Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions

Teaching Daily Living Skills to Seven 13(3) 144­–153

© 2011 Hammill Institute on Disabilities
Reprints and permission: http://www.
Individuals With Severe Intellectual sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1098300710366593

Disabilities: A Comparison of Video http://jpbi.sagepub.com

Prompting to Video Modeling

Helen I. Cannella-Malone1, Courtney Fleming1,

Yi-Cheih Chung1, Geoffrey M. Wheeler1,
Abby R. Basbagill1, and Angella H. Singh1

Abstract
We conducted a systematic replication of Cannella-Malone et al. by comparing the effects of video prompting to video
modeling for teaching seven students with severe disabilities to do laundry and wash dishes. The video prompting and
video modeling procedures were counterbalanced across tasks and participants and compared in an alternating treatments
design within a multiple probe across participants design. For six participants, video prompting was more effective than
video modeling, which was generally ineffective. For one participant, neither video modeling nor video prompting was
effective, but in vivo instruction led to skill acquisition. One participant who was deaf was also able to learn both skills
using video prompting, even though he could not hear the voice-over instructions. These data suggest that the duration
of the video may influence its effectiveness as a teaching tool and that the voice-over instructions may not be necessary.

Keywords
video prompting, video modeling, developmental disability, comparison

Many individuals with severe intellectual disabilities expe-
rience deficits in daily living skills (e.g., Jacobson &
Ackerman, 1990; Kraijer, 2000), which may have negative
affects on their overall quality of life (Parmenter, 1994)
and may limit independent functioning in their natural
environments. In fact, individuals with severe intellectual
disabilities may be unable to acquire desired living and
working opportunities until they have the ability to indepen-
dently complete various daily living skills (Heller, Bigge, &
Allgood, 2005). For example, when individuals with severe
intellectual disabilities are unable to care for their living
environments (e.g., do laundry, maintain a clean living
environment), it limits their self-determination and may
also limit their choices for living environments as adults
(e.g., individual supported living vs. group home). This
reliance on caregivers to assist (and often complete) daily
living activities will likely reduce the overall level of par-
ticipation of individuals with severe intellectual disabilities
in these basic skills, which may also increase passivity
and lead to learned helplessness (Cannella, O’Reilly, &
Lancioni, 2005).
Rainforth and York-Barr (1997) stated that “a desirable
future is one in which a person with disabilities is a participat-
ing member of a family and integrated community” (p. 97).
Being able to independently complete daily living tasks would
assist individuals with severe intellectual disabilities in attain-
ing that goal. Using video modeling and video prompting to
teach daily living skills may lead to greater acquisition and
maintenance of these skills and, therefore, enhance overall
quality of life and community membership (Parmenter, 1994).
As described by Cannella-Malone and her colleagues (2006),
two general procedures that can be applied when using video
technology include video modeling and video prompting.
Video modeling involves making a video of someone perform-
ing the entire target behavior. The video is then shown in its
entirety to the individual at the beginning of each training ses-
sion. After viewing the entire video, the individual is given the
opportunity to perform the behavior in its entirety. In contrast,
video prompting involves showing an individual a video clip
1
The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA
Corresponding Author:
Helen I. Cannella-Malone, A348 PAES Building, 305 W 17th Avenue,
Columbus, OH 43235, USA
Email: malone.175@osu.edu
Action Editor:  William Frea

Downloaded from pbi.sagepub.com at HOWARD UNIV UNDERGRAD LIBRARY on February 27, 2015
Cannella-Malone et al. 145
of one step of a task and then giving the person the opportunity
to complete that step before the next step is shown.
In the past decade, numerous studies have examined the
effectiveness of using video modeling and video prompting
to teach new daily living skills to individuals with develop-
mental disabilities, including using an ATM (e.g., Cihak,
Alberto, Taber-Doughty, & Gama, 2006), house cleaning
(e.g., Van Laarhoven & Van Laarhoven-Meyers, 2006),
and food preparation (e.g., Graves, Collins, Schuster, &
Kleinert, 2005). For example, Bidwell and Rehfeldt (2004)
successfully used video modeling to teach three adult
women with severe mental retardation to make coffee, with
an embedded social skill of serving coffee to—and sitting
down beside—a peer. In this study, a multiple baseline
across participants design was used to demonstrate that
video modeling led to the acquisition of the new skills,
which were maintained at a 1-month follow-up. In another
example, Sigafoos et al. (2007) used video prompting with
error correction to teach four individuals with autism and
moderate mental retardation to set the table. With video
prompting alone, one participant immediately mastered and
maintained the skill. The other three participants success-
fully mastered the task when video prompting was paired
with an error correction procedure.
Although the research on video modeling and video
prompting indicates that using it to teach new skills can
lead to positive outcomes, one area that needs to be explored
further is whether video modeling or video prompting is
more effective and/or efficient at teaching new skills to
individuals with severe intellectual disabilities. To date,
only one study was identified that compared video model-
ing to video prompting (Cannella-Malone et al., 2006). In
this study, the researchers taught six individuals with autism
and moderate mental retardation to set the table and put
away groceries. Using a combined alternating treatment
and multiple probe across pairs of participants design, video
modeling and video prompting were counterbalanced
across tasks and participants. The results showed that video
prompting was more effective (and efficient) than video
modeling for all six participants whereas video modeling
had little to no effect.
Although the aforementioned study provides an initial
comparison of video modeling to video prompting, there
were several limitations that should be addressed. First, this
study only provided six data sets, so the results should be
replicated with additional participants and tasks. Second,
video modeling was shown from the perspective of a spec-
tator (i.e., the video showed a person completing the task),
but video prompting was shown from the perspective of the
participant (i.e., the video showed only the arms and hands
completing the task). It is possible that video modeling
might be more effective if the videos were presented from
the perspective of the participant rather than that of a spec-
tator. Third, the participants were all adults with autism and
Downloaded from pbi.sagepub.com at HOWARD UNIV UNDERGRAD LIBRARY on February 27, 2015
moderate mental retardation attending day programming.
The effects of video modeling and video prompting should
be examined with school-age participants who have more
severe disabilities. Finally, the previous study included par-
ticipants whose hearing acuity was within normal ranges,
so they were able to hear the voice-over instructions. The
effects of video modeling and video prompting should be
examined with participants who are deaf or hard of hearing
to determine if this technology is effective in teaching this
population of individuals. The current study sought to
explore these limitations. First, seven school-age students
with severe intellectual disabilities participated. Second, all
videos (i.e., both video modeling and video prompting)
were presented from the perspective of the participant.
Finally, one of the participants was deaf.
Method
Participants
Seven individuals (five boys, two girls) with severe intel-
lectual disabilities participated. All seven participants
attended the same classroom in an urban school designated
specifically for individuals with severe to profound disabili-
ties. The participants were selected for this study because of
their deficits in daily living skills, as confirmed by informal
classroom observations and scores on the Vineland Adap-
tive Behavior Scales (Sparrow, Balla, & Cicchetti, 1984).
They were also considered good candidates for learning
from video modeling or video prompting because their
vision was within normal range. None of the participants
had received any previous video-based instruction. Although
no formal imitation assessment was conducted, informal
classroom observations confirmed that each participant
was able to imitate. Table 1 provides demographic infor-
mation for each participant, including name, race, age,
diagnoses, and Vineland age equivalents for the social, com-
munication, and daily living skills domains, as well as their
composite age equivalence.
Setting
This study was conducted at a school for individuals with
severe to profound intellectual and physical disabilities
between the ages of 5 and 21. Sessions for Laundry were
conducted in one of the school laundry rooms. The laundry
room was equipped with one front-opening washer and one
dryer, shelving units that held folded laundry, and baskets.
Sessions for Washing Dishes were either conducted at the
sink in the participants’ classroom or in the home economics
room. The sink areas had one sink and an adjacent counter.
Training was conducted individually with each participant
to avoid incidental modeling effects, though other students
were in the classroom during sessions for Washing Dishes.
146 Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions 13(3)

Table 1. Participant Demographics

Vineland Age Equivalents (Years:Months) Task or Procedure

Name Ethnicity Age Diagnosis Social Communication Daily Composite Prompt Model

Keith African 12 Autism moderate to severe MR 1:5   1:11 2:6   1:11 Laundry Dishes
American seizure disorder
Tina Caucasian 13 Autism 1:0 1:0 1:9 1:3 Dishes Laundry
   moderate to severe MR
   seizure disorder
   fragile X syndrome
Jon African 12 Autism 1:5 1:6 2:4 1:9 Dishes Laundry
American    moderate to severe MR
Carrie African 11 Autism 1:0 1:0 2:4 1:5 Laundry Dishes
American    moderate to severe MR
Andrew Somalian 12 Autism 2:4   2:10 3:1 2:9 Laundry Dishes
   moderate to severe MR
Adam Biracial 13 Moderate to severe MR 3:7 2:7 4:2 3:5 Dishes Laundry
   seizure disorder
Michael Caucasian 13 Autism 1:3 1:0   2:10 1:5 Laundry Dishes
   moderate to severe MR
   severe bilateral hearing loss

Note: MR = mental retardation.

