Using Video Prompting With Different Fading Procedures to Teach Daily Living Skills

Abstract

Two students with developmental disabilities were taught two daily living skills using video prompting with error correction presented on an iPod Touch, and two different fading procedures were implemented. In one fading procedure, individual video clips were merged into multiple larger clips following acquisition of the entire skill. In the second fading procedure, video clips were backward “chunked” during the intervention as individual steps were mastered. A multiple probe across participants design within a reversal design was used. Results showed that video prompting with error correction was effective in teaching both daily living skills. Furthermore, fading the video prompts during the intervention resulted in more rapid learning and higher maintenance and generalization effects than fading after acquisition.

Keywords

video prompting fading developmental disabilities iPod Touch daily living skills

Students with moderate to severe disabilities often have significant difficulties learning daily living and vocational skills that would allow them to live and work more independently (Carothers & Taylor, 2008). Deficits in these skills may result in poor adult outcomes (Peraino, 1992), including an increased potential for being employed in sheltered workshops rather than a community job and living in a group home or with parents rather than in a supported living environment (Wagner, Newman, Cameto, Garza, & Levine, 2005; Yu, Newman, & Wagner, 2009). Thus, to increase functional independence in daily living and foster future vocational success, it is critical to teach daily living and vocational skills to students with moderate to severe disabilities.

Video instruction is one effective strategy used to teach daily living skills to students with developmental disabilities. Two strategies are commonly used in video instruction literature: video modeling and video prompting. Video modeling is a procedure in which a learner is shown a video model performing a target behavior from start to finish. The learner is then given an opportunity to engage in the target behavior depicted in the video (Sigafoos, O’Reilly, & de la Cruz, 2007). Video prompting—which involves showing a short video clip of one step of a task, then giving the participant the opportunity to complete that step before showing the video of the next step—has been effectively used to teach a variety of daily living skills (e.g., Edrisinha, O’Reilly, Choi, Sigafoos, & Lancioni, 2011; Goodson, Sigafoos, O’Reilly, Cannella, & Lancioni, 2007; Sigafoos, O’Reilly, Cannella, et al., 2007; Sigafoos et al., 2005; Van Laarhoven, Johnson, Van Laarhoven-Myers, Grider, & Grider, 2009). The main difference between video modeling and video prompting is the number of steps shown in each video clip. Video modeling is essentially one step, that is, showing the entire video of the target behavior, whereas video prompting involves breaking the entire task into a video clip of each component (Sigafoos, O’Reilly, & de la Cruz, 2007). This study used video prompting rather than video modeling because (a) previous research suggests that video prompting is more effective than video modeling in teaching new skills to individuals with developmental disabilities (Cannella-Malone et al., 2011; Cannella-Malone et al., 2006) and (b) specifically for the two participants with moderate to profound disabilities in this study, video prompting is more appropriate because it created a lighter attentional and retentional burden than video modeling (Cannella-Malone et al., 2006).

Although numerous studies have examined the effects of using video prompting to teach new skills, far fewer have examined methods for systematically fading the video prompt. For some individuals, it will be possible to simply remove all of the video prompts at once following skill acquisition. For example, Sigafoos et al. (2005) used a multiple probe across participants design to demonstrate that video prompting could be used to teach two of their three participants to make microwave popcorn. Once the two participants had mastered the skill, all of the video prompts were removed and the skill was still maintained at mastery for at least 3 months. Although they were able to simply remove the video prompts following skill mastery, in a subsequent study, this method led to a deterioration in skill performance (Sigafoos et al., 2007), suggesting that a more systematic approach to fading the video prompts may be necessary.

At least two different approaches have been taken to systematically fade video prompts. In one method, the skill is taught to mastery, then the video prompts are all removed to see if the skill will maintain. If the skill deteriorates, the video prompts are reintroduced, then gradually faded by “chunking” (i.e., combining video clips) the steps until all of the video clips are shown together (i.e., as a video model). For example, Sigafoos et al. (2007) used a multiple probe across participants design to demonstrate that video prompting could be used to teach three adults with developmental disabilities to hand-wash dishes. Once they had mastered the skill, all the video prompts were removed, but performance rapidly deteriorated. The video prompts were reintroduced, and then gradually faded by chunking the 10 videos into 4 videos, then 2 videos, and finally 1 video. Once the videos had been chunked into a single video, the video prompt was removed altogether. Two of the three participants maintained high levels of performance without the video, and one participant performed better with the single video than with no video during follow-up sessions.

