A comparison between two experimental studies using video modeling

Key words

Pretend play

Pretend play embodies symbolic behavior in which “one thing is playfully treated ‘as if’ it were something else” （Fein 1987）. It requires the ability to transform objects and actions symbolically; it is furthered by interactive social dialogue and negotiation; and it involves role taking， script knowledge， and improvisation（Bergen 2002）.

Video modeling

Video modeling is a technique in which an individual views a videotaped demonstration of a model engaging in desired behavior and is then provided an opportunity to imitate the model’s actions（Bellini and Akullian 2007）.

Summary

Play patterns of preschoolers with autism are often repetitive， ritualistic， and lacking in imaginative themes （Paterson and Arco 2007）. These two papers discuss about early intervention on pretend play for children with autism spectrum disorder（ASD）. The strategy used in the early intervention is video modeling， which is used to promote play skills in children with ASD and has been proved to be effective. The form below shows basic information of these two papers， followed by a discussion mainly about their differences on research design， research aims， research fidelity etc.

Title Teaching Pretend Play Skills to a Student with Autism Using Video Modeling with a Sibling as Model and Play Partner Improving the Pretend Play Skills of Preschoolers with Autism Spectrum Disorders： The Effects of Video Modeling

Author Kara A. Reagon， Thomas S. Higbee and Katie Endicott Elyse Boudreau and Barbara Entremont

Publishing Year 2006 2010

Discussion

There is only one 4-year-old preschooler in the 2006 research while there are two preschoolers of the same age in the 2010 research， all participants diagnosed with ASD. Number of participants may have affected the research design which will be discussed later.

As for the video models， participant’s older brother took part in the 2006 research， as a video model in two of the four scenarios as well as his play partner in follow-up phases， while an adult model acted in both videos which were made according to participants’ interests and abilities but didn’t play with participants in the 2010 research.

Speaking of the research design， researchers applied A-B quasi-experimental design in the 2006 research while single-subject design with multiple baselines across subjects was used in the 2010 research. Due to the limited number of participants， researchers do not have many choices on experimental designs. When there’s only one participant， A-B/A-B-A/A-B-A-B design in signal-subject design is often preferred and when there are more participants， multiple baselines across subjects in signal-subject design becomes possible. What can be seen here is that from the aspect of research design， later research is more experimental because the behavior change due to passage of time was eliminated by the design itself.

Difference on research aims also exist. While the 2006 research aims to replicate the effects of using siblings as video models and play partners in pretend play contexts of a former research， the 2010 research emphasizes the generalization and maintenance of newly learned play skills in different settings and to novel toys. So the former one is more like a verification research while the later one is more like an exploration research.

Dependent measurements including modeled actions， scripted statements and unscripted statements/spontaneous verbalization are measured in both experiments but unmodeled actions were also scored in 2010 research which can be seen as a progress because contextually related unmodeled actions are also signs of pretend play skills.

Big difference emerges when it comes to generalization and maintenance phases. In the former research， the follow-up phase is identical to the baseline phase which is the characteristic of A-B design but has the limitation that the final effects might be caused by the passage of time but not the intervention itself. But the research in 2010 is more strictly controlled in which generalization phase and maintenance phase are rigorously designed and separately carried out.

Another difference can be found when it comes to treatment fidelity which was implemented in the 2010 research but was not discussed in the former one. Measurement of treatment fidelity is one of those significantly important factors that indicates the rigor of an experiment because it ensures the intervention is practiced according to the protocol thus avoid irrