Comparison of Three Video-based Instructional

Education and Trainingin Developmental Disabilities,2006, 41(4), 365-381 © Division on Developmental Disabilities

Comparison of Three Video-based Instructional Procedures for Teaching Daily Living Skills to Persons with Developmental Disabilities Toni Van Laarhoven

Traci Van Laarhoven-Myers

Northern Illinois University

Waubonsie Valley Community High School

Abstract: This study compared the effectiveness of three different video-based instructionalsequences, all used in conjunction with the system of least prompts,for teaching three different daily living skills to three young adults with developmental disabilities. The video-based instructionalsequences (i.e., video rehearsal, video rehearsal plus photos, and video-rehearsalplus in-vivo video prompting) were evaluated using an adapted alternating treatments design. Results indicated that all of the procedures were effective in increasing independent respondingfrom baseline levels for all participantswith the video-rehearsalplus in vivo prompting (Video/Invivo) and video rehearsalplus photo (Video/Photo) conditions being more efficient in terms of sessions to reach criterion. Two of the three participantsengaged in more independent correct responding when they were taught skills with the Video/In-vivo condition, while the otherparticipantengaged in more independent responding on the target skill when the Video/Photo condition was the instructionalprocedure. In addition, the skills generalized to untrainedsettings.

Persons with developmental disabilities frequently have difficulty independently performing functional tasks needed for daily living. They often rely on caregivers or teachers to assist them with tasks such as dressing, cooking, cleaning, and basic hygiene. Without these skills, persons with moderate and severe disabilities are denied the opportunity of living happy, self-sufficient lives. As a result, a major focus of the education for these individuals is on teaching functional skills for independence. Some curricular areas that are considered functional, particularly for older students, include a) domestic or daily living skills (e.g., cooking, cleaning, personal care), b) vocational skills, c) recreational/leisure skills, and d) community skills (Ford, Schnorr, Meyer, Davern, Black, & Dempsey, 1989). Many of these skills are critical for independent functioning during and beyond school years. De-

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dr. Toni Van Laarhoven, Department of Teaching & Learning, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL 60115-2854. Email: tvanlaar@ niu.edu

spite the essential nature of these skills, it is often difficult to provide instruction for them within the framework of a typical school day. With an increasing focus on inclusive educational practices and national accountability systems, students with disabilities may not have enough opportunities to engage in and to practice skill sequences that are critical for self-sufficiency in home and community environments. The lack of instructional opportunities is even more problematic for students with more significant needs because they often require a substantially larger number of instructional trials to acquire skills. To overcome problems with generalization, many researchers recommend that skills be taught in environments in which the behavior is desired (Falvey, 1986) or in settings where the behavior being learned will occur naturally. This strategy, designed to overcome difficulties in generalization, is based on the premise that training in the natural setting will ensure that naturally occurring stimuli will come to control the student's response without the need for transfer of stimulus control. Unfortunately, training in natural environments can be expensive (e.g., it may require travel to community or home), may require

Video-based Instructional Sequences

/

365

larger blocks of time than are possible within the limitations of school schedules, and if done optimally (small groups), may require heavy staffing. Logistically speaking, training in natural environments can be incredibly difficult for teachers to accommodate, especially those in inclusive educational arrangements. The logistical concerns are even more pronounced for teachers of students with moderate and severe disabilities given the fact that these students need several instructional opportunities to acquire skills. To combat logistical barriers and problems with generalization, many professionals have used simulation experiences to teach functional skills. Some researchers have demonstrated success in teaching community skills when simulation experiences were followed by in vivo instruction (Branham, Collins, Schuster, & Kleinert, 1999; Haring, Breen, Weiner, Kennedy, & Bednersh, 1995; Sowers & Powers, 1995). For example, Haring et al., (1995) compared videotaped modeling, which was used as a simulation technique, with in vivo training. They found that video modeling and in vivo training, when presented in isolation, did not lead to generalized shopping skills. However, when a combination of video modeling and in vivo training were presented, either concurrently or sequentially, the students demonstrated generalized purchasing skills. In addition to providing simulated experiences and/or in vivo training, educators frequendy use prompting aids and/or prompting systems (e.g., system of least prompts, time delay) during in vivo instruction to increase independent functioning. For example, the system of least prompts (SLP) has been used to teach food preparation and clean up, table washing, sink cleaning, dusting, bed-making, emptying trash, insulin administration, and laundry (Bosner & Belfiore, 2001; Jones & Collins, 1997; Meyer & Kohl, 1985; Morrow & Bates, 1987; Smith, Collins, Schuster, & Kleinert, 1999; Test, Grossi, & Keul, 1988) and has been found to be a very natural way to deliver instruction and/or error correction during task engagement. Additionally, educators often use visual supports to facilitate independence during task engagement. For example, photographed and/or illustrated task analyses have been effectively used to teach food preparation skills to students with moderate or

366

/

severe disabilities (Bergstrom, Pattavina, Martella, & Marchand-Martell, 1995; Book, Paul, Gwalla-Ogisi, & Test, 1990; Johnson, & Cuvo, 1981; Martin, Rusch, James, Decker, & Tritol, 1982; Singh, Oswald, Ellis, & Singh, 1995). An extension of the use of photographs as prompts for instruction of daily living skills is the use of video models. Videotapes of functional skill sequences (presented on a television) have been used effectively in teaching several functional skills to persons with developmental disabilities. For example, it has been used to teach skills such as communication (Charlop & Milstein, 1989; Hepting & Goldstein, 1996; Sherer, Pierce, Paredes, Kisacky, Ingersoll, & Schreibman, 2001), reading sight words (Cuvo & Klatt, 1992), purchasing items (Alcantara, 1994; Haring et al., 1995; Haring, Kennedy, Adams, & Pitts-Conway, 1987), performing vocational tasks (Martin, Mithaug, & Frazier, 1992; Morgan & Salzberg, 1992), cashing checks, mailing letters, crossing streets (Branham, et al., 1999), operating educational technology (Grice & Blampied, 1994), and daily living/domestic skills (Graves, Collins, Schuster, & Kleinert, 2005; Lasater & Brady, 1995; Norman, Collins, & Schuster, 2001; Shipley-Benamou, Lutzker, & Taubman, 2002). Several researchers have investigated the efficacy of of using video models within computer-based multimedia applications. Although there are very few studies on teaching domestic or "home" skills through the use of a computer, it has been used successfully to teach other functional skills to persons with developmental disabilities. For example, it has been used to teach grocery shopping skills (Ayres & Langone, 2002; Mechling, 2004; Mechling & Gast, 2003; Mechling, Gast, & Barthold, 2003; Mechling, Gast, & Langone, 2002; Wissick, Lloyd, & Kinzie, 1992), ordering meals at fast food restaurants (Mechling, Pridgen, & Cronin, 2005), social skills (Goldsworthy, Barab, & Goldsworthy, 2000; Simpson, Langone, & Ayres, 2004), photo recognition (Mechling & Langone, 2000), spelling (Kinney, Vedora, & Stromer, 2003), hand washing and on-task behavior (Hagiwara & Myles, 1999), and has also been used as a medium for identifying job preferences for individuals with severe disabilities (Morgan, Gerity, & Ellerd, 2000). To date, there have been two studies that

Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities-December 2006

incorporated use of video modeling within multimedia applications for teaching domestic skills to individuals with developmental disabilities. Rehfeldt, Dahman, Young, Cherry, and Davis (2003) successfully taught three adults with moderate and severe disabilities to make peanut butter and jelly sandwiches after viewing the entire chained task on a laptop computer prior to task engagement. The intervention was conducted in the kitchen of a day treatment center and generalization sessions were conducted in the kitchen of a sheltered workshop. Similarly, Bidwell and Rehfeldt (2004) used a laptop computer to present video sequences and taught three adults with severe disabilities to make coffee and engage in embedded social interactions (serving coffee to a peer). The few studies that were conducted using videotapes to teach daily living skills (with sequences presented on a television) included: Norman et al. (2001), which involved teaching elementary students with moderate disabilities to clean sunglasses, put on wrist watches, and zip jackets; Lasater & Brady (1995), which involved teaching two adolescents with developmental disabilities and behavioral challenges to shave, make lunch, sort and wash clothes, hang clothing, and/or make a bed in a home setting; Shipley-Benamou et al. (2002), which involved teaching five children with autism to make orange juice, prepare letters/mail, prepare food for pets, clean a fish bowl, and/or set a table; Graves et al. (2005), which involved teaching three secondary students with moderate disabilities to prepare three different cooking sequences (i.e., Ramen noodles, peanut butter and jelly, and microwave macaroni and cheese). With the exception of Norman et al. (2001) and Graves et al. (2005), the research conducted on teaching daily living skills involved video modeling/video rehearsalor presenting full

video skill recipes prior to task engagement (e.g., watching the full sequence of making a peanut butter and jelly sandwich followed by practice). Norman and colleagues and Graves and colleagues presented a combination of video modeling/video rehearsal (viewing entire

video sequences prior to task engagement) and video prompting (showing each step in a skill

sequence on video followed immediately by task engagement with that particular step).

The study by Lasater and Brady (1995) also differed from the others in that, although participants viewed full skill sequences prior to task engagement, they were also given video feedback (viewing their own performance via self-modeling and analyzing their performance with instructor assistance). In addition, all of the studies either had the instructor/ researcher operating the technology to run the videos (Graves et al.& Norman et al.) while the others did not specify how the technology was operated. The purpose of this research was to compare the effectiveness of three different instructional variations for presenting videobased multimedia programs to teach daily living skills to persons with developmental disabilities. The current study extends available research in a number of ways. First, this study differs from the others in that it was a comparative study aimed at evaluating the most efficient and effective manner of presenting video-based instructional sequences. The three conditions that were compared included: 1) Video modeling/ rehearsal (Video Rehearsal

Only): viewing a full video-based multimedia sequence prior to task engagement, 2) Video modeling/rehearsalplus photos during task engagement (Video/Photos): viewing a full video-based

multimedia sequence prior to engaging in the task, printing picture sequences from the video, and using them as a prompting aid during task engagement; and 3) Video rehearsal plus video prompting during task engagement (Video/In Vivo Video): viewing video sequence prior

to and during task engagement through the use of a laptop. Second, a combination of video plus photographs was included in the comparison and third, the participants in the study were taught to operate the technology independently. For the purposes of this paper, the video modeling/rehearsal component of each condition will be referred to as video rehearsal and the video prompting component will refer to having the participant view a video segment of each step immediately before practicing that step during task engagement. The instructional methods that were compared are built on existing research that demonstrates the success of video modeling, video prompting and/or the use of photographs while employing the latest technology and


/

367

theory of computer-assisted instruction. Specific research questions to be answered included the following: 1. Will a video-based multimedia program, when presented as a rehearsal strategy (i.e., video modeling) prior to task engagement, improve students' ability to perform daily living skills independently? 2. Will in vivo prompting devices (i.e., photographs, video prompts) following videobased rehearsal strategies improve independent responding during task engagement? 3. If effective, which instructional sequence will be more successful in promoting independent responding? 4. Of the three variations, which instructional procedure will result in the most efficient acquisition of skills? 5. Of the three variations, which instructional procedure will result in the most generalized responding within non-trained environments? Method ParticipantSelection Participants were recruited from high school programs located in the suburbs of Chicago. To recruit, a description of the study was emailed to teachers in several school districts. Of those who responded, a follow-up questionnaire was sent to: 1) identify specific skills for instruction, 2) determine availability of the participant, and 3) obtain personal information for the participant to obtain informed consent and assent. Participants were then selected from the pool of respondents based on similarity of IQ scores, skills requiring instruction, and scores on pretests. Participants Two males and one female with moderate disabilities (IQ range 35-55) between the ages of 17-19 participated. All participants had similar skills requiring instruction, IQ scores, and pretest scores on selected skills. Barry was an 18-year-old male who functioned within the moderate range of mental retardation and had a diagnosis of autism. His full scale IQ score on the Wechsler Adult In-