In a second fading method, the video prompts are faded as the participant is mastering the skill. Brady (2010) used video prompting to teach four students with mild to moderate developmental disabilities daily living skills and then compared the effects of two fading procedures, which were counterbalanced within an adapted alternating treatment design. In one fading procedure, video prompting was faded to picture prompting, in which only the picture of that step was presented, following skill acquisition. In the other fading procedure, video prompting was faded to video modeling by chunking the videos backward into longer segments as the participants mastered individual steps. That is, once the student mastered a step in the task analysis for two consecutive sessions, the video clip for that step was combined with the video of the next step. Therefore, video prompts were faded into fewer but larger video clips during the intervention. Results of this study showed that video prompting led to skill acquisition and that both fading procedures were effective. However, participants had higher performance scores and learned the skill more quickly in the video chunking condition than in the picture prompting condition. The participants also required less time to complete the task per instructional session during the video chunking condition.

Brady (2010) and Sigafoos et al. (2007) used stimulus fading procedures (i.e., the gradual removal of a prompting stimulus; Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 2007) to successfully fade the video prompts, but several research questions remained: Does chunking video prompts during acquisition result in more rapid skill acquisition than chunking after the skills have been mastered? And, does chunking during intervention lead to better skill maintenance and generalization than chunking following intervention?

To explore these questions more specifically, this study used video prompting to teach two skills and then compared the effects of two different fading procedures—within intervention and after intervention. Considering the questions raised by previous researchers, the research questions in our study were as follows:

Research Question 1: Can students with developmental disabilities master the target skills using video prompting?

Research Question 2: Can students with developmental disabilities maintain the skills following the removal of the intervention when it is faded either within the intervention or following skill mastery?

Research Question 3: Can students generalize the skills to different settings after video prompting is withdrawn?

Method

Participants

Two adolescent males with moderate to profound intellectual disabilities participated in this study. Kevin was a 14-year-old male with autism and a profound intellectual disability and was nonverbal. Information gathered from his Individualized Educational Program (IEP) indicated that he obtained a score of 131 on the Gilliam Autism Rating Scales–2nd Edition (Gilliam, 1995), which indicated a high probability of autism. His intelligence quotient score on the Developmental Profile–2nd Edition (Allen, 1994) was 16, which placed him in the profound intellectual disability range. We completed the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales–Interview Edition (Sparrow, Balla, & Cicchetti, 1984), and found his age equivalencies in the communication, daily living skills, and socialization domains were 1 year 6 months (standard score 25), 4 years 8 months (standard score 86), and 2 years 5 months (standard score 32), respectively. His adaptive behavior composite age equivalence was 2 years 11 months. The findings from the Vineland support the teacher’s report that Kevin had severe skill deficits across these adaptive behavior skill areas. Kevin communicated his needs and wants using gestures, some sounds, and sometimes a voice output system. He liked to watch cartoons and could manipulate technology, such as iPods and TV. Kevin consistently needed assistance in daily living and self-help tasks at home and school. He had previously been taught to wash dishes using video prompting presented on a laptop computer.

Terry was a 17-year-old male diagnosed with Prader–Willi Syndrome and a moderate intellectual disability. Information gathered from his IEP indicated that his full-scale score on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fourth Edition (Wechsler, 2003) was 52, which placed him in the moderate range of intellectual disability. When we completed the Vineland (Sparrow et al., 1984) with him, his age equivalencies in the communication, daily living skills, and socialization domains were 3 years 6 months (standard score 59), 2 years 3 months (standard score 38), and 2 years 9 months (standard score 37), respectively. His adaptive behavior composite age equivalence was 2 years 10 months. The findings from the Vineland support the teacher’s report that Terry had severe skill deficits in these key adaptive behavior skill areas. Terry was very talkative and liked to socialize with peers and adults. He had learned several job-related skills at school, such as recycling, washing dishes, crushing cans, and sorting. He worked at a community job site once a week to help with some chores (e.g., folding towels, crushing cans) under a job coach’s supervision. He had not previously been taught using video prompting. Although we found that Kevin and Terry’s cognitive profiles were vastly different as reported in their IEPs, we found that they both had significant (and similar) limitations in their daily living skills repertoires when we completed the Vineland.

Setting

This study was conducted in an urban self-contained school for students with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Kevin received educational services in an intermediate level (e.g., middle school age) classroom with five other students, and Terry was in a senior level (e.g., high school age) classroom with five other students. The window washing task was completed at a window of an exit door of the building. The door had an upper and a lower window pane, each of which measured 50 by 42 inches. Both students were taught to wash only the lower window during intervention. During generalization probes, the students washed different windows around the school building. Both participants completed the table washing task in the cafeteria, which contained 10 large rectangular tables (84 by 42 inch). During generalization probes, the students washed tables in the cafeteria other than the table used for intervention or a table in another classroom.

