Aggressive behaviors could also be exhib- positioned on a table. The model sat on a chair and
ited by Jessica, though infrequently, when someone (an played with the toy for about 10 seconds. Afterwards, the
adult or a peer) interfered with what she was doing. experimenter, who was sitting a few meters away, gave
There were no obvious limitations in her imitation skills. the verbal instruction “Play is finished,” and the model
However, an apparently inflexible adherence to specific, put the toy away in a box that had been located nearby.
nonfunctional routines occupied a major part of her time. The video presentation avoided any exaggeration in the
Finally, Jessica tended to follow set patterns of interac- actions of either the model or the experimenter.
tion during activities, and she sometimes engaged in
repetitive motor mannerisms or even in self-injurious
Dependent Variable
behaviors when frustrated.
Lewis was a nonverbal 9-year-old boy diagnosed with Sessions during all of the conditions were videotaped
autism. He was classified within the severe range of for the measurement of toy cleanup behavior, and a latency
autism, scoring 39 points on the CARS. He did not interact recording system was used throughout (e.g., Nikopoulos &

Downloaded from pbi.sagepub.com at GEORGIAN COURT UNIV on March 5, 2015

 Nikopoulos et al. / Video Modeling 201

Keenan, 2007). This behavior was defined as each child’s a supervised playground area. Another session began 2
initiating the appropriate motor response to the experi- to 3 minutes later. During that time, the toy was changed,
menter’s request (e.g., Ducharme, Harris, Milligan, & even if the toy had not been put away in the previous ses-
Pontes, 2003) in the same or a similar manner to that sion. Two to three sessions were conducted on any given
shown by the model in the previously viewed videotape. day for each child.
Specifically, data were collected for the time taken by each
child to put a toy away in a box after the experimenter had Video modeling. Prior to each session during the video
exhibited the instructional cue “Play is finished.” This ver- modeling condition, each child viewed the 30-second
bal instruction was selected because the teachers reported videotape in the experimental room only once. After the
that this statement was the one used most frequently for the experimenter had shut the doors of the TV cupboard,
children to terminate their play, and therefore, they were children were guided to sit on the chair opposite a table
familiar with it. If necessary, the children were further on which the toy (the wooden shape matching board was
instructed how to put the toys away. Teachers explained used for all children) and the box depicted in the video
that they used this expression in their effort to promote the had already been placed, and the session commenced.
generalization of children’s responses, irrespective of who After about 10 seconds, the experimenter gave the verbal
requested them, what toys were involved, or in which instruction “Play is finished.” No further instructions
classroom play was taking place. were provided to the child, nor was any reference made
to the video just watched.
Experimental Design As in baseline sessions, each session was scheduled
for 100 seconds but was terminated if the child put the
A multiple-baseline-across-subjects design was used toy in the box in less time. The procedure of taking the
for the three children (e.g., Barlow, Nock, & Hersen, child away from the experimental setting into a super-
2008). In all conditions, no specific consequences for vised playground area for an interval of 2 to 3 minutes
behavior or additional instructions were established by following the termination of each session remained
the experimenter. exactly the same. Finally, two to three sessions were con-
ducted on any given day for each child.
Procedure
No specific training for attending videos was required Criterion Performance
prior to the video modeling intervention. This was When each child succeeded in imitating the modeled
because informal reports from the teachers and classroom behavior of putting the toy away within the first 5 sec-
assistants of the children indicated that all participants onds (e.g., Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 2007) following
could watch TV or videotapes for at least 2 minutes. the verbal instruction “Play is finished” in five consecu-
tive sessions, he or she was transferred to the next con-
Baseline. During the baseline sessions, both the exper- dition, generalization across toys (GT). Because the
imenter and each child entered the experimental setting verbal instruction was given after about 10 seconds had
without previously viewing any videos. The experimenter elapsed, the imitative performance of the child was con-
led the child to sit on a chair opposite a table on which sidered successful when it was emitted within the first 15
one of the four toys and a box had been placed. This box seconds of each session. In the GT condition, if a child
was one of the boxes used in the children’s classrooms for did not respond to a verbal instruction in three consecu-
storing toys. The four toys were randomly alternated tive sessions and within the specified time, he or she
across sessions, and therefore, each child was assessed in experienced the previous condition (i.e., video model-
the presence of each toy at least once. After each child ing) for additional three sessions (Nikopoulos & Keenan,
had played with or manipulated the toy for about 10 sec- 2007). However, if successful responding occurred in
onds, the experimenter said “Play is finished.” three consecutive sessions, each child was transferred to
Each session was scheduled to last up to 100 seconds, the next condition in the sequence, generalization across
with the experimenter’s behavior remaining as natural as subjects (GS).
possible, responding only to the children’s requests
whenever a response was essential. However, if a child
Generalization
put the toy into the box either before the verbal instruc-
tion was given or the 100 seconds had elapsed, the ses- GT and GS. Prior to all generalization assessments,
sion was terminated at that point. In any case, following there was no video presentation. Thus, the procedure dur-
the termination of the session each child was taken into ing assessment for GT was exactly the same as at baseline,

Downloaded from pbi.sagepub.com at GEORGIAN COURT UNIV on March 5, 2015

202 Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions

Figure 1 secondary observer was entirely unaware of the experi-

Latency to Respond to the Verbal Request “Play mental conditions and objectives of the study. The per-
Is Finished” for Daniel, Jessica, and centage of the interobserver agreement for latency was
Lewis During the Baseline, Video Modeling, calculated by dividing the shorter latency by the longer
and Generalization Conditions and then multiplying by 100. Results showed that the
percentage agreement for the dependent variable was
98% (range = 95% to 100%).

Results

Results for latency to respond to the verbal request

“Play is finished” for all participants can be seen in
Figure 1. During baseline, there was no evidence of the
participants’ responding to the verbal instruction “Play is
finished.” Instead, they kept playing, sitting on the chair
without doing anything in particular, or just manipulating
the toys; seldom did they walk away. Lewis exhibited
some challenging behaviors as well. However, when
video modeling was introduced, all of the children met
the criterion within 5 to 7 sessions. During the GT condi-
tion, the results for the three children were rather variable.
For example, in Session 13, Daniel was playing with the
puzzle, and he responded to the verbal instruction “Play
is finished” by saying “I have not finished yet”; the score
for this session was recorded as 45 seconds. Jessica failed
to meet the criterion with one toy (the puzzle during
Session 20) because her latency was 24 seconds, whereas
Lewis’s responses did not generalize across toys in the
first instance (Sessions 25 to 27). However, when video
modeling was reintroduced, his latency to imitative
Note: GT = generalization across subjects; GT = generalization response dropped to an average of about 2 seconds per
across toys.
session. When GT was introduced again, Lewis’s
responses met the criterion for each of the three toys fol-
except that the modeled toy was not used. Instead, the other lowed by, initially, three unsuccessful sessions.
three toys were randomly used, each for two nonconsecu- Latency to respond for Daniel and Jessica remained at
tive sessions. Following six sessions in this condition, very low levels across the remaining generalization condi-
assessment for GS took place, for which the procedure was tion (i.e., GS) and the 1-month follow-up assessment.
exactly the same as at baseline except that another adult, Lewis’s performance, however, was again variable during
unknown to the participants, replaced the experimenter. these conditions, and the criterion was met for two only toys.
Follow-Up
Discussion
One month after the final measurement had been taken,
a follow-up assessment was carried out. The procedures The results of this study show that video modeling can
were identical to those during baseline, and a total of four be an effective procedure for enhancing instructional
sessions across the four different toys were conducted for stimulus control over a simple behavior in children with
each child in the same experimental setting. autism with lower baseline levels of disruptive behaviors
and more developed imitation skills. Specifically, it was
Interobserver Agreement shown that short (30-second) video clips resulted in
Interobserver agreement was assessed on 31% of all rapid changes in behavior within five and six sessions for
observations. At least one reliability session was carried Daniel and Jessica, respectively. Successful responding
out for each participant during all conditions, and the generalized across three other different toys and another

Downloaded from pbi.sagepub.com at GEORGIAN COURT UNIV on March 5, 2015

 Nikopoulos et al. / Video Modeling 203

subject in the absence of a video display or any explicit the CARS and direct observation assessments. Undoub-
consequences and prompts. Moreover, behavior changes tedly, formal measurement of those challenging behav-
were maintained at 1-month follow-up. iors as an interference variable or as a covarying variable
The performance of these two children was a significant would have elucidated this issue. Anecdotal evidence
achievement because deficits in generalization are fre- showed, though, that there were not any apparent dis-
quently displayed by such children (e.g., Reeve, Reeve, crepancies in the type, intensity, or frequency of those
Townsend, & Poulson, 2007; Volkmar, Chawarska, & Klin, behaviors among the different conditions of the study,
2005). This could be attributed to at least two things. First, except during most video modeling sessions.
it might be the case that all the relevant stimulus elements It is not clear from the current study what the respon-
(i.e., toy, model, and experimenter) had been captured close sible mechanisms for video modeling’s leading to
enough together in terms of the two-dimensional TV decreases in latency to put a toy away were, given that
screen, which further facilitated the acquisition of the stim- this procedure did not provide any specific contingencies
ulus control over the subsequent successful responding for the emergence of this skill. Therefore, a few explana-
(Rincover & Ducharme, 1987). Second, the fact that the two tions may be plausible.
physical environments presented in the videotapes and in First, in the absence of any experimenter-implemented
vivo were exactly the same (e.g., Bernard-Opitz, Sriram, & contingencies or prompts, children’s responding could be
Nakhoda-Sapuan, 2001) might have contributed to the find- acquired and maintained by naturally occurring contin-
ings because distractions were minimized (McDonough, gencies of reinforcement (e.g., Gena & Kymissis, 2001).
Stahmer, Schreibman, & Thompson, 1997). It might be Hence, video modeling could be viewed as a motivational
argued, though, that the GS condition did not constitute an strategy.
accurate demonstration of generalized treatment gains for Second, prior to this study, some history of reinforce-
the participants, because respective data were not collected ment for imitative responding might have existed for
during baseline. Although this generalization condition dif- these participants, even irrelevant to the target behavior
fered in a meaningful way from the treatment condition (Martin & Pear, 2006), providing an instance of general-
(Cooper et al., 2007) in terms of the presence of another ized imitation (e.g., Young, Krantz, McClannahan, &
subject, logically, this is a probability. However, in reality, Poulson, 1994).
such an issue is rather highly unlikely, given that partici- Third, as mentioned before, the two-dimensional TV
pants’ responding was still unsuccessful in the presence of screen might have also facilitated the children’s success-
the experimenter (also an unknown person to them) during ful responding coming under the strict control of the ver-
the baseline data collection. bal discriminative stimulus “Play is finished” and/or
For the third participant, Lewis, there were some toys, providing a paradigm of a functional equivalence
anomalies in the success of the intervention. For class (Masia & Chase, 1997; McGuigan & Keenan,
example, Lewis’s successful performance during the 2002). Such an explanation was further evidenced by the
video modeling condition did not consistently generalize fact that extinction did not occur in any of the general-
across toys and subjects. This was probably due to his ization situations (e.g., Koegel, Camarata, Valdez-
engagement in some challenging behaviors, which were Menchaca, & Koegel, 1998).
evident in nearly any condition of the study, even while Fourth, video presentations of the requested task might
watching videos. This in turn might be an evidence of a have increased participants’ behavior in following direc-
drawback in using familiar training and testing environ- tions, serving as a priming procedure (e.g., Schreibman
ments, because a variety of challenging behaviors had et al., 2000), if its function was based on resistance to
already been established in that environment. It could change of activities or confusion resulting from unpre-
also be an indication that Lewis’s preferences for the dictability (Davis, Reichle, & Southard, 2000; Marks
toys used across conditions varied. Unfortunately, any et al., 2003).
additional effort to eliminate his challenging behaviors Fifth, the short breaks that followed each session and the
failed within the time constraints of the study. In com- design of the research itself created a rhythm that might
parison with the other two children, Lewis’s perfor- have made the verbal request less “aversive” and pre-
mance confirms that the likely success of the generalized dictable, thus reducing the establishing operation for
effects of video modeling procedures is dependent on the escape (Kodak, Miltenberger, & Romaniuk, 2003) Further
prior elimination of behaviors that interfere with the research is needed to investigate all of these possibilities.
development of imitation skills (e.g., Nikopoulos & Certainly, this study was not based on a functional
Keenan, 2003). In fact, the domain of imitation was the behavior assessment, and therefore, the intervention did
one most affected for Lewis, according to his scores on not directly address any specific hypothesis about the

Downloaded from pbi.sagepub.com at GEORGIAN COURT UNIV on March 5, 2015

204 Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions

antecedent and consequences maintaining the participants’ 10. Programming for maintenance and generalization
behavior. Instead, data demonstrated that a very short of the imitative behavior must take place across
video-based intervention can be effective in producing settings, stimuli, people, and time (Nikopoulos &
rapid changes in the behavior of children with autism Keenan, 2006).
related to the termination of an activity. Adding all the
other studies that have shown that video modeling is an An obvious strength of this procedure is that it is rel-
effective strategy for enhancing (as opposed to terminat- atively straightforward, and therefore, it seems quite fea-
ing) a variety of skills in these children, it could be sug- sible that teachers could implement it in the classroom
gested that this antecedent intervention fit within a setting. In relation to the above guidelines, however, two
multicomponent behavior support plan to create pre- main issues may need further clarification.
dictability and establish stimulus control. The inclusion of First, research has shown that children with autism
children with autism in mainstream school settings has could learn equally well from both adults and peers as
become a considerable option (Gena, 2006; Reiter & models (McCoy & Hermarisen, 2007). Thus, there
Vitani, 2007), and hence, the integration of effective inter- should not be rigid adherence to a preconceived notion
ventions to support a larger intervention effort is critical. of the models from which children should learn. The col-
Transferring research findings on best practices to school- lection of data will certainly determine the right model
teachers demands careful examination of how teachers can (peer, adult, or even self) for each child.
build video modeling into real teaching situations (Ayres & Second, for better outcomes in real teaching situations,
Langone, 2005). An initial step would be a description of it is important that generalization be incorporated into the
the basic guidelines for designing video modeling proce- treatment procedures (e.g., Stahmer & Schreibman,
dures as adopted in each respective study. Thus, what 1992). In the current study, generalization was measured
follows is a brief overview of the general instructions and at the end only because it was an effort to assess the
guidelines that were taken into consideration in the current effects of a short video modeling procedure in changing a
study. These guidelines are an amalgam of procedures simple behavior from an experimental viewpoint. In the
common to much of the previous research: classroom setting, the generalization of treatment gains
across conditions, stimuli, or people could have been
1. After a task analysis, each component of a spe- stronger if, for example, a variety of verbal instructions
cific task should be videotaped. The number of had been used (because people do not always use the
sequences to be shown in the video needs to be same instructions in the natural environment), training in
gauged for a particular child experimentally. different settings had occurred (as children do not always
2. Initially, one model should be used. play in the same classroom) or training with multiple toys
3. Simple behaviors demonstrated by the model in more natural conditions of free play during the children’s
should be about 30 to 40 seconds in length, at a school day had taken place.
maximum. Furthermore, whether this intervention affected the
4. At the initial stages, the setting viewed in the video- participants’ behavior in following directions under more
tape should be the same as the setting in which the natural conditions, such as peer-group arrangements,
child will demonstrate the imitative behavior. remains unclear and needs to be addressed in future stud-
Thereafter, different settings could be used. ies. Such research may have important implications for
5. The treatment provider must be sure that the further uses of video technologies for children with
videotape shows a close-up of the action he or she autism in inclusive school settings.
wants the child to imitate. It could also be argued that participants’ IQ scores and
6. The child should be allowed to watch each video their general levels of adaptive behavior or even their ages
clip at least once. might have affected in some way the success of the cur-
7. Depending on the target behavior, the child must rent study. However, comparisons of performances dur-
be allowed to have between 1 and 3 minutes to ing baseline with those during experimental conditions
demonstrate the modeled behavior. stand as a strong counterbalance to this suggestion.
8. The child should watch the same modeled Definitely, a prior functional assessment of the behavior
sequence again if he or she fails to imitate the under investigation would have enabled the demonstra-
behaviors; this should be done at least three times. tion of clearer relationships between the dependent and
9. The treatment provider must keep data for every independent variables of the study (for a review, see
trial and let the child have at least three successful Hanley, Iwata, & McCord, 2003). For example, results
trials before he or she moves to the next video clip. from such assessment would have provided more definite