368

/

telligence Scale-Ill (Wechsler, 1997) was 48. He attended a public high school and received special education services in a self-contained classroom, resource room, and inclusive classrooms. He also received job training and worked at two vocational sites in the community; one involved replacing videos on the shelves at a video store and the other involved sweeping the floor at a convalescent center. Barry was a very pleasant and mild-mannered young man. He was very prompt, dependent and would rarely initiate tasks without direct instruction. Changes in routine or in the schedule were problematic for him and he would often repeat questions regarding the changes and would require redirection to get him to focus on the task at hand. Daily living skills were a priority for him as he rarely engaged in these tasks independently. Mark was a high school student with Down syndrome who functioned in the moderate range of mental retardation. His full scale IQ score on the WAIS-11 was 51. He received special education services in a program that combined self-contained and inclusive programming to meet his individualized needs. He was also involved in ajob training program and was working as a bagger at a Jewel food store at the time the study was conducted. He generally required direct instruction, prompting (typically delivered following the system of least prompts) and practice/repetition to acquire or attain new and/or difficult skills. Behaviorally, Mark was fairly even tempered, but did have a tendency to exhibit non-compliant behaviors when asked to complete tasks that were outside of his normal routine, were unfamiliar, or non-preferred. Karla was a high school student who experienced trauma at birth and also functioned in the moderate range of mental retardation. Her full scale IQ score on the WAIS-III was 52. She received special education services in a transition apartment that was housed in the community. She also received supported employment 'Job coaching" assistance and was competitively employed in the commtnity in which she lived. She was employed at a TGI Friday's restaurant and was responsible for clearing tables and rolling silverware. Karla was friendly, helpful, and eager to please others. She was also quite distractible and required cueing, prompting, and redirection to


focus on the task in which she was engaged, and also needed a great deal of repetition and direct instruction to acquire new skills. Setting Instructional sessions were conducted either in the participant's home or in their home school. Once participants met criterion (90% on skill sequences as measured by levels of assistance) or the session limit (6 sessions per skill), they were assessed on their ability to generalize the skill to novel environments (settings other than those used during instruction). Barry's instructional sessions were conducted in his classroom. The classroom had four long rectangular tables with chairs on all sides, counters all around the perimeter of the room, and a small kitchenette with a stove, microwave, sink and island. His generalization sessions were conducted in the faculty lounge, which had several rows of tables and chairs, a microwave, refrigerator, and sink. Mark's instructional sessions were conducted in the kitchen of his home. It was an eat-in kitchen with a rectangular table and four chairs, stove, microwave, refrigerator, sink, and cupboards along two walls. His generalization sessions were conducted in a smaller home maintenance classroom located in his high school. The classroom had four rectangular tables with chairs on all sides and one shorter table, counter space along two walls, a double sink, a mirrored island, large refrigerator, stove, and microwave. Karla's instructional sessions were conducted in the dining room/kitchen of her home. The dining area was separated from the kitchen by an extended counter/island and had a round table with four chairs. The kitchen area had a stove, microwave, refrigerator, sink and cupboards along three walls. Her generalization sessions were conducted in a small conference room with two long rectangular tables and a microwave. Skills Selected for Instruction Each participant was taught three different skills (one per instructional condition). The targeted skills fell within the domestic or daily living domain, however, each student was taught skill sequences from three different sub-domains within the domestic realm (i.e.,

cooking, care of clothing, cleaning) to ensure that the responses across the skill sequences were mutually exclusive and independent of one another. These skills included cooking a microwave pizza, folding clothes, and washing a table. Controlling for Task Difficulty

Once several skills were identified for possible inclusion in the study, task analyses were written for each sequence and ten different teachers who had been teaching for at least two years rated them according to complexity and difficulty (easy, moderately difficult, & difficult). They then ranked skills within each difficulty level to determine which skills were equivalent in terms of complexity. Results of the ratings were used as a guide for determining skills to be targeted for instruction. In addition, participants' pretest scores were used to equate the skills. Design

The design for this study was a within-subject adapted alternating treatments design (Wolery, Bailey, & Sugai, 1988). It differs from the alternating treatments design in that the treatments are applied to different but equally difficult, independent behaviors/skills, whereas, in the alternating treatments design, the treatments are applied to the same behavior/skill. With this design, two or more treatment conditions are introduced in a rapidly alternating fashion with the order of presentation being randomized. Each participant was taught a different skill within each condition and the skills were counter-balanced across conditions and subjects to control for task difficulty. The skills were assigned as indicated in Table 1. Independent Variables Condition 1: Video rehearsal. The participant

viewed a video-based multimedia sequence on a laptop computer prior to engaging in the task. Condition 2: Video rehearsalplus photos during task engagement. The participants viewed a

video-based multimedia sequence prior to engaging in the task; still pictures were printed


/

369

TABLE 1 Participant Skill Assignment

Participant Barry Mark Karla

Video Rehearsal Only

Video Rehearsal Plus Photos

Video Rehearsal Plus In Vivo Video Prompting

Microwave Pizza Folding Laundry Washing Table

Folding Laundry Washing Table Microwave Pizza

Washing Table Microwave Pizza Folding Laundry

from the video and used as a prompting aid during task engagement. Condition 3: Video rehearsalplus video prompting during task engagement. The participants

viewed a video-based multimedia sequence prior to and during task engagement through the use of a laptop. InstructionalMaterials

One of the experimenters served as the model in the video sequences and the taping was conducted in her home. Video segments were comprised of a combination of wide angle (full view of the model) and zoom shots (showing the hands of the model). Skill sequences (e.g. making a microwave pizza) were broken into short video segments (for each step). A photo of the most salient feature of the steps (e.g., a still of water being squeezed from a sponge) were "grabbed" out of the video and placed at the beginning of each video segment. Each video segment was edited using Pinnacle Studio 8TM (Pinnacle Systems, 2002) and saved as a separate file and then later placed on a PowerPointTM, 2000 presentation. Each slide in the PowerPointTM had written directions for each step on the left half of the screen, the "grabbed" photo visible on the right half of the screen, and narration that described the step to be completed. The slide show was set so that the participants had to move the cursor to the photo and use a mouse click to view the video and a mouse click to advance to the next slide. All video segments were the same for each skill sequence with the exception of the microwave segments (each microwave in the different training sites were videotaped during setting of time/power and placed on each

370

/

individual's training materials). With the exception of the Microwave Pizza materials, all materials were the same for each participant and the slide shows were used for Video Rehearsal and Video/In Vivo conditions.'For the Video Rehearsal Plus Photos condition (Video/Photo), the PowerPointTM presentation was printed with 2 slides per page and then each slide was placed in a booklet (one step per page) and used for the Video/Photo condition. Data Collection Procedures

During pre/post-testing, acquisition phases, and generalization testing, task analytic data were collected with prompt levels being reported on each step of the skill sequence. To obtain data on prompt levels, the system of least prompts was used during all phases of the study with a 5 sec delay between prompts. Each prompt level was assigned a score with

independent responding getting the highest score (5), verbal prompting (4), gestural prompts (3), modeling prompts (2), physical prompts (1), and resistance/refusal (0). Dependent Measures Percentagescorefor levels of assistance. Partic-

ipants were evaluated on the prompt level needed to respond correctly to each step within the skill sequences during pretests, instruction, and post-tests. The system of least prompts was used for each session with a score being assigned to each prompt. More weight was given to prompts that required more independence on the part of the student and less reliance on the part of the teacher. Thus,

the higher scores were indicative of increasing


independence. Scores for each step within the skill sequences were added and divided by the total points possible and multiplied by 100. Pre/post tests were conducted without the use of video rehearsal, photographs, or in vivo video models and these tests were conducted in the instructional setting as well as alternative settings to measure generalization.

Percentage of independent correct responses on measures of generalization. Prior to and follow-

ing instruction (at 1- & 6-weeks), participants performed the skill in novel environments without video rehearsal, photographs, or video prompting to obtain baseline levels and to determine if their skills generalized to untrained environments following instruction.

Percentage of independent correct responses.

Participants were assessed on how independently they performed the skills selected for instruction prior to engaging in the instructional sequences (pretest), during instruction, and following instruction (post-test). The score was determined by dividing the number of steps with independent responding by the total number of steps in the skill sequence and multiplying by 100. Pre/post tests differed from instructional sessions in that participants were expected to perform the skill in the training/generalization environment without video rehearsal, photographs, or in vivo video models. Post-tests were conducted in the instructional setting 1 or 2 days after participants met criterion and the generalization and maintenance post-tests were conducted 1and 6- weeks following training (in environments that were different than the instructional setting). Number of prompts to use instructionalmaterials.

During training sessions, the number of prompts given to prompt the participant to use the instructional materials (e.g., "watch the video", "use your pictures") was recorded at each step in the skill sequence. Scores were calculated by adding the number of prompts and dividing them by the number of steps in the skill sequence and multiplying by 100.

TrainingParticipantsto Use Technology/Photos

Prior to engaging in instructional sessions, each participant was taught to operate the laptop and to navigate through the PowerPointTM presentation independently (i.e., using a mouse click to view the video segment and advance to the next slide) and to flip through a picture sequence booklet. Participants were taught a skill not targeted for instruction (i.e., setting an alarm clock) and had to use the technology and photos independently for two consecutive sessions before they engaged in the instructional sessions. TrainingSessions

During training sessions, the laptop computer was placed on either the table or the counter and the participants had to navigate through the entire video sequence prior to engaging in the task (i.e., video rehearsal) for each condition. For the Video/In Vivo condition, the participants would also play the video on each slide, perform that skill sequence, return to the laptop to advance to the next step, and then repeat the process to complete the skill. For the Video/Photo condition, participants would flip the page in the booklet and perform each skill.

Number of sessions to reach criterion. The ac-

quisition criteria for each skill sequence was a score of 90% or higher on "levels of assistance measures". The number of instructional sessions required for the participant to reach criterion was counted to determine if any of the instructional conditions resulted in faster acquisition. Percentage score for levels of assistance on measures of generalization. Data were collected on

levels of assistance as indicated above, only it was done in novel environments without the instructional stimulus materials.

Data Analysis

Experimental control was determined primarily through visual inspection of the data and through comparisons of means for each condition. With the adapted alternating treatments design, experimental control is demonstrated by a consistent level and/or trend difference between the interventions (Wolery et al., 1988). At a quick glance, one can determine if one intervention is better than the other if there is little or no overlap between the data paths. In addition, although baseline


/

371

measures are not necessary with the alternating treatments design, the pre/post scores for each condition were also compared. Reliability

Reliability sessions were conducted by the second author for 37% of all sessions (including pre/post-tests and instructional sequences). The percentage agreement index (i.e., number of agreements divided by number of agreements plus disagreements and multiplied by 100) was used to calculate interobserver agreement. Agreement for Instructional prompts across sessions resulted in a mean score of 95% (range = 84-100). Agreement for prompts to use instructional materials resulted in a mean score of 99% (range = 94-100). In addition, the second observer collected procedural reliability data (Billingsley, White, & Munson, 1980). These measures included the following: a) checking to ensure that the correct condition was being applied to the intended task for each participant, b) checking to determine if the order of tasks were presented as stated in the research protocol, and c) that the prompting hierarchy was delivered as intended. Reliability was calculated by dividing number of correct measures by total number of assessed variables and multiplying by 100. Procedural reliability agreement averaged 100%. Results All of the instructional procedures were effective in increasing independent responding and/or decreasing prompting during acquisition for all participants, however, some differential effects were observed between the conditions. Percentage scores for levels of assistance. The

Video/In Vivo condition resulted in slightly higher independent responding as measured by the levels of assistance within the system of least prompts/least-to-most prompting hierarchy and was followed by the Video/Photo condition for all participants. In addition, two of the three participants, Barry and Mark, exhibited the highest post-test scores when they were taught the skill sequence with the Video/ In-Vivo condition on measures of generalization and maintenance. Karla, performed bet-

372

/

ter when taught with the Video/Photo condition (see Figure 1). Percentage of independent correct responses.

When the percentage of independent correct responses were measured across conditions/ tasks, the data clearly indicated that all conditions were effective in increasing independent responding for all participants. Barry and Mark engaged in more independent responding during acquisition with the Video/In Vivo condition while Karla engaged in more independent responding during the Video/Photo condition (see Figure 2). Although Barry and Mark engaged in more independent responding during instruction with the Video/In Vivo condition (washing the table/making pizza respectively), they demonstrated higher post-test scores in the instructional setting for the skill sequence that was taught with the Video Only condition (making pizza M = 94; folding laundry M =

95 respectively). Their post-test scores for the other conditions were as follows: Barry: Video/In Vivo M = 84; Video/Photo M = 90;

Mark: Video/In Vivo M = 88; Video/Photo M = 78). The fact that they performed better on this post-test could possibly be due to the fact that their prompting devices were not available during the post-tests and perhaps, because the Video Only condition did not have any prompting components during task engagement, maybe they were less confident in performing the tasks without the prompting devices and waited for a prompt from the instructor. Karla, on the other hand, had the lowest post-test score with the Video Only condition (M = 53), in relation to the Video/In Vivo (M = 67) and Video/Photo conditions (M = 94). However, these results were not maintained or generalized for Barry during the 1-week generalization probe as he performed better with the table cleaning task (Video/In Vivo Condition M = 79) followed by the Video/Photo condition (M = 76) and Video Only condition (M = 71). All participants maintained improved independent responding for making a microwave pizza at the 6-week generalization/maintenance test (regardless of the condition under which it was taught). Mean percentage scores for levels of assistance and independence duringacquisition. When the

mean percentage scores for each condition


120 -

Barry Levels of Assistance

Acquisition 100 -

'U U

80-

I

I

1

2

40

20

1I23

3

4

4

5

5 d

6

7

8

9

10

11

onl1 7P 8 U do s v T

12

2

13

14

13d 14

15

18

15 anr18

17

18

17

1,.

18

9

20

Fi video oniy Pizza 0 Mdr•eofin-vlvo Table 0 Video/photo Laundry I 120

Mark Levels of Assistance Acquisition

100

'U

U 0

80 U 0

9

1

2

jO

40

20

0 3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 11 Sessions

12

13

14

15

18

17

18

19

20

I* Video only Laundry E VideoAln-vivo Pizza * Video/photo Table I 120

Karla Levels of Assistance Acquisition

100

0 U

*

80

a

s6o 60

401 2o

0 1

2

3

4

5

8

7

8

9

"10011

esIons

12

I •Vldeo only Table EVideo/in-vivo Laundry

13

14

15

16

17

18

V•Mdeo/photo Pizza I

Figure 1. Percentage Scores for Levels of Assistance with System of Least Prompts

19

20

Barry Steps Completed Independently

120 -

C

S

(3

100-

5

0

C

s CD

5

o

Acquisition S

a-

8 U

80 -

I

60 40

a

20 0 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Sessions * Video only Pizza a VideoAn-vivo Table 0 Video/photo Laundry Mark Steps Completed Independently 120

-

0

Acquisition

(D 5

0

(3

CL

100800

&S6040 -

A

20-

01

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 11 Sessions

12

* Video only Laundry a Videorr-vivo Pizza

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Vide

Karla Steps Completed Independently 120 (

Acquistion

_

100

0

(D5

a.(3

(

80

5;5

• 60

€

€

18

19

40 20

0 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

* Video only Table

9

U

10 11 Sessions

12

13

14

15

Video/in-vivo Laundry e Video/photo Pizza

Figure 2. Percentage of Independent Correct Responses

374

/


16

17

20

Scores During Acquisition for Levels of Assistance and Independence 120

0 49

100 80

0

60

0.

40 20 0

v.4b.

ov

le

ov

6

%4e

*E Video Only U Video/In Vivo E Video/Photos Figure 3. Mean Percentage Scores for Levels of Assistance and Independence During Acquisition

were compiled for each participant, two of the three had slightly more independent responding under the Video/In Vivo condition, while the other participant had slightly higher independent correct responding with the Video/ Photo Condition (see Figure 3). With the exception of Karla, participants displayed more independence with LOA and independent responding during the Video/In Vivo Condition. For LOA, Barry and Mark had similar results. Both had the highest scores with the Video/ In Vivo condition (Barry M = 95; Mark M = 96), followed by the Video/Photo Condition (Barry M = 93; Mark M = 91) and the Video Only Condition (Barry M = 91; Mark M = 86). Karla displayed higher scores with the Video/Photo condition (M = 92) followed by the Video/In Vivo condition (M = 90) and Video Only condition (M = 85). When mean independent responding during acquisition was measured, the same pattern was followed for all participants with Barry and Mark having more independent responding with the Video/In Vivo condition (Barry M = 79; Mark M = 89), followed by the Video/Photo condition (Barry M = 78; Mark

M = 66) and then the Video Only condition (Barry M = 68; Mark M = 64) and Karla performing more independently with the Video/Photo condition (M = 84) followed by the Video/In Vivo condition (M = 71) and then the Video Only condition (M = 54). When mean scores of participants were combined, the Video/In Vivo condition resulted in the most independent responding during acquisition (M = 80), followed closely by the Video/ Photo condition (M = 76) and then the Video Only condition (M = 62). Prompts to use instructional materials. In addition to collecting data on prompt levels and percentage of independent responding, data were also collected on the number of prompts that were delivered to get participants to use the prompting devices during instruction (i.e., the In Vivo and Photograph sequences). As shown in Table 2, two of the three partipants demonstrated a steady increase in the percentage of prompts required across sessions with Barry and Karla requiring more prompts to attend to the instructional materials during the Video/In-Vivo condition. Mark showed an increase in the percentage of


/ 375

TABLE 2 Percentage of Prompts to Use Instructional Materials Video/In Vivo Sessions Participant Barry Mark Karla

Video/Photos Sessions

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

11 6 10

21 0 33

26 0 52

26 13 52

37 6 62

10 11 6

10 16 31

14 5 31

14 21 38

19 22 38

prompts required to attend to the photographs in the Video/Photo condition. Additionally, rather than decreasing across sessions, the prompts were steadily increasing across sessions for both Barry and Karla. This suggests that participants did not need to use the prompting devices as they became more independent with the tasks and it was noted that they would frequently need prompting to watch the entire video sequence (they would often leave the computer to complete the task). When participants' scores were combined, the mean percentage of prompts for the video/in vivo condition was 23%, while

the mean percentage for the video/photo condition was 19%. Mean scores on pre-post measures. When pre-

post scores were compared, all conditions were effective in increasing skill acquisition from baseline levels. Each participant more than doubled their scores from pre- post-test measures on independent responding for each skill sequence in both generalization and instructional settings (see right panel of Figure 4) and all participants required fewer "intrusive prompts" within each condition in both generalization and instructional settings as measured by levels of assistance (see left

Combined Mean Pre- Pcat Scores Across Conditions Levels of Asal.nce

Indepamdlerim

120 Genramlzation

Instuctlonal Materials

100

80

C 60

0

1% , 4%,

IN'

"j IRCP

it 4t4

mVideo Only O Video/In vivo OVideo/Photos Figure 4. Mean Pre- Post- Scores Across Conditions

376

/


q//

panel of Figure 4). Overall, students performed better on their post-tests in instructional settings when they were taught with the Video/Photo condition but had higher posttest scores in generalization settings at both the 1-week and 6-week tests when the Video/In Vivo condition was in effect. The Video/Photo condition appeared to be slightly more effective as measured by the LOA post-test scores in instructional settings (M = 96) followed closely by the Video/In Vivo condition (M = 94) and then the Video Only Condition (M = 93). In terms of generalization, the Video/In-Vivo condition appeared to be slightly more effective as measured by the LOA post-test scores at both 1-week and 6-week intervals (1-week M = 94; 6-week M = 86), followed by the Video/Photo condition (1-week M = 92; 6-week M = 84)

and finally the Video Only condition (1-week M = 92; 6-week M = 81).