Tasks and Materials

Table washing and window washing were targeted for instruction because they were recommended by the classroom teachers. For the window washing task, a spray bottle, a wash cloth, a container of clean water, and a roll of paper towels were placed on a rolling cart, and a trash can was placed next to the cart. For the table washing task, a spray bottle, a wash cloth, and a roll of paper towels were placed on a rolling cart, and a trash can was placed next to the cart.

Task analyses for both tasks are presented in Table 1 along with the duration of each video clip. Each step of the task analysis was filmed with a digital camera from the spectator’s perspective using an adult model. Each video showed one step of the task analysis and began with a one-sentence verbal instruction. For example, the first video in the washing windows task began with the verbal instruction, “Get the cleanser from the cart and stand in front of the window.” This was followed by a video of an adult model picking up the spray bottle and walking to the window. There were 13 steps in the window washing task, and the average duration of each video clip was 11.8 s (range = 5–28 s). There were 12 steps in table washing task, and the average duration of each video clip was 11 s (range = 6–21 s).

Table 1.

Task Analyses for Table Washing and Window Washing With Duration (in Seconds) of Video Clips.

Table washing steps	Duration	Window washing steps	Duration
1. Pick up spray bottle off cart and go to table	8	1. Pick up spray bottle off cart and stand in front of window	7
2. Spray cleanser on table 3 to 6 times	9	2. Spray cleanser on window 2 to 4 times	6
3. Put spray bottle back on cart	6	3. Put cleanser back on cart	6
4. Pick up cloth off cart and bring to table	8	4. Pick up cloth off cart and bring to window	7
5. Wash entire table top	17	5. Wash entire window	21
6. Wipe around edge of table	17	6. Wipe window next to the frame	19
7. Take cloth back to and place on cart	9	7. Take cloth back to cart	5
8. Tear off 2 to 3 paper towel	10	8. Dip cloth in and out of water and squeeze it	9
9. Bring paper towels to table	7	9. Place cloth back on cart	9
10. Dry entire table top	21	10. Tear off two paper towels	12
11. Wipe around edge of table	14	11. ake paper towels to window and dry entire window	28
12. Throw away used paper towel	6	12. Wipe window frame	17
		13. Throw away used paper towel	7
Sum (average) in seconds	132 (11)	Sum (average) in seconds	153 (11.8)

An Apple iPod Touch (Apple Corp.) was used as the prompting device in this study. An auxiliary speaker (iMainGo 2 Handheld Speaker) was connected to the iPod Touch to increase the volume of the verbal instructions. Video segments were edited and chunked using iMovie software (Apple Corp., 2009)

Dependent Variables

The primary dependent variable for this study was the percentage of steps completed correctly for each task. During baseline, a correct response was defined as completing the step within 30 s of the initial instruction. During intervention, a correct response was defined as completing the step within 30 s of the end of a video clip, or the participant initiating and correctly completing a step without viewing the video prompt for that step. For steps that required more than 30 s to complete, a correct response was defined as completing the step within 60 s of the end of the video clip (i.e., wash and dry the entire table top). Data were also collected on the number of sessions to criterion to explore potential differences between the two fading methods.

Data Collection

Data were collected 5 to 7 times a week for each participant during designated sessions in the morning or afternoon. One or two 10- to 15-min sessions were conducted each day with each participant. The two tasks were taught alternately to participants. That is, for each participant, a session of table washing was always followed by a session of window washing (whether later that day or on the next day), and each task was taught no more than once per day. Using the task analyses, each step of the task was recorded as correct or incorrect on a session-by-session basis. The number of steps completed correctly was divided by the total number of steps in the task analysis and was multiplied by 100.

Experimental Design

A multiple probe across participants design (Horner & Baer, 1978) within a reversal design was used in this study. Five phases were conducted for the window washing task including baseline, video prompting with error correction, return to baseline, video fading, and maintenance/generalization. Four phases were conducted for the table washing task including baseline, video prompting with error correction and embedded video fading, a return to baseline, and maintenance/generalization.

Interobserver Agreement (IOA) and Procedural Integrity

IOA data were collected by independent observers for 29% and 25% of all phases for Kevin and Terry, respectively. Prior to the study, all independent observers were trained by the first author. The training included explaining the task analysis for the task, providing data sheets, explaining the coding of responses, and providing examples of correct and incorrect responses. IOA was calculated by dividing the number of steps with agreement by the total number of steps in the task and multiplying by 100. IOA was calculated to be 100% for Kevin, and mean IOA was calculated to be 99% (range = 99%–100%) for Terry.

Procedural integrity data were also collected by independent observers for 29% and 25% of all phases for Kevin and Terry, respectively. The procedures for each phase were listed sequentially on a procedural integrity checklist, and observers were taught to check off each procedural step as it was completed correctly. Procedural integrity was calculated by dividing the number of steps completed correctly by the total number of steps and multiplying by 100. Mean procedural integrity was 98% (range = 95%–100%).