Downloaded from pbi.sagepub.com at GEORGIAN COURT UNIV on March 5, 2015

 Nikopoulos et al. / Video Modeling 205

conclusions on whether inattention or inability to com- Baer, D. M., Wolf, M. M., & Risley, T. R. (1968). Some current
prehend the instructions was among the reasons for dimensions of applied behavior analysis. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 1(1), 91–97.
Daniel to frequently ignore instructions from adults.
Baer, D. M., Wolf, M. M., & Risley, T. R. (1987). Some still-current
Therefore, replication with additional children needs to dimensions of applied behavior analysis. Journal of Applied
be addressed in future studies. Behavior Analysis, 20(4), 313–327.
It might also be possible that even though the par- Baharav, E., & Darling, R. (2008). Case report: Using an auditory
ticipants were familiar with the verbal instruction trainer with caregiver video modeling to enhance communication
“Play is finished,” simply asking them to put the toy in and socialization behaviors in autism. Journal of Autism &
Developmental Disorders, 38(4), 771–775.
the box might have resulted in the same outcomes as Barlow, D. H., Nock, M. K., & Hersen, M. (2008). Single case exper-
the video modeling intervention. The purpose of the imental designs: Strategies for studying behavior change (3rd
teachers’ wanting to use this expression was ade- ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
quately justified, and obviously, a research study Bellini, S., & Akullian, J. (2007). A meta-analysis of video modeling
should not be designed against the targets set up by the and video self-modeling interventions for children and adoles-
cents with autism spectrum disorders. Exceptional Children,
educators of the participants. However, a more thor-
73(3), 264–287.
ough assessment of whether these children, for Bernard-Opitz, V., Ing, S., & Kong, T. Y. (2004). Comparison of
example, responded to other more clear instructions behavioural and natural play interventions for young children with
would have benefited the current study. Thus, future autism. Autism, 8(3), 319–333.
research is needed to evaluate and compare the effects Bernard-Opitz, V., Sriram, N., & Nakhoda-Sapuan, S. (2001).
of video modeling over verbal requests alone. Future Enhancing social problem solving in children with autism and
normal children through computer-assisted instruction. Journal of
research should also consider an extensive experimen- Autism and Developmental Disorders, 31(4), 377–384.
tal analysis of the role of imitation in establishing Buggey, T., Toombs, K., Gardener, P., & Cervetti, M. (1999). Training
behavior change using video modeling, especially responding behaviors in students with autism: Using videotaped
when this treatment has been demonstrated remarkably self-modeling. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 1(4),
effective in the absence of any experimenter planned 205–214.
Charlop, M. H., & Milstein, J.P. (1989). Teaching autistic children
contingencies or prompting. Finally, research that
conversational speech using video modeling. Journal of Applied
evaluates video modeling to promote typical academic Behavior Analysis, 22(3), 275–285.
and classroom skills is definitely worth being pursued. Charlop-Christy, M. H., & Daneshvar, S. (2003). Using video model-
Undoubtedly, video modeling is a procedure that ing to teach perspective taking to children with autism. Journal of
shows great promise as an efficient and effective Positive Behavior Interventions, 5(1), 12–21.
Charlop-Christy, M. H., Le, L., & Freeman, K. A. (2000). A compar-
instructional tool for those who educate individuals
ison of video modeling with in vivo modeling for teaching
with developmental disabilities, including autism. children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental
Videotapes can become individualized for any child, Disorders, 30(6), 537–552.
and because their use in treatment can encourage a Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2007). Applied behavior
structured teaching style, they may become an impor- analysis (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
tant means for parents and educators to enhance their Corbett, B. A., & Abdullah, M. (2005). Video modeling: why does it
work for children with autism? Journal of Early and Intensive
children’s functional skills that does not require exten-
Behavior Intervention, 2(1), 2–8.
sive training (Bernard-Opitz, Ing, & Kong, 2004; Cuvo, A. J., & Davis, P. K. (1998). Establishing and transferring stim-
Corbett & Abdullah, 2005). ulus control: Teaching people with developmental disabilities. In
J. K. Luiselli & M. J. Cameron (Eds.), Antecedent control:
References Innovative approaches to behavioral support (pp. 347–369).
Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Alcantara, P. R. (1994). Effects of videotape instructional package on D’Ateno, P., Mangiapanello, K., & Taylor, B. A. (2003). Using video
purchasing skills of children with autism. Exceptional Children, modeling to teach complex play sequences to a preschooler with
61(1), 40–55. autism. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 5(1), 5–11.
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical Dauphin, M., Kinney, E. M., & Stromer, R. (2004). Using video-
manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text rev.). Washington, DC: enhanced activity schedules and matrix training to teach sociodra-
Author. matic play to a child with autism. Journal of Positive Behavior
Apple, A. L., Billingsley, F., & Schwartz, I. S. (2005). Effects of Interventions, 6(4), 238–250.
video modeling alone and with self-management on compliment- Davis, C. A., Reichle, J. E., & Southard, K. L. (2000). High-
giving behaviors of children with high-functioning ASD. Journal probability requests and a preferred item as a distracter:
of Positive Behavior Interventions, 7(1), 33–46. Increasing successful transitions in children with behavior
Ayres, K. M., & Langone, J. (2005). Intervention and instruction with problems. Education and Treatment of Children, 23(4), 423–440.
video for students with autism: A review of the literature. Education Delano, M. E. (2007). Video modeling interventions for individuals
and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 40(2), 183–196. with autism. Remedial and Special Education, 28(1), 33–42.

Downloaded from pbi.sagepub.com at GEORGIAN COURT UNIV on March 5, 2015

206 Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions

DeMyer, M. K., Hingtgen, J. N., & Jackson, R. K. (1981). Infantile Koegel, L. K., Camarata, S. M., Valdez-Menchaca, M., & Koegel, R.
autism reviewed: A decade of research. Schizophrenia Bulletin, L. (1998). Setting generalization of question-asking by children
7(3), 388–451. with autism. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 102(4),
Ducharme, J. M., Atkinson, L., & Poulton, L. (2000). Success-based, 346–357.
noncoercive treatment of oppositional behavior in children from LeBlanc, L. A., Coates, A. M., Daneshvar, S., Charlop-Christy, M. H.,
violent homes. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Morris, C., & Lancaster, B. M. (2003). Using video modeling and
Adolescent Psychiatry, 39(8), 995–1004. reinforcement to teach perspective-taking skills to children with
Ducharme, J. M., Harris, K., Milligan, K., & Pontes, E. (2003). autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36(2), 253–257.
Sequential evaluation of reinforced compliance and graduated Lovaas, O. I. (2003). Teaching individuals with developmental
request delivery for the treatment of noncompliance in children delays: Basic intervention techniques. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
with developmental disabilities. Journal of Autism and Lovaas, O. I., Berberich, J. P., & Perloff, B. F. (1991). Acquisition of
Developmental Disorders, 33(5), 519–526. imitative speech by schizophrenic children. Focus on Autistic
Dunlap, G., Kern, L., & Worcester, J. (2001). ABA and academic Behavior, 6(1), 1–5.
instruction. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Lovaas, O. I., Freitas, L., Nelson, K., & Whalen, C. (1967). The
Disabilities, 16(2), 129–136. establishment of imitation and its use for the development of com-
Ferster, C. B. (1961). Positive reinforcement and behavioral deficits plex behavior in schizophrenic children. Behavior Research and
of autistic children. Child Development, 32(2), 437–456. Therapy, 5(3), 171–182.
Ferster, C. B., & DeMyer, M. K. (1961). The development of perfor- MacDonald, R., Clark, M., Garrigan, E., & Vangala, M. (2005).
mances in autistic children in an automatically controlled envi- Using video modeling to teach pretend play to children with
ronment. Journal of Chronic Diseases, 13, 312–345. autism. Behavioral Interventions, 20(4), 225–238.
Gena, A. (2006). The effects of prompting and social reinforcement Maione, L., & Mirenda, P. (2006). Effects of video modeling and video
on establishing social interactions with peers during the inclusion feedback on peer-directed social language skills of a child with
of four children with autism in preschool. International Journal of autism. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 8(2), 106–118.
Psychology, 41(6), 541–554. Marks, S. U., Shaw-Hegwer, J., Schrader, C., Longaker, T., Peters, I.,
Gena, A., Couloura, S., & Kymissis, E. (2005). Modifying the affec- Powers, F., & Levine, M. (2003). Instructional management tips
tive behavior of preschoolers with autism using in-vivo or video for teachers of students with autism spectrum disorders (ASD).
modeling and reinforcement contingencies. Journal of Autism and Teaching Exceptional Children, 35(4), 50–54.
Developmental Disorders, 35(5), 545–556. Martin, G. L., & Pear, J. (2006). Behavior modification: What it is
Gena, A., & Kymissis, E. (2001). Assessing and setting goals for the and how to do it (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