Tasks and Materials Table 2. Task Analyses

Intervention focused on teaching the participants to com- Washing Dishes Laundry

plete two daily living tasks: (a) starting a load of laundry Pick up the sponge Pick up basket
(i.e., Laundry) and (b) hand-washing a plate, spoon, and cup Turn on the water Walk to laundry room
(i.e., Washing Dishes). These tasks were identified by school Wet the sponge Put basket down on table
staff as important for each participant to learn, because being Turn off the water Open washing machine door
able to complete these skills could lead to greater indepen- Pick up the soap bottle Step onto platform
Put a dime size amount Put all clothes into washing machine
dence in the future. The participants’ teacher reported that of soap on the sponge
they had not received any instruction on either task. Put the soap bottle down Step off of the platform
The materials for Laundry included a laundry basket, Pick up the plate, wash it, Close washing machine door
soiled towels, liquid detergent, and the washing machine. and put it in the sink
The materials for Washing Dishes consisted of a plate, a Pick up the cup, wash it, Open soap drawer
spoon, a cup, one sponge, a bottle of dish soap, a dish drain, and put it in the sink
and a dish towel. The task analyses (see Table 2) were devel- Squeeze out the sponge Take cap off of soap bottle
oped on site with the classroom teacher, using the materials Place sponge in holder Fill cap half full with soap
Turn on water Pour soap into soap drawer
needed to complete each task. The two tasks were compa-
Rinse the plate Put cap back onto soap bottle
rable in terms of difficulty and number of steps. Place the plate in drainer Close soap drawer
Each task was filmed from the performer’s perspective. Rinse the cup Press start on the washing machine
That is, when participants viewed the videos, they saw two Place the cup in drainer Pick up basket
arms and hands completing the task, not the perspective of Turn off the water Walk to classroom
a spectator watching someone else complete the task. All Dry hands Put down basket
videos were filmed with a Cannon ZE 850 and shown on a
Mac 13″ Notebook using commercially available software
(i.e., Quicktime). Washing Dishes, each video clip lasted from 2 to 15 s, with
Video prompting. For the video prompting version of each an average duration of 5.1 s. In addition to demonstrating
task, 18 separate video clips were filmed. Each clip showed the actions required for completing the step, each video clip
only one step of the task. For Laundry, each video clip included a one-sentence voice-over instruction. For exam-
lasted from 3 to 16 s, with an average duration of 7.1 s. For ple, the video clip for Step 1 of Laundry consisted of an