Experimental Procedures for Window Washing (Fade After Acquisition)

Baseline

During baseline for the window washing task, participants were individually brought to the task, placed in front of the task, and told to “Wash the window.” A single opportunity method (Snell & Brown, 2006) was used in baseline, such that if the participant did not initiate the first step of the task within 30 s or complete subsequent steps within 30 s of a previous step, the session was terminated. No feedback was provided to the participant. At the end of each session, the participant was given noncontingent access to a choice of reinforcers.

Video prompting with error correction and postacquisition fading (window washing)

During this phase, a treatment package including video prompting with error correction was implemented. Previous research shows that video prompting with error correction can be more effective in teaching new skills than video prompting without error correction (Cannella-Malone, Wheaton, Wu, Tullis, & Park, 2012; Goodson et al., 2007). Participants were individually brought to the window washing task, and the iPod Touch was held by the experimenter in such as way to be easily operated by the experimenter and viewed by the participant. The participant was oriented toward the screen and the experimenter said, “Watch this.” The experimenter then showed the video clip of the first step of the task. When the clip ended, the experimenter said, “Now you do it.” The participant was given 30 or 60 s to complete the step, depending on the length of the clip and with longer clips having longer response times (e.g., Steps 5, 6, 10 for table washing, and Steps 5, 6, 11, 12 for window washing). If the participant did not complete a step correctly within the requisite time or began to make an error, the error correction procedure was implemented, which consisted of interrupting the participant and saying, “Sorry, [name], that’s not quite right. Here watch this.” The video clip was then shown a second time while the experimenter pointed to the screen and said, “Watch this.” When the video clip ended, the experimenter said, “Now you do it.” The participant was then given another 30 or 60 s to complete the step. If the second viewing of the video clip failed to elicit the correct response, the experimenter modeled the step while saying to the participant, “Watch me.”

During this phase, data-based instructional decisions were made on a step-by-step basis. If the data for a step showed the participant was not making progress, in which the participant completed a step inaccurately for three consecutive sessions, verbal prompts were added to the error correction procedures. For example, if the second viewing of the video clip failed to produce the correct response, the experimenter repeated the verbal instruction (e.g., “Put the cleanser back on the cart.”) and modeled the correct response. If the data continued to show no progress, full physical prompts were implemented. For example, if the verbal prompt with model failed to increase correct responding, the experimenter repeated the verbal instruction while physically guiding the participant to complete the step.

During the session, the participant was verbally reinforced for participation but not for correct responding. At the end of each session, the participant was given noncontingent access to a choice of reinforcers regardless of their performance. This phase continued until the participants correctly completed 100% of the steps across five consecutive sessions.

No video prompting

Video prompting was removed after the participants met criterion for the previous condition. The procedures for this phase were identical to the first baseline phase.

Video chunking

Based on a slight deterioration in Kevin’s performance following the withdrawal of the intervention, a single video chunk (i.e., all 13 steps shown together as one video) was implemented. During this phase, the procedures were the same as during the video prompting phase, except Kevin was expected to watch and then complete all of the steps of the task. The error correction procedures were also expanded to include all of the steps in the video chunk. After a session was completed, Kevin was given noncontingent access to a choice of reinforcers regardless of performance. Terry did not participate in this phase, because his performance remained high when the video prompts were removed.

Follow-up maintenance and generalization probes

Follow-up maintenance and generalization probes were conducted 3 weeks after the removal of the intervention. The procedures were identical to the previous baseline phases. Generalization probes were completed in different settings with different windows (i.e., washing different windows in the building). Each session was conducted no more than once per day, and each maintenance probe and generalization probe was conducted in a different day.

Experimental Procedures for Table Washing (Fade Within Intervention)

Baseline

The procedures were identical to the baseline condition for window washing, except the participants were individually brought to the table with the washing supplies and instructed to “Wash the table.”

Video prompting with error correction and embedded fading

Following baseline, video prompting was introduced. The video prompting procedures were identical to those used for window washing. In this phase, the fading procedure was embedded within the intervention. After a participant performed a step correctly across five consecutive sessions, the video clip for that step was chunked with the next step. For example, if the participant correctly put the spray bottle back on the cart (Step 3) for five consecutive sessions, this step was chunked with the next step of picking the cloth up off the cart and bringing it to the table (Step 4). Following chunking, the participant would watch Steps 3 and 4 together, then be given the opportunity to perform both steps before the next video was shown. Instructional decisions were made on a session-by-session basis according to the participant’s performance on each step of the task. Using this fading procedure, longer and longer video clips were created. During this phase, video clips may be chunked one at a time or multiple clips were chunked simultaneously, which was determined by whether the participants mastered one step or multiple steps at a time.