attending and communicative behavior of three preschoolers with Masia, C. L., & Chase, P. N. (1997). Vicarious learning revisited: a
autism in inclusive kindergarten settings. Journal of Autism and contemporary behavior analytic interpretation. Journal of
Developmental Disorders, 13(1), 11–26. Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 28(1), 41–51.
Grant, L., & Evans, A. (1994). Principles of behavior analysis. New McCoy, K., & Hermarisen, E. (2007). Video modeling for individuals
York: HarperCollins College. with autism: A review of model types and effects. Education &
Hanley, G. P., Iwata, B. A., & McCord, B. E. (2003). Functional Treatment of Children, 30(4), 183–213.
analysis of problem behavior: A review. Journal of Applied McDonough, L., Stahmer, A., Schreibman, L., & Thompson, S. J.
Behavior Analysis, 36(2), 147–185. (1997). Deficits, delays, and distractions: An evaluation of sym-
Haring, T. G., Breen, C. G., Weiner, J., Kennedy, C. H., & Bednersh, bolic play and memory in children with autism. Development and
F. (1995). Using videotape modeling to facilitate generalized pur- Psychopathology, 9(1), 17–41.
chasing skills. Journal of Behavioral Education, 5(1), 29–53. McGuigan, S., & Keenan, M. (2002). Rule following in functional
Haring, T. G., Kennedy, C. H., Adams, M. J., & Pitts-Conway, V. equivalence classes. European Journal of Behaviour Analysis,
(1987). Teaching generalization of purchasing skills across com- 3(1), 21–29.
munity settings to autistic youth using videotape modeling. Newman, B., Reeve, K. F., Reeve, S. A., & Ryan, C. S. (2003).
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 20(1), 89–96. Behaviorspeak: A glossary of terms in applied behavior analysis
Heflin, J., & Alberto, P. A. (2001). ABA and instruction of students with (ABA). New York: Dove & Orca.
autism spectrum disorders: Introduction to the special series. Focus Nikopoulos, C. K. (2007). Use of video modeling to increase gener-
on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 16(2), 66–67. alization of social play by children with autism. Journal of
Hine, J. F., & Wolery, M. (2006). Using point-of-view video model- Speech-Language Pathology and Applied Behavior Analysis, 2(2),
ing to teach play to preschoolers with autism. Topics in Early 195–212.
Childhood Special Education, 26(2), 83–93. Nikopoulos, C. K., & Keenan, M. (2003). Promoting social initiation
Johnson, J. W., McDonnell, J., Holzwarth, V. N., & Hunter, K. (2004). in children with autism. Behavioral Interventions, 18(2), 87–108.
The efficacy of embedded instruction for students with develop- Nikopoulos, C. K., & Keenan, M. (2004a). Effects of video modeling
mental disabilities enrolled in general education classes. Journal on social initiations by children with autism. Journal of Applied
of Positive Behavior Interventions, 6(4), 214–227. Behavior Analysis, 37(1), 93–96.
Kinney, E. M., Vedora, J., & Stromer, R. (2003). Computer-presented video Nikopoulos, C. K., & Keenan, M. (2004b). Effects of video model-
models to teach generative spelling to a child with an autism spectrum ling on training and generalisation of social initiation and recipro-
disorder. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 5(1), 22–29. cal play by children with autism. European Journal of Behavior
Kodak, T., Miltenberger, R. G., & Romaniuk, C. (2003). The effects Analysis, 5(1), 1–13.
of differential negative reinforcement of other behavior and non- Nikopoulos, C. K., & Keenan, M. (2006). Video modelling and
contingent escape on compliance. Journal of Applied Behavior behaviour analysis: A guide for teaching social skills to children
Analysis, 36(3), 379–382. with autism. London: Jessica Kingsley.