Downloaded from pbi.sagepub.com at HOWARD UNIV UNDERGRAD LIBRARY on February 27, 2015
Cannella-Malone et al. 147
over-the-shoulder shot of the performer’s two hands picking
up a full laundry basket. While doing this, the performer—
who could be heard but not seen—said, “First, pick up the
basket.”
Video modeling. For the video modeling versions of each
task, a single video was made showing all 18 steps of the two
respective tasks being completed from beginning to end. The
durations of the two videos were 2 min 18 s (Laundry) and
1 min 55 s (Washing Dishes). The video models used the
same videos as the video prompts, but they were shown in
sequence as one video. In other words, the participant saw
the performer’s hands completing each step of the task and
heard the one sentence voice-over instruction as each step
was completed.
Dependent Measure and Data Collection
Using the task analyses shown in Table 2 as data sheets, we
recorded whether each step of the task was completed
correctly or not on a session-by-session basis. We then cal-
culated percentage correct by dividing the number of steps
completed correctly by 18 (i.e., the number of steps in each
task). To be scored as correct during baseline, the first step
of the task had to be completed within 30 s of the initial
instruction (e.g., “Do the dishes” or “Do the laundry”). All
subsequent steps had to be completed within 30 s of the
completion of the previous step. During intervention with
video prompting, only steps completed within 30 s after
viewing the video clip for that step were scored as correct.
During intervention with video modeling, the first step had
to be initiated within 30 s of the end of the video, and all
subsequent steps had to be completed within 2 min 30 s of
the initial step to be scored as correct.
Data were collected during one-to-one training sessions
that occurred two to three times per week. Sessions lasted
approximately 10 to 15 min, with one exception. When error
correction was implemented with Tina, she had one session
that lasted 45 min because the error correction procedure
had to be used with each step of the task analysis. After each
session, the participants were given a choice of one noncon-
tingent snack item for participating.
Experimental Design
The study combined a multiple probe across participants
design (Horner & Baer, 1978) with an alternating treatments
design (Barlow & Hersen, 1984). As an added control, we
counterbalanced the use of video prompting and video mod-
eling across tasks and participants as indicated in Table 1.
When visual analysis of the trends from the alternating treat-
ments phase indicated that video prompting was superior to
video modeling, a final (prompt all) phase was implemented
in which both tasks were taught using video prompting. For
Downloaded from pbi.sagepub.com at HOWARD UNIV UNDERGRAD LIBRARY on February 27, 2015
Tina, when neither the video prompting nor video modeling
were found to be effective, a final in vivo phase was imple-
mented in which both tasks received live instruction.
Procedures
Baseline. During baseline, participants were individually
brought to the laundry basket in the classroom for Laundry
or to the sink for Washing Dishes. The participant was
placed in front of the laundry basket (or sink) and told to
“Do the laundry” (or “Wash the dishes”). During the ses-
sion, the trainer and a reliability observer (when available)
recorded the number of steps that the participant completed
correctly. If the participant did not initiate the first step of
the task within 30 s or complete subsequent steps with 30 s
of a previous step, the session was terminated, and the
participant was given noncontingent access to a choice of
snacks.
Video prompt versus video model. During this phase, par-
ticipants were brought to the laundry basket or sink in the
classroom and provided with training using either video
prompting or video modeling (see Table 1). The computer
was placed in a location where it could be easily operated
by the trainer and viewed by the participant. For Laundry,
the trainer held the computer for the first two steps, then
placed it on top of the dryer. For Washing Dishes, the com-
puter was placed on the counter next to the sink.
During training sessions that involved video prompting,
the participant was oriented toward the computer screen
and the trainer said, “Watch this.” The trainer then showed
the video clip of the first step of the task. When this video
clip ended, the trainer said, “Now you do it.” The partici-
pant was then given 30 s to complete the step. If the
participant failed to correctly complete the step within 30 s,
the trainer completed—or corrected—the step as unobtru-
sively as possible and proceeded to show the next clip in the
task analysis using the same procedures as for the first step.
This was done because each video clip showed only one
step of the task and participants were only expected to
complete one step at a time. We therefore had to complete
steps that the participants failed to do to ensure that the
progression of the task would remain in sync with the order
of video prompts. No additional instructions, feedback, or
prompts were delivered.
During training sessions that involved video modeling,
the participant was oriented toward the computer screen
and the trainer said, “Watch this.” The trainer then showed
the entire video of the task being completed. When the
video ended, the trainer said, “Now you do it.” The partici-
pant was given 30 s to initiate the first step and 2 min 30 s
to complete the remaining steps in the task. If the partici-
pant failed to complete the entire task within 2 min 30 s
of initiating the task, the session was terminated. Any steps
148 Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions 13(3)
that were not successfully completed by the participant
were left uncompleted, because there was no need to ensure
the participant remained in sync with separate video clips
and correct performance did not necessarily require task
steps be completed in the order specified in the respective
task analysis. No additional instructions, feedback, or
prompts were delivered.
Video prompting plus error correction. In video prompting
plus error correction, the procedures were identical to the
initial video prompting condition, except that error correc-
tion was added if the participant did not complete a step
correctly within 30 s of watching the video clip for that
step. The error correction procedure consisted of interrupt-
ing the participant if they were attempting to complete a
step incorrectly and saying, “Sorry, [name], that’s not quite
right. Here, watch this.” The video clip was then shown a
second time while the trainer pointed to the computer screen
and said, “Watch this.” When the video clip ended, the
trainer said, “Now you do it.” The participant was then
given another 30 s to complete the step. If the second view-
ing of the video clip failed to produce the correct response,
the trainer completed the step correctly while saying to the
participant, “Watch me.”
Prompt all. When data from the previous phase indicated
that video prompting was more effective than video model-
ing, the task that had been taught using video modeling was
moved to the video prompting procedure. In other words,
video prompting was used for both tasks.
In vivo training. When the data indicated that a specific
skill was not being acquired with either video prompting
or video modeling, in vivo training was implemented. These
training procedures were identical to the video prompting
procedures, except the model for each step was presented
live rather than on the video. For example, for the first step
of Laundry, the trainer said to the participant, “Watch this,”
then picked up the basket while saying, “Pick up the basket.”
Following the model of the step, the trainer placed the basket
back on the floor and said, “Now you do it.” The participant
was then given 30 s to complete the step. If they completed
the step incorrectly, the trainer completed the step and then
modeled the next step.
Interobserver Agreement and Treatment Fidelity
One of two independent observers collected data on the
number of steps performed correctly during at least 20%
(range 20%–46%) of the sessions in all phases of the study.
Observers were graduate students in special education who
were trained to collect data by showing them the data sheet,
explaining what constituted a correct response, and show-
ing them how to record data on the data sheet. Agreement
between the trainer and the independent observer on the steps
performed correctly was calculated on a session-by-session
Downloaded from pbi.sagepub.com at HOWARD UNIV UNDERGRAD LIBRARY on February 27, 2015
basis using the formula: [Agreements/(Agreements + Dis-
agreements)] × 100%. Average interobserver agreement was
calculated to be 99.5% (range 97%–100%).
Data on treatment integrity were collected for an average
of 19.4% (range 13%–31%) of sessions. During these ses-
sions, a second observer noted whether all procedural steps
were completed correctly. Treatment integrity was calcu-
lated by dividing the number of procedural steps completed
correctly by the total number of procedural steps and multi-
plying by 100%. Treatment integrity was calculated to be
100% across all conditions.
Results
Figures 1 and 2 show the percentage of steps completed
correctly across tasks, participants, and sessions. Because
we counterbalanced the procedures and tasks across the
participants, they were arranged into three pairs, with the
final participant receiving the intervention independent of
another person. Introduction of the intervention was stag-
gered across the four groups. The results are presented for
each pairing.
Keith and Tina
During baseline, Keith completed an average of 8.3%
(range 0%–11%) of Washing Dishes but did not complete
any steps correctly in Laundry. Tina did not complete any
steps correctly for either task. When the intervention was
introduced, Keith showed rapid acquisition of Laundry with
video prompting and no correct responding in Washing
Dishes with video modeling. When Washing Dishes was
moved to video prompting, he again showed rapid acquisi-
tion of the skill. He finished the study performing 100% of
the steps correctly on both tasks. When intervention was
implemented with Tina, she showed a slight increase in
responding in Washing Dishes with video prompting, but
her performance was low and variable (range 6%–39%)
with a decreasing trend. In Session 36, the error correction
procedures were implemented with Washing Dishes, but
they did not lead to a change in her behavior. Video model-
ing had no effect on her performance of Laundry, for which
she continued to perform zero steps correctly. In Session
43, the in vivo procedures were implemented, and she
showed an immediate increase in responding with both
Washing Dishes and Laundry. At the end of the study, she
was performing 95% of Laundry and between 83% and
89% of Washing Dishes correctly.
Jon and Carrie
During baseline, Jon completed an average of 7.5% (range
0%–11%) of steps correctly in Washing Dishes and no steps
Cannella-Malone et al. 149