During this phase, the participant was given a predetermined time (i.e., the sum of video lengths) to complete all the steps in the video chunk. If a student did not complete all the steps in one chunk correctly, the experimenter implemented the error correction procedure by rewatching the video clip. If the participant still failed to complete the steps correctly, the experimenter modeled all of the steps in the chunk in sequence. As with the window washing task, if the data showed a participant consistently failed to perform the chunked steps correctly, in which the participant did not complete any of the chunked steps correctly, error correction was modified by adding verbal or physical prompts to that/those incorrect step(s). This phase continued until the participant performed 100% of the steps correctly across five consecutive sessions. Five consecutive sessions with 100% accuracy was selected as the acquisition criteria for the study because the researcher would like to assure the participants’ mastery of the task steps.

No video prompting

After the video prompting and fading phase, baseline was reinstated. The procedures were identical to the previous baseline phase.

Follow-up maintenance and generalization probes

These probes were identical to the maintenance and generalization probes in the window washing task, except the generalization probes were conducted at other tables in the cafeteria or at a table in another classroom.

Results

Kevin

Window washing (fade after acquisition)

Kevin’s percent correct data for window washing are shown in the top panel of Figure 1. During baseline, he performed an average of 12% (range = 0%–38%) of the steps he initiated correctly. When video prompting with error correction was introduced, his performance increased to 60% correct and steadily improved until he reached the acquisition criterion. Overall, he performed an average of 90% (range = 62%–100%) of the steps correctly. When video prompting was withdrawn, Kevin completed an average of 96% (range = 92%–100%) of the steps correctly. Following this return to baseline, a one-chunk video prompt was introduced. His performance immediately returned to 100% correct. Finally, during 3-week follow-up probes, Kevin maintained his performance, completing 92% of the steps correctly, and he was able to wash a different window, completing an average of 87% (range = 84%–92%) of the steps correctly.

Figure 1.

Percent correct responding across Kevin and Terry for the window washing task in the fade video prompts after skill acquisition condition.

Table washing (fade within intervention)

The percent of Kevin’s correct responses for table washing are presented in the top panel of Figure 2. During baseline, Kevin performed an average of 1% (range = 0%–8%) of the steps he initiated correctly. When video prompting with error correction was implemented, his performance immediately increased to 80% correct. Video fading began in session 18, and his performance dropped from 90% to 70% correct. However, after three sessions, Kevin’s performance returned to 90% correct and maintained at a stable state between 90% and 100% correct until he met the acquisition criterion for this phase. Video prompting was implemented with six video chunks from Sessions 18 to 25, with an average of 89% (range = 75%–100%) of the steps completed correctly. Video prompting was implemented with four video chunks in Sessions 26 and 27, with an average of 96% (range = 92%–100%) of the steps completed correctly. Video prompting with three video chunks was implemented in Sessions 28 and 29, with performance at 100% accuracy. Video prompting with two video chunks was implemented in Sessions 30 through 35, with an average performance of 99% (range = 92%–100%) of the steps completed correctly. Video prompting with only one chunk was not implemented with Kevin, because he reached mastery criterion during the two-chunk condition. Overall, Kevin completed an average of 92% (range = 75%–100%) of the steps correctly during the video prompting and fading phase. When video prompting was withdrawn, Kevin performed all steps with 100% accuracy. During the 3-week follow-up probe sessions, Kevin maintained his performance with an average of 97% (range = 92%–100%) of the steps completed correctly, and was able to wash different tables, completing an average of 97% (range = 92%–100%) of the steps correctly.

Figure 2.

Percent correct responding across Kevin and Terry for the table washing task in the fade video prompts within intervention condition.

Sessions to criterion

The left panel of Figure 3 shows a preliminary comparison of the numbers of sessions needed to reach mastery for the table washing (i.e., fade within intervention condition) and window washing (i.e., fade after acquisition condition) tasks for Kevin. He required 45 instructional sessions to reach mastery criterion for window washing, compared with 23 sessions for table washing.

Figure 3.

Numbers of sessions to reach mastery criterion across window washing (fade video prompts after skill acquisition condition) and table washing (fade video prompts within intervention condition) tasks for Kevin and Terry.

Terry

Window washing (fade after acquisition)

Terry’s percent correct data for window washing are shown in the bottom panel of Figure 1. During baseline, he performed an average of 35% (range = 15%–46%) of the steps he initiated correctly. When video prompting with error correction was introduced, his performance increased to 80% correct. Overall, he performed an average of 88% (range = 69%–100%) of the steps correctly. When video prompting was withdrawn, Terry completed 100% of the steps correctly. Therefore, the video fading procedure was not implemented. Finally, during 3-week follow-up probes, Terry maintained his performance with an average of 87% (range = 84%–92%) of the steps completed correctly, and was able to wash a different window with 84% accuracy.

Table washing (fade within intervention)

Terry’s percent correct data for table washing are presented in the bottom panel of Figure 2. During baseline, Terry performed an average of 48% (range = 25%–83%) of the steps he initiated correctly. When video prompting with error correction was implemented, his performance immediately increased to 75% correct. Video fading began in Session 29, and Terry’s performance steadily increased until he met the acquisition criterion for this phase. Video prompting was implemented with six video chunks in Sessions 29 through 36, with an average of 85% (range = 75%–92%) of the steps completed correctly. Video prompting was implemented with five video chunks in Sessions 39 and 40, and Terry completed 92% of the steps correctly. Video prompting with four video chunks was implemented in Sessions 43 and 44, with performance at an average of 96% (range = 92%–100%) of the steps completed correct. Video prompting with three video chunks was implemented in Sessions 45 and 46, with 100% correct responding. Video prompting with two video chunks was implemented in Sessions 53 and 54, with 100% correct responding. Video prompting with only one chunk was not implemented, because Terry reached mastery criterion during the two-chunk condition. Overall, Terry completed an average of 88% (range = 75%–100%) of the steps correctly during the video prompting and fading phase. When video prompting was withdrawn, Terry performed the task with an average of 97% (range = 92%–100%) accuracy. During the 3-week follow-up probe sessions, Terry completed 100% of the steps correctly, and was able to wash a different table with an average of 97% (range = 92%–100%) of the steps done correctly.

Sessions to criterion

The right panel of Figure 3 shows a preliminary comparison of the numbers of sessions needed to reach mastery criterion for the table washing (i.e., fade within intervention condition) and window washing (i.e., fade after acquisition condition) tasks for Terry. He required 29 sessions to reach mastery for window washing, compared with 19 sessions for table washing.

Discussion

This study investigated the use of video prompting with error correction to teach daily living skills to two students with moderate to profound developmental disabilities and explored two methods for fading the video prompts. The results showed that video prompting with error correction was effective for the table washing and window washing tasks to acquisition, which was consistent with Goodson et al. (2007) and Cannella-Malone et al. (2012). In addition, stimulus generalization was also observed when both participants were able to wash different tables and windows, as well as maintain the skills at a high level of performance (more than 80% accuracy) when the video prompts were faded. These results add support for using video prompting with error correction to teach daily living skills to students with developmental disabilities.

This study also presented a preliminary examination of two fading procedures for removing the video prompts. Our findings demonstrate that when the video prompts were faded during intervention, both participants were able to master table washing faster than window washing, and that they maintained and generalized that skill at a higher level than with the window washing task. These results are consistent with Brady’s (2010) findings that fading the video prompts within intervention was not only more effective but also resulted in faster skill acquisition. It may be that fading the video prompts within intervention created less interstep interruption, thus producing an integrated response chain more quickly (Duker, Didden, & Sigafoos, 2004). In other words, when the video prompts were faded gradually—based on the student’s performance—they practiced a more integrated response chain during the intervention, which may have led to increased skill accuracy. Sigafoos et al. (2007) suggested that video prompting may hinder the maintenance of the skill due to the step-by-step nature of the prompting procedure. However, during the fading within the intervention condition, if the participant completed Steps 1 through 3 independently after watching the video prompts for five consecutive sessions, the video clips of Steps 1 through 3 were chunked with the next step in the skill sequence. Therefore, during the next trial, the participant only had to watch one longer video clip (containing Steps 1–4), instead of watching four distinct, short video clips (Steps 1, 2, 3, 4). Fading video prompts within the intervention may in fact produce shorter sessions with less interstep interruption (Duker et al., 2004) and thus lead to more efficient skill acquisition.

Another possible reason that the students required fewer sessions to master the table washing task may be that it was easier than the window washing task, and therefore they mastered it faster and maintained the skill better. Although we made every effort to ensure that the tasks were equivalent by choosing tasks that required similar fine and gross motor skills, they may not have been. Moreover, the experimental design we used in this study did not allow for a direct comparison of the effects of the two fading procedures. One way to explore the impact of the different fading procedures would be to directly compare the two procedures using an adapted alternating treatments design in which the tasks were counterbalanced across participants (Gast, 2010).

It is worth noting that the method of chunking the video clips may play a role in fading. In our study, as steps were mastered, they were chunked together and the unmastered step was always the last clip. We based this method on the assumption of task interspersal (Dunlap, 1984), in which placing easier steps at the beginning of a trial may lead to increased fluency. Brady (2010), however, suggested that placing the unmastered clip at the end may cause the participant to forget the correct action after watching a long, chunked video. We did not find this to be the case, as both of our participants acquired the last step in the chunked video clip successfully. We speculate that this chunking method may have been effective because we used an error correction procedure—showing the video again and using least-to-most prompting.