Downloaded from pbi.sagepub.com at GEORGIAN COURT UNIV on March 5, 2015

 Nikopoulos et al. / Video Modeling 207

Nikopoulos, C. K., & Keenan, M. (2007). Using video modeling to Smith, M. R., & Lerman, D. C. (1999). A preliminary comparison of
teach complex social sequences to children with autism. Journal guided compliance and high-probability instructional sequences
of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 37(4), 678–693. as treatment for noncompliance in children with developmental
O’Riordan, M. A., & Plaisted, K. C. (2001). Enhanced discrimination disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 20(3),
in autism. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54A(4), 183–195.
961–979. Sommer, B., & Sommer, R. (1997). A practical guide to behavioral
O’Riordan, M. A., Plaisted, K., Driver, J., & Baron-Cohen, S. (2001). research (4th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Superior visual search in autism. Journal of Experimental Stahmer, A. C., & Schreibman, L. (1992). Teaching children with
Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27(3), 719–730. autism appropriate play in unsupervised environments using a
Parsons, L. D. (2006). Using video to teach social skills to secondary self-management treatment package. Journal of Applied Behavior
students with autism. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39(2), Analysis, 25(2), 447–459.
32–38. Stella, J., Mundy, P., & Tuchman, R. (1999). Social and nonsocial fac-
Quill, K. A. (1997). Instructional considerations for young children tors in the Childhood Autism Rating Scale. Journal of Autism and
with autism: the rationale for visually cued instruction. Journal of Developmental Disorders, 29(4), 307–317.
Autism and Developmental Disorders, 27(6), 697–714. Sturmey, P. (2003). Video technology and persons with autism and
Reagon, K. A., Higbee, T. S., & Endicott, K. (2006). Teaching pre- other developmental disabilities: An emerging technology for
tend play skills to a student with autism using video modeling PBS. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 5(1), 3–4.
with a sibling as model and play partner. Education and Treatment Taylor, B. A., Levin, L., & Jasper, S. (1999). Increasing play-related
of Children, 29(3), 517–528. statements in children with autism toward their siblings: Effects of
Reeve, S. A., Reeve, K. F., Townsend, D. B., & Poulson, C. L. (2007). video modeling. Journal of Developmental and Physical
Establishing a generalized repertoire of helping behavior in children Disabilities, 11(3), 253–264.
with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 40(1), 123–136. Volkmar, F., Chawarska, K., & Klin, A. (2005). Autism in infancy and
Reiter, S., & Vitani, T. (2007). Inclusion of pupils with autism: The early childhood. Annual Review of Psychology, 56(1), 315–336.
effect of an intervention program on the regular pupils’ burnout, Weiss, M. J. (2001). Expanding ABA intervention in intensive pro-
attitudes and quality of mediation. Autism, 11(4), 321–333. grams for children with autism: The inclusion of natural environ-
Rincover, A., & Ducharme, J.M. (1987). Variables influencing stimu- ment training and fluency based instruction. Behavior Analyst
lus overselectivity and “tunnel vision” in developmentally delayed Today, 2(3), 182–187.
children. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 91(4), 422–430. Weiss, M. J. (2005). The behavior analyst today volume number com-
Risley, T., & Wolf, M. M. (1966). Experimental manipulation of prehensive ABA programs: Integrating and evaluating the imple-
autistic behaviors and generalization into the home. In R. Ulrich, mentation of varied instructional approaches. Behavior Analyst
T. Stachnik, & J. Mabry (Eds.), Control of human behavior Today, 6(4), 249–256.
(pp. 193–198). Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman. Wolf, M. M., Risley, T. R., Johnston, M., Harris, F., & Allen, E.
Sarokoff, R. A., & Sturmey, P. (2004). The effects of behavioral skills (1967). Application of operant conditioning procedures to the
training on staff implementation of discrete-trial teaching. Journal behavior problems of an autistic child: A follow-up and extension.
of Applied Behavior Analysis, 37(4), 535–538. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 5(2), 103–111.
Schopler, E., Reichler, R., & Renner, B. R. (2002). The Childhood Wolf, M. M., Risley, T. R., & Mees, H. (1964). Application of oper-
Autism Rating Scale (CARS) for diagnostic screening and classi- ant conditioning procedures to the behavioural problems of an
fication of autism (9th ed.). New York: Irvington. autistic child. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1, 305–312.
Schreibman, L., Whalen, C., & Stahmer, A. C. (2000). The use of video Young, J. M., Krantz, P. J., McClannahan, L. E., & Poulson, C. (1994).
priming to reduce disruptive transition behavior in children with Generalized imitation and response-class formation in children with
autism. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 2(1), 3–11. autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27(4), 685–697.
Sherer, M., Pierce, K. L., Paredes, S., Kisacky, K. L., Ingersoll, B., &
Schreibman, L. (2001). Enhancing conversational skills in Christos K. Nikopoulos, DPhil, is a lecturer at Brunel
children with autism via video technology. Which is better, “self” University. His research interests include children with autism,
or “other” as a model? Behavior Modification, 25(1), 140–158. behavioral psychology, video modeling, and family-centered
Shipley-Benamou, R., Lutzker, J. R., & Taubman, M. (2002).
approaches.
Teaching daily living skills to children with autism through
instructional video modeling. Journal of Positive Behavior
Interventions, 4(3), 165–175.
Caroline Canavan, BSc, currently works with children with
Simpson, R. L. (2001). ABA and students with autism spectrum dis- developmental disorders and learning disabilities in private
orders: Issues and considerations for effective practice. Focus on practice.
Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 16(2), 68–71.
Simpson, A., Langone, J., & Ayres, K. M. (2004). Embedded video Panagiota Nikopoulou-Smyrni, PhD, has gained extensive
and computer based instruction to improve social skills for experience in neurological disorders, health informatics, and
students with autism. Education and Training in Developmental behavioral interventions. She is a lecturer in occupational ther-
Disabilities, 39(3), 240–252. apy at Brunel University.

Downloaded from pbi.sagepub.com at GEORGIAN COURT UNIV on March 5, 2015