Figure 1. Percentage of correct responding for Keith, Tina, Jon, and Carrie across baseline, video prompting versus video modeling,
and prompt all or in vivo (Carrie) phases

correctly with Laundry. Carrie performed none of the steps of Washing Dishes showed a slow but steady increase with
correctly for Washing Dishes and completed an average video prompting, and he continued to perform zero steps
of 1.2% (range 0%–6%) of steps correctly with Laundry. of Laundry correctly with video modeling. Because the
When intervention was introduced to Jon, his performance trend with Washing Dishes was low, the error correction

Downloaded from pbi.sagepub.com at HOWARD UNIV UNDERGRAD LIBRARY on February 27, 2015
150 Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions 13(3)

Figure 2. Percentage of correct responding for Andrew, Adam, and Michael across baseline, video prompting versus video modeling,
and prompt all phases

procedures were introduced in Session 37. When both tasks
were moved to the prompt all phase, his performance of
Laundry increased to 72% of steps completed correctly
after seven sessions. With video prompting and error cor-
rection, his performance of Washing Dishes remained low
(range 11%–50%), so the in vivo procedures were intro-
duced with this task for the final two sessions, and his
performance immediately improved to 77% of steps com-
pleted correctly. When the intervention was introduced to
Carrie, her performance of Laundry also showed a slow
increase with video prompting that stopped at 38% of steps
completed correctly, and she continued to perform zero steps
of Washing Dishes with video modeling. In Session 35, the
error correction procedure was implemented with Laundry,
which showed an initial increase in performance and then
decreased again before finally ending on an increasing trend.
When Washing Dishes was moved to video prompting,
Carrie’s performance showed a gradual increasing trend. In
Session 60, after increases in her responding of Washing
Dishes had slowed significantly, the in vivo procedures
were implemented, which led to an immediate increase in
her behavior, with her final sessions showing 83% correct
responding.
Andrew and Adam
In baseline, Andrew performed an average of 3.4%
(range 0%–11%) of steps correctly with Washing Dishes

Downloaded from pbi.sagepub.com at HOWARD UNIV UNDERGRAD LIBRARY on February 27, 2015
Cannella-Malone et al. 151
and an average of 2.2% (range 0%–11%) of steps cor-
rectly with Laundry. Adam performed an average of 18.3%
(range 0%–39%) of steps correctly with Washing Dishes
and 15% (range 0%–39%) of steps correctly with Laundry
in baseline. When the intervention was introduced to Andrew,
his performance immediately increased with Laundry using
video prompting and his performance of Washing Dishes
showed 0% correct responding with video modeling. When
both tasks were moved to the prompt all phase, his perfor-
mance of Laundry remained high (M = 88.4%, range
72%–100%), and his performance of Washing Dishes
immediately increased, but stabilized at about 72% of steps
completed correctly. In Session 59, the error correction
procedures were utilized with Washing Dishes, and his per-
formance increased to 83% of steps completed correctly
for the final three sessions. When intervention was introduced
to Adam, his performance on Washing Dishes quickly
increased to 100% correct responding using video prompt-
ing, where it remained (with the exception of one session)
for the duration of the study. Adam’s performance of Laundry
increased using video modeling but never exceeded 50%
correct responding (range 33%–50%). Once Laundry was
moved into the prompt all phase, his performance quickly
increased to 100% correct, where it remained for his final
three sessions.
Michael
In baseline, Michael performed an average of 6% (range
0%–15%) of steps correctly in Washing Dishes and no steps
correctly with Laundry. When intervention was introduced,
his performance of Laundry quickly increased from 11% to
67% of steps completed correctly using video prompting.
With video modeling, his performance of Washing Dishes
showed a slight improvement (M = 10.7%, range 0%–21%).
When Washing Dishes was moved to the prompt all phase,
his performance immediately increased (M = 63%, range
56%–67%). In Michael’s final session, he performed 67%
of Washing Dishes correctly and 76% of Laundry correctly.
Michael did not attend any summer programming, so his
participation in this study was terminated at the end of the
school year.
Discussion
The results of this study replicate those of Cannella-Malone
et al. (2006) in that video prompting was more effective
than video modeling in teaching two daily living skills to
seven participants with significant intellectual disabilities—
including one who was deaf—although not all participants
achieved mastery with video prompting. Video modeling
had no effect with five of the seven participants, even when
the perspective of video presentation was controlled for.
Downloaded from pbi.sagepub.com at HOWARD UNIV UNDERGRAD LIBRARY on February 27, 2015
The results of this study provide further support to the use
of video prompting for teaching new skills to individuals
with developmental disabilities (e.g., Le Grice & Blampied,
1994; Sigafoos et al., 2005) and extend the research to
include adolescents with more severe disabilities as well as
provide a systematic replication across seven participants.
As in Cannella-Malone et al. (2006), the findings contradict
those of studies indicating that video modeling can be used
to teach new skills to individuals with developmental dis-
abilities (e.g., D’Ateno, Mangiapanello, & Taylor, 2003;
Nikopoulos & Keenan, 2003).
One possible explanation for video prompting being
more effective than video modeling is that the participants
only had to attend to short video clips with video prompting,
versus longer clips with video modeling. For modeling to be
effective, the participant has to attend to the entire model
before he or she can imitate the behavior (Miltenberg, 1997).
It may be that the participants in this study were not able to
attend to the entire task during video modeling; thus, imita-
tion of the model did not occur. With video prompting, on
the other hand, they appear to have been capable of attend-
ing to a model of each individual step, thus allowing them to
imitate short pieces of the task. Knowing that individuals
with developmental disabilities have deficits with atten-
tion and memory (Matson & Smiroldo, 1999), it might be
expected that they would learn new tasks more efficiently
when there are fewer demands placed on their attention and
memory. Video prompting appears to limit these demands,
whereas video modeling may have been too taxing on the
attention and memory capabilities of our participants.
A second possible explanation for these findings may be
the level of disability of our participants combined with time
limitations experienced. All of the participants had severe
and multiple disabilities, rather than moderate disabilities.
Research indicates that individuals with severe developmen-
tal disabilities generally take longer to learn new skills
(Sigafoos, O’Reilly, & Lancioni, 2010). It is possible that all
of the participants may have mastered both skills had we
been able to continue working with them beyond the termi-
nation of this study.
A third possible explanation may be the perspective of
the videos, which were shown from the perspective of the
participant watching themselves complete the task. Three
of our participants required in vivo instruction for one or
both tasks, which represented a spectator perspective (i.e.,
the participants watched the experimenter complete each
step). It may be that when the participants observed the
experimenter completing the step, they were able to observe
those aspects of the task that were most salient to them,
which may have been different from what they could
observe on the video of the arms and hands. Future research
should compare the effects of using different perspectives
in the video with the same instructional strategy (i.e., video
152 Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions 13(3)
prompting using spectator vs. participant perspectives) on
skill acquisition. If both are equally effective, it might be
worthwhile to use the spectator perspective so that partici-
pants can view those aspects of the video that are the most
salient to them.
One possible explanation for decreased efficacy of video
prompting could be the complexity of some of the steps.
Several steps contained multiple instructions, and failure to
complete any part of these instructions resulted in that step
being scored incorrectly. For example, participants would
often pick up the plate, wash it, but not return it to the sink,
resulting in being scored as incorrect for the entire step.
Future researchers should develop task analyses so that
each step represents one discrete behavior (e.g., wash the
plate), which might enhance the participants’ likelihood of
success, potentially increase the efficiency of instruction,
and provide slightly more flexibility in the topography of
the behavior.
One difference in this study from Cannella-Malone et al.
(2006) was the inclusion of a deaf participant, who demon-
strated significant gains in both skills even though he was
not able to hear the voice-over instructions. His results indi-
cate that the video alone (without the auditory instruction)
may be effective for teaching daily living skills. Relative to
other participants, video modeling was slightly more effec-
tive for Michael, who typically completed the beginning and
ending steps of the task. Given his reliance on visual cues in
the everyday environment, he may have had a stronger his-
tory of reinforcement with observational learning (Bandura,
1986). This history may have led to the increased effective-
ness of video modeling. Based on these findings, future
researchers should compare the use of video prompting with
and without the verbal instruction. If it is found that the
voice-over instructions are not necessary, it might make the
use of video instruction in busy classrooms more effective.
Aside from the points already discussed, one limitation
of this study is that we were unable to withdraw the inter-
vention to measure maintenance. This study was conducted
for the last 4 months of the participants’ school year, then for
2 weeks of their summer session for all participants except
Michael. Because of these time constraints, not all partici-
pants met mastery with both skills. Given more time, we
believe that all participants would have achieved mastery
based on the trends in their data. Only at that point would we
have withdrawn the intervention to test for maintenance of
the skills. Future research should examine the durability of
skills learned via video prompting to ensure that they are
maintained.
The results of this study suggest several additional pos-
sible directions for future research. First, although the use of
a laptop computer was appropriate for this study, it would
have been difficult to use one in a community setting to
teach a skill such as grocery shopping because of its size and
Downloaded from pbi.sagepub.com at HOWARD UNIV UNDERGRAD LIBRARY on February 27, 2015
the fact that it is awkward to hold. It might be worthwhile
to examine the effects of video prompting using a smaller
device, such as a portable data assistant (PDA). Second,
there are very few studies that have examined the effects of
video prompting when the participant has been responsible
for starting the video clips themselves (e.g., Van Laarhoven,
Johnson, Van Laarhoven-Myers, Grider, & Grider, 2009). If
the participants are able to control the video themselves, this
would increase their self-determination even further. Future
studies should examine the ease of teaching the participants
to control the technology themselves and then examine the
effects of the video prompting intervention.
Providing individuals with significant intellectual disabili-
ties appropriate instruction in the area of daily living skills has
the potential to enhance the individual’s self-determination
as well as potentially provide further opportunities to be
more independent. The findings also provide support to the
idea that students with severe disabilities can be taught new
daily living skills using video prompting. Future research
should continue to examine the factors that might make
video prompting more effective than video modeling so that
enhancements can continue to be made with the instructional
technology.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no conflicts of interests with respect to the
authorship and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following Financial support
for the research and/or authorship of this article:
This research was supported by the Franklin County Board of
Developmental Disabilities (Contract GRT00012835).
References
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A
social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Barlow, D. H., & Hersen, M. (1984). Single case experimental
designs: Strategies for studying behavior change. New York,
NY: Pergamon.
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.
Cannella, H. I., O’Reilly, M. F., & Lancioni, G. E. (2005). Choice
and preference assessment research with people with severe to
profound developmental disabilities: A review of the literature.