There are several limitations to be noted for this study. First, the single opportunity method (Snell & Brown, 2006) was used during baseline, which may have led to suppressed baseline results. In this study, the students were given one opportunity to engage in the entire task, and once they made an error or stopped responding, the session was terminated. As such, they had no opportunity to engage in each step of the task. The single opportunity method was selected due to time limitation of pulling out the participants from the classroom for the study. Having only a single opportunity to complete the task may not have provided an accurate portrayal of each participant’s baseline performance. Instead of using the single opportunity method, the multiple opportunity method may be used in future research to evaluate the students’ level of mastery for each step in the task analysis (Cooper et al., 2007).

A second limitation was related to the nature of the video prompting procedure. In this study, the video prompts were presented with voice-over instructions. It is possible that the auditory prompts controlled the participants’ responses, rather than the video prompts, but these data were not collected as part of this study. Anecdotally, when the intervention began, the students would watch the entire video before starting the step. As the intervention progressed, they would only watch the first few seconds of a video clip before starting the task. Even after they started a task, we did not stop the video, so they were still able to hear all of the audio prompts as they were working. As such, they may have self-faded their prompt level from the video plus auditory prompt to just the auditory prompt (e.g., Mechling & Seid, 2011). In studies examining video prompting that included participants who were deaf, they were able to use video prompting without the audio cue to successfully learn new skills, suggesting that at least for some students, the visual cue is sufficient to learn the skill (e.g., Cannella-Malone et al., 2011). Future research may seek to determine the extent to which video features influence treatment effectiveness, such as inclusion or exclusion of auditory prompts in the video, the speed of the model, and length of the video (Cihak, Alberto, Taber-Daughty, & Gama, 2006).

A third limitation was that no formal social validity data were taken for this study. However, anecdotal report supports that both students enjoyed learning via an iPod Touch. Kevin, for example, was very motivated to watch the videos presented on the iPod Touch and always attended to the video. Furthermore, he demonstrated his willingness to participate in more sessions by standing in front of the table or window. Even after our study ended, the classroom teacher noted that Kevin would stand in front of a table or window and request an iPod Touch. Kevin’s teacher was satisfied with Kevin’s progress, and started to incorporate the use of video prompting via an iPod Touch into her daily instruction with other students. Terry also demonstrated his willingness to use an iPod Touch in his community work sites.

Finally, in the current study, only two participants were included, which may limit the demonstration of experimental control, because a change in responding was not demonstrated at three points over time (Horner, Swaminathan, Sugai, & Smolkowski, 2012). Although this is a standard that seems to have been set (What Works Clearinghouse, 2007), a clear case can still be made for the demonstration of a functional relation because when intervention was introduced behavior change reliably occurred (Gast, 2010). The demonstration of overall experimental control should be viewed on a continuum with at least three demonstrations over three points in time being the strongest indicator (Horner et al., 2012). In this case, a functional relation was demonstrated, but more observation or an additional participant would have been optimal. Future research should take this standard into consideration to increase the probability that a more robust effect will be demonstrated.

Future researchers may consider using participants who are highly dependent on video prompts and investigate whether fading the video prompts within the intervention would be lead to skill mastery that could maintain outside of the presence of the video prompts. In this study, our students were not quite dependent on the video prompts. It would be worthwhile to know whether fading the video prompts within or after the intervention would be more effective for students who are more prompt dependent.

Furthermore, it would be worthwhile to analyze the number of student errors and levels of prompting for postacquisition fading and within intervention fading procedures to compare effectiveness and efficiency of the two different fading procedures.

In addition, different video fading methods should be investigated and compared. Fading video prompts by adding the unmastered step at the end of the video chunk was successful in our study; however, Brady (2010) suggested fading the video prompts by putting the unmastered step at the beginning may be helpful. Alternately, it may be useful to chunk the mastered steps together, but leave the unmastered step as a single step until students master this step. Finally, we presented the videos with the experimenter holding the iPod Touch. It would be worthwhile to compare video fading procedures when the students were independently navigating the iPod Touch and when the experimenter is manipulating the technology.

In summary, this study demonstrated that a treatment package consisting of video prompting with error correction was effective in teaching daily living skills to two students with developmental disabilities. We found that fading the video prompts within intervention was effective, efficient, and produced high generalization and maintenance outcomes for our participants. Future research may extend this study and compare different fading methods to determine which might work best and with which type of participants.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by a grant from the U.S. Department of Education (Award H327A090052).

References

Allen

K. E.

(1994). Developmental profiles: Pre-birth through eight (2nd ed.). Florence, KY: Cengage Delmar Learning.