When post-test scores of independent responding were combined and compared, the Video/Photo condition resulted in the highest scores during the instructional setting posttest (M = 87) followed by the Video Only condition (M = 81) and then the Video/In Vivo condition (M = 80). During the generalization post-tests the participants performed better within the Video/In Vivo condition at both 1-week and 6-week intervals (1-week M = 77; 6-week M = 52) followed by the Video/ Photo condition (1-week M = 75; 6-week M = 47) and finally the Video Only condition (1week M = 70; 6-week M = 42). Sessions to criterion as measured by levels of as-

sistance. In order to meet criterion, participants had to score at least 90% or higher as measured by levels of assistance within each condition. The Video/In Vivo and Video/ Photo conditions resulted in an average of two sessions to reach criterion whereas the video alone condition required a mean of 3.7 for participants to reach criterion (see Table 3). Discussion In general, all instructional procedures were effective in improving the daily living skills of all participants. The Video/In Vivo condition appeared to be the most effective in terms of independent responding during acquisition (as measured by LOA and Independent Cor-

TABLE 3 Trials to Criterion

Barry Mark Karla Mean Trials to Criterion

Video Only

Video/In vivo

Video/ Photos

2 4 5 3.7

2 2 2 2

2 2 2 2

rect Responding) however, the Video/Photo condition was also very effective and resulted in increased independent responding during acquisition, particularly for Karla. In addition, both of these conditions resulted in faster acquisition of the skills than the Video Rehearsal Only condition as measured by the sessions to criterion for all three participants. However, these findings are somewhat tempered by the fact that participants required some prompting to attend to the instructional materials (i.e., the In Vivo Video and the Photographs) during instructional sessions. One surprising outcome of this study was in relation to the prompts required to attend to

the instructional materials within the Video/In

Vivo

and Video/Photo

conditions.

Prior to implementing the study, it was anticipated that introducing more "stimuli" or "1'steps" within each skill sequence (i.e., operating the laptop and locating and using the photo books) would require more prompting

during initial trials and that prompting would gradually decrease as participants became more comfortable using the prompting systems. However, the opposite occurred. Because prompts to attend to the instructional materials increased across sessions, it is believed that this was a result of participants

fading their reliance on the support provided within the Video/In Vivo and Video/Photo conditions (e.g., scaffolding their own supports). This outcome appeared to be the case especially for Barry and Karla. At one point, when Barry was prompted to watch the video step before engaging in the task, he stated that he really didn't need to watch it because he could, "play the video" in his head. Under

normal instructional situations, the participant would probably be allowed to go ahead and perform the skill without watching the


/ 377

video. In most instances, performing the skill without the support of a prompting device would not be considered problematic but rather, would be considered a positive step toward independence. However, in order to maintain treatment fidelity for research purposes, it was necessary to prompt participants to attend to the instructional materials. Although effects were short-lived, two of the three participants performed better on their instructional post-tests, which required them to perform the skill with no stimulus materials, when they were taught using the Video Rehearsal Only condition. Perhaps having less reliance on prompting devices while engaging in the task assisted participants in learning to perform the skills more independently because they had to pay more attention to the naturally occuring stimuli within the task. With the exception of Mark, these effects did not maintain. However, Mark was the participant who needed very few prompts to use the technologies (i.e., In Vivo videos or photos) during task engagement, that is, he relied on the prompting devices more than the other participants and did not need prompts to use those supports. Overall, all of the instructional procedures were effective in terms of promoting generalization. In general, participants performed better on measures of generalization when they were taught using the Video/In Vivo procedures and better in instructional settings when the Video Only or Video/Photo conditions were in place. However, by the end of six weeks, all participants performed more independently in generalization settings when they were making microwave pizzas. This could be due to the fact that the stimulus/ response relationships were more clear within that task (e.g., once the pizza is on the plate, it is more clear that the next response would be to place it in the microwave) than the other tasks (e.g., when the table has been completely wiped, the next step is not obvious). Also, the task itself was far more reinforcing than the others and was practiced more by participants in between the post-tests. For example, Mark and Karla's parents both told the researchers that their son and daughter cooked pizza for their families on several occasions following the intervention and that everyone was greatly impressed. So additional

378

/

practice and the reinforcing value of the task itself may have confounded the 6-week results. However, when the post-test scores were combined, participants still had higher scores when they were taught with the Video/In Vivo condition. In terms of social validation, all parents informally indicated that they were amazed with how quickly tasks were acquired and also asked if they could continue participating in future studies. When asked, all participants stated that they enjoyed watching the videos and using the computer, however, Karla indicated that she would have preferred to watch them on the television. In addition, all participants stated that they would like to use videos to learn more skills in the future. Although all the video-based instructional sequences increased independent responding across tasks, they were used in conjunction with the system of least prompts. This was done in part because prompting hierarchies used in conjunction with video modeling have not been studied as often as video modeling used in combination with constant time delay, and also because the research protocol would more closely resemble what might be done in naturalistic settings. For instance, if a student did not engage in a task independently following the viewing of a video and/or made an error, there would typically be a teacher, parent, or caregiver available to prompt them to respond. All participants had exposure to the system of least prompts and were taught by instructors who frequently used prompting hierarchies to teach chained tasks, so it made sense to use this system. In addition, by the very nature of the prompting procedure, it could be determined if the students needed less intrusive prompting to engage in the task across sessions. As a result of using this combination, it cannot be stated that the video modeling procedures alone were responsible for the changes in student responding. However, prior to the introduction of the video sequences, no students had acquired the targeted skills when taught with prompting hierarchies alone, so it seems likely that the video sequences did have an impact on how quickly participants acquired the skills. And, as a result, we believe that the positive outcomes far outweighed the effort involved in creating the video sequences.


In terms of feasibility, although the Video/In Vivo condition resulted in slightly higher independent responding, it may not be used as effectively or even be feasible in some settings (e.g., community environments) unless a more portable device were used (i.e., a handheld device). Under these circumstances it would make more sense to use either a more portable device or a combination of Video rehearsal and photo sequences. As was done in this study, participants could be taught to use the handheld device and/or photo sequences independently and could use the video prompting systems when they needed more information on how to perform various tasks. Because participants appeared to fade the use of the prompting systems on their own, a possible solution might be to use a combination of procedures or a scaffolding approach to teaching new skills (e.g., Video/In Vivo, followed by Video/Photos, and then Video rehearsal alone). For example, it might be efficient for students to use the In Vivo prompting system during early instructional trials (when they need more support) and then use only the "grabbed" photos that depict the salient feature of that step within the PowerPointTCi presentation as they became more familiar with the task (rather than clicking on the videos at each step, they could use only the photo in front of the video). Once they began to perform the skills more independently, perhaps Video rehearsal alone and/or Photos alone would be sufficient to promote or maintain independent responding. Future research might be directed at investigating use of the video sequences in isolation rather than in conjunction with a prompting system (e.g., system of least prompts) or within the context of scaffolding approaches (gradually fading out video prompting systems). In addition, investigating use of video sequences on more portable handheld devices in community and/or employment settings is warranted. Currently, there is exciting research being conducted on the use of handheld devices as visual (i.e., photos) and audio prompting systems for individuals with developmental disabilities (Davies, Stock, & Wehmeyer, 2002a; Davies, Stock, & Wehmeyer, 2002b; Riffel et al., 2005). Perhaps the addi-

tion of video sequences on the handhelds would expedite skill acquisition. As technology continues to advance, more research will need to be conducted to determine the impact of portable devices on the independent functioning of individuals with developmental disabilities across settings and with a variety of tasks. References Alcantara, P. R. (1994). Effects of videotaped instructional package on purchasing skills of children with autism. Exceptional Children, 61, 40-55.

Ayres, K. M., & Langone,J. (2002). Acquisition and generalization of purchasing skills using a video enhanced computer-based instructional package. Journal of Special Education Technologo, 17, 15-28.

Bergstrom,T., Pattavina, S., Martella, R. C., & Marchand-Martella, N. E. (1995). Microwave fun: Userfriendly recipe cards. Teaching Exceptional Children, 28(1), 61-63.

Bidwell, M. A., & Rehfeldt, R. A. (2004). Using video modeling to teach a domestic skill with an embedded social skill to adults with severe mental retardation. Behavioral Interventions, 19, 263-274.

Billingsley, F. F., White, 0. R., & Munson, R. (1980).

Procedural reliability: A rationale and an exampIe. Behavioral Assessment, 2, 229-241.

Book, D., Paul, T. L., Gwalla-Ogisi, N., & Test, D. T.(1990). No more bologna sandwiches. Teaching Exceptional Children, 22(2), 62-64.

Bosner, S. M., & Belfiore, P.J. (2001). Strategies and considerations for teaching an adolescent with Down syndrome and type I diabetes to self-administer insulin. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities,36, 94-102.

Branham, R. S., Collins, B. C., Schuster, J. W., & Kleinert, H. (1999). Teaching community skills to students with moderate disabilities: Comparing combined techniques of classroom simulation, videotape modeling, and community-based instruction. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities,43, 170-181.

Charlop, M. J., & Milstein, J. P. (1989). Teaching autistic children conversational speech using video modeling. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 22, 275-286.

Charlop-Christy, M. H., & Daneshvar, S. (2003). Using video modeling to teach perspective taking to children with autism. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 5, 12-21.

Cuvo, A.J., & Klatt, K. P. (1992). Effects of community-based, videotape, and flashcard instruction of community-referenced sight words on students with mental retardation. journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 499-512.


/

379

Davies, D. M., Stock, S., & Wehmeyer, M. L. (2002a). Enhancing independent task performance for individuals with mental retardation through use of a handheld self-directed visual and audio prompting system. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 37, 209-218. Davies, D. M., Stock, S., & Wehmeyer, M. L. (2002b). Enhancing independent time management and personal scheduling for individuals with mental retardation through use of a palmtop visual and audio prompting system. Mental Retardation, 40, 358-365. Falvey, M. A. (1986). Community-based curriculum: Instructionalstrategies for students with severe handicaps. Baltimore: Paul H. Brooks. Ford, A., Schnorr, R., Meyer, L., Davern, L., Black, J., & Dempsey, P. (1989). The Syracuse Communityreferenced curriculum guidefor Students with moderate and severe disabilities. Baltimore: Paul N. Brookes. Goldsworthy, R. C., Barab, S. A., & Goldsworthy, E. L. (2000). The STAR project: Enhancing adolescents' social understanding through videobased, multimedia scenarios. Journal of Special Education Technology, 15, 13-26. Graves, T. B., Collins, B. C., Schuster, J. W. & Kleinert, H. (2005). Using video prompting to teach cooking skills to secondary students with moderate disabilities. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities,40, 34-46. Hagiwara, T., & Myles, B. S. (1999). A multimedia social story intervention: Teaching skills to children with autism. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities,14, 82-95. Haring, T. G., Breen, C. G., Weiner, J., Kennedy, C. H., & Bednersh, F. (1995). Using videotape modeling to facilitate generalized purchasing skills. Journal of Behavioral Education, 5, 29-53. Haring, T. G., Kennedy, C. H., Adams, M. J., & Pitts-Conway, V. (1987). Teaching generalization of purchasing skills across community settings to autistic youth using videotape modeling. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 20, 89-96. Hepting, N. H., & Goldstein, H. (1996). Requesting by preschoolers with developmental disabilities: Videotaped self-modeling and learning of new linguistic structures. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 16, 407-427. Johnson, B. F., & Cuvo, A.J. (1981). Teaching mentally retarded adults to cook. BehaviorModification, 5, 187-202. Jones, G.Y., & Collins, B. C. (1997). Teaching microwave skills to adults with disabilities: Acquisition of nutrition and safety facts presented as nontargeted information. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 9, 59-78. Kinney, E. M., Vedora, J., & Stromer, R. (2003). Computer-presented video models to teach generative spelling to a child with an autism spectrum

380

/

disorder. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 5, 22-29. Lasater, M. W., & Brady, M. P. (1995). Effects of video self-modeling and feedback on task fluency: A home-based intervention. Education and Treatment of Children, 18, 389-407. Le Grice, B., & Blampied, N. M. (1994). Training pupils with intellectual disability to operate educational technology using video prompting. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 29, 321-330. Martin,J. E., Mithaug, D. E., & Frazier, E. S. (1992). Effects of picture referencing on PVC chair, loveseat, and settee assemblies by students with mental retardation. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 13, 267-286. Martin,J. E., Rusch, F. R.,James, B. L., Decker, P.J., & Tritol, A. (1982). The use of picture cues to establish self-control in the preparation of complex meals by mentally retarded adults. Applied Research in Mental Retardation, 3, 105-119. Mechling, L. C. (2004). Effects of multi-media, computer-based instruction on grocery shopping fluency. Journal of Special Education Technology, 19, 23-34. Mechling, L. C., & Gast, D. L. (2003). Multi-media instruction to teach grocery word associations and store location: A study of generalization. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 38, 62-76. Mechling, L. C., Gast, D. L., & Barthold, S. (2003). Multi-media computer-based instruction to teach students with moderate intellectual disabilities to use a debit card to make purchases. Exceptionality, 11, 239-254. Mechling, L. C., Gast, D. L., & Langone, J. (2002). Computer-based video instruction to teach persons with moderate intellectual disabilities to read grocery aisle signs and locate items. The Journal of Special Education, 35, 224-240. Mechling, L. C., & Langone, J. (2000). The effects of a computer-based instructional program with video anchors on the use of photographs for prompting augmentative communication. Educa-

tion and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities,35, 90-105. Mechling, L. C., Pridgen, L. S., & Cronin, B. A. (2005). Computer-based video instruction to teach students with intellectual disabilities to verbally respond to questions and make purchases in fast food restaurants. Education and Training in Developmental Disbilities, 40, 47-59. Meyer, D., & Kohl, F. L. (1985). Teaching domestic living skills to severely handicapped students in the natural environment. Teaching Exceptional Children, 18(1), 38-45.

Morgan, R. L., Gerity, B. P., & Ellerd, D. A. (2000). Using video and CD-ROM technology in a job


preference inventory for youth with severe disabilities. Journalof Special Education Technology, 15,

25-33. Morgan, R. L., & Salzberg, C. L. (1992). Effects of video-assisted training on employment-related social skills of adults with severe mental retardation. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 365-383.

Morrow, S. A., & Bates, P. E. (1987). The effectiveness of three sets of school-based instructional materials and community training on the acquisition of community laundry skills by students with severe handicaps. Research in Developmental Disabilities,8, 113-136.

Norman, J. M., Collins, B. C., & Schuster, J. W. (2001). Using an instructional package including video technology to teach self-help skills to elementary students with mental disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 16, 5-18.

Pinnacle Systems. (2002). Pinnacle Studio 8 [Computer Software]. Tewksbury, MA: Pinnacle Systems. Rehfeldt, R. A., Dahman, D., Young, A., Cherry, H., & Davis, P. (2003). Teaching a simple meal preparation skill to adults with moderate and severe mental retardation using video modeling. Behavioral Interventions, 18, 209-218.

Riffel, L. A., Wehmeyer, M. L., Turnbull, A. P., Lattimore, J., Davies, D., Stock, S., et al. (2005). Promoting independent performance of transition-related tasks using a palmtop pc-based selfdirected visual and auditory prompting system. Journal of Special Education Technology, 20(2), 5-14.

Sherer, M., Pierce, K. L., Paredes, S., Kisacky, K. L., Ingersoll, B., & Schreibman, L. (2001). Enhancing conversation skills in children with autism via video technology: Which is better, 'self or 'other' as a model? Behavior Modification, 25, 140-158.

Shipley-Benamou, R., Lutzker,J. R., & Taubman, M. (2002). Teaching daily living skills to children with autism through instructional video modeling. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 4,

165-175.

Simpson, A., Langone, J., & Ayres, K. M. (2004). Embedded video and computer based instruction to improve social skills for students with autism. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities

39, 240-252. Singh, N. N., Oswald, D. P., Ellis, C. R., & Singh, S. D. (1995). Community-based instruction for independent meal preparation by adults with profound mental retardation. Journal of Behavioral Education, 5, 77-92.

Smith, R. L., Collins, B. C., Schuster,J. W., & Kleinert, H. (1999). Teaching table cleaning skills to secondary students with moderate/severe disabilities: Facilitating observational learning during instructional downtime. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities,

34, 342-353. Sowers,J., & Powers, L. (1995). Enhancing the participation and independence of students with severe physical and multiple disabilities in performing community activities. Mental Retardation, 33,

209-220. Test, D. W., Grossi, T., & Keul, P. (1988). A functional analysis of the acquisition and maintenance of janitorial skills in a competitive work setting. Journal of the Association for Severe Handicaps, 13,

1-7. Wechsler, D. (1997). WAIS-II administrationand scor-

ing manual. San Antonio: The Psychological Corporation. Wissick, C. A., Lloyd,J. W., & Kinzie, M. B. (1992). The effects of community training using a videodisc-based simulation. Journal of Special Education Technology, 11, 207-222.

Wolery, M., Bailey, D.B., & Sugai, G.M. (1988). Effective teaching: Principles and procedures of applied behavior analysis with exceptional students. Need-

ham, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Received: 9 August 2005

Initial Acceptance: 3 October 2005 Final Acceptance: 1 February 2006


/

381

COPYRIGHT INFORMATION

TITLE: Comparison of Three Video-based Instructional Procedures for Teaching Daily Living Skills to Persons with Developmental Disabilities SOURCE: Educ Train Dev Disabil 41 no4 D 2006 The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and it is reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article in violation of the copyright is prohibited. To contact the publisher: www.cec.sped.org