Research in Developmental Disabilities, 26, 1–15.
Cannella-Malone, H. I., Sigafoos, J., O’Reilly, M., de la Cruz, B.,
Edrisinha, C., & 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 et al. 153
Cihak, D., Alberto, P. A., Taber-Doughty, T., & Gama, R. I. (2006).
A comparison of static picture prompting and video prompting
simulations strategies using group instructional procedures.
Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 21,
89–99.
D’Ateno, P., Mangiapanello, K., & Taylor, B. A. (2003). Using
video modeling to teach complex play sequences to a pre-
schooler with autism. Journal of Positive Behavior Interven-
tions, 5, 5–11.
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.
Heller, K. W., Bigge, J. L., & Allgood, P. (2005). Adaptations for
personal independence. In S. J. Best, K. W. Heller, & J. L. Bigge
(Eds.), Teaching individuals with physical or multiple disabili-
ties (pp. 309–338). Columbus, OH: Prentice Hall.
Horner, R. D., & Baer, D. M. (1978). Multiple-probe technique: A
variation of the multiple baseline. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 11, 189–196.
Jacobson, J. W., & Ackerman, L. J. (1990). Differences in adaptive
functioning among people with autism or mental retardation.
Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 20, 205–219.
Kraijer, D. (2000). Review of adaptive behavior studies in mentally
retarded persons with autism/pervasive developmental disorder.
Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 30, 39–47.
Le Grice, B., & Blampied, N. M. (1994). Training pupils with
intellectual disability to operate educational technology using
video prompting. Education and Training in Mental Retarda-
tion and Developmental Disabilities, 29, 321–330.
Matson, J. L., & Smiroldo, B. B. (1999). Intellectual disorders.
In W. K. Silverman & T. H. Ollendick (Eds.), Developmen-
tal issues in the clinical treatment of children (pp. 295–306).
Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Miltenberger, R. G. (1997). Behavior modification: Principles
and procedures. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Nikopoulos, C. K., & Keenan, M. (2003). Promoting social initia-
tion in children with autism using video modeling. Behavioral
Interventions, 18, 87–108.
Parmenter, T. R. (1994). Quality of life as a concept and measur-
able entity. Social Indicators Research, 33, 9–46.
Rainforth, B., & York-Barr, J. (1997). Collaborative teams for
students with severe disabilities: Integrating therapy and edu-
cational services (2nd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Sigafoos, J., O’Reilly, M., Cannella, H., Edrisinha, C., de la Cruz, B.,
Upadhyaya, M., . . . , Young, D. (2007). Evaluation of a video
prompting and fading procedure for teaching dish washing
skills to adults with adults with developmental disabilities.
Journal of Behavioral Education, 16, 93–109.
Sigafoos, J., O’Reilly, M., Cannella, H., Upadhyaya, M., Edrisinha, C.,
Lancioni, G. E., . . . , Young, D. (2005). Computer-presented
Downloaded from pbi.sagepub.com at HOWARD UNIV UNDERGRAD LIBRARY on February 27, 2015
video prompting for teaching microwave oven use to three
adults with developmental disabilities. Journal of Behavioral
Education, 14, 189–201.
Sigafoos, J., O’Reilly, M. F., & Lancioni, G. E. (2010). Mental
retardation. In J. Thomas & M. Hersen (Eds.), Handbook of
clinical psychology competencies (HCPC): Vol. III. Interven-
tion and treatment for children and adolescents. (pp. 1245-
1274). New York, NY: Springer.
Sparrow, S. S., Balla, D. A., & Cicchetti, D. V. (1984). Vineland
Adaptive Behavior Scales: Interview edition survey form. Cir-
cle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
Van Laarhoven, T., Johnson, J. W., Van Laarhoven-Myers, T.,
Grider, K. L., & Grider, K. M. (2009). The effectiveness of
using a video iPod as a prompting device in employment set-
tings. Journal of Behavioral Education, 18, 119–141.
Van Laarhoven, T., & Van Laarhoven-Myers, T. (2006). A compar-
ison of three video-based instructional procedures for teaching
daily living skills to persons with developmental disabilities.
Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 41,
365–381.
About the Authors
Helen I. Cannella-Malone, PhD, is an assistant professor of
special education and applied behavior analysis at The Ohio State
University. Her current research interests include working with
individuals with severe to profound intellectual disabilities to teach
new skills using video technology, change automatically main-
tained challenging behavior by manipulating motivating operations,
and examine the effects of choice and preference on behavior.
Courtney Fleming, MA, is a graduate student conducting
research in special education and applied behavior analysis at The
Ohio State University.
Yi-Cheih Chung, PhD, recently graduated from The Ohio State
University, and her current research interests include the manipu-
lation of motivating operations to effect automatically maintained
challenging behavior in individuals with severe to profound intel-
lectual disabilities.
Geoffrey M. Wheeler, MA, recently graduated from The Ohio
State University and now works as a behavior consultant for
Behavior Intervention Services, LLC, in St. Louis, Missouri.
Abby R. Basbagill is a graduate student conducting research in
special education and applied behavior analysis at The Ohio State
University.
Angella H. Singh, PhD, is adjunct faculty at The Ohio State Uni-
versity and also a teacher of intermediate students at Franklin
County Board of Developmental Disabilities.