Apple Corp. (2009). iMovie [Computer software]. Cupertino, CA: Author.

Brady

A. M.

(2010). Comparing the efficiency and effectiveness of two video fading procedures for teaching students with developmental disabilities daily living skills (Unpublished master’s thesis). Northern Illinois University, DeKalb.

Cannella-Malone

H. I.

Fleming

Chung

Wheeler

G. M.

Basbagill

A. R.

Singh

A. H.

(2011). Teaching daily living skills to seven individuals with severe developmental disabilities: A comparison of video prompting to video modeling. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 13, 144–153.

Cannella-Malone

H. I.

Sigafoos

O’Reilly

Cruz

Edrisinha

Lancioni

G. E.

(2006). Comparing video prompting to video modeling for teaching daily living skills to six adults with developmental disabilities. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 41, 344–356.

Cannella-Malone

H. I.

Wheaton

J. E.

P. F.

Tullis

C. A.

Park

J. H.

(2012). A comparison of the effects of video prompting with and without error correction on skill acquisition for individuals with severe developmental disabilities. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 47, 332–344.

Carothers

D. E.

Taylor

R. L.

(2008). How teachers and parents can work together to teach daily living skills to children with autism. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 19, 102–104.

Cihak

Alberto

P. A.

Taber-Daughty

Gama

R. I.

(2006). A comparison of static picture prompting and video prompting simulation strategies using group instructional procedures. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 21, 89–99.

Cooper

J. O.

Heron

T. E.

Heward

W. L.

(2007). Applied behavior analysis (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

10.

Duker

Didden

Sigafoos

(2004). One-to-one training: Instructional procedures for learners with developmental disabilities. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

11.

Dunlap

(1984). The influence of task variation and maintenance tasks on the learning and affect of autistic children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 37, 41–64.

12.

Edrisinha

O’Reilly

M. F.

Choi

H. T.

Sigafoos

Lancioni

G. E.

(2011). “Say cheese”: Teaching photography skills to adults with developmental disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 32, 636–642.

13.

Gast

D. L.

(2010). Single subject research methodology in behavioral sciences. New York, NY: Routledge.

14.

Gilliam

J. E.

(1995). Gilliam Autism Rating Scale. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

15.

Goodson

Sigafoos

O’Reilly

Cannella

Lancioni

G. E.

(2007). Evaluation of a video-based error correction procedure for teaching a domestic skill to individuals with developmental disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 28, 458–467.

16.

Horner

R. D.

Baer

D. M.

(1978). Multiple-probe technique: A variation on the multiple baseline design. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 189–196.

17.

Horner

R. D.

Swaminathan

Sugai

Smolkowski

(2012). Considerations for systematic analysis and use of single-case research. Education & Treatment of Children, 35, 269–290.

18.

Mechling

L. C.

Seid

N. H.

(2011). Use of a hand-held personal digital assistant (PDA) to self-prompt a pedestrian travel by young adults with moderate intellectual disabilities. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 46, 220–237.

19.

Peraino

J. M.

(1992). Post-21 follow-up studies: How do special education graduates fare? In Wehman

(Ed.), Life beyond the classroom: Transition strategies for young people with disabilities (pp. 21–70). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

20.

Sigafoos

O’Reilly

Cannella

Edrisinha

de la Cruz

Upadhyaya

. . . Young

(2007). Evaluation of a video prompting and fading procedure for teaching dish washing skills to adults with developmental disabilities. Journal of Behavioral Education, 16, 93–109.

21.

Sigafoos

O’Reilly

Cannella

Upadhyaya

Edrisinha

Lancioni

G. E.

. . . Young

(2005). Computer-presented video prompting for teaching microwave oven use to three adults with developmental disabilities. Journal of Behavioral Education, 14, 189–201.

22.

Sigafoos

O’Reilly

de la Cruz

(2007). How to use video modeling and video prompting. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

23.

Snell

M. E.

Brown

(2006). Instruction of students with severe disabilities (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

24.

Sparrow

S. S.

Balla

D. A.

Cicchetti

D. V.

(1984). Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales: Interview Edition Survey Form. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.

25.

Van Laarhoven

Johnson

J. W.

Van Laarhoven-Myers

Grider

K. L.

Grider

K. M.

(2009). The effectiveness of using a video iPod as a prompting device in employment settings. Journal of Behavioral Education, 18, 119–141.

26.

Wagner

Newman

Cameto

Garza

Levine

(2005). After high school: A first look at the postschool experiences of youth with disabilities. A report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study–2 (NLTS2). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

27.

Wechsler

(2003). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (4th ed.). San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.

28.

What Works Clearinghouse. (2007). Available from ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc

29.

Newman

Wagner

(2009). Facts from NLTS2: Secondary school experiences and academic performance of students with mental retardation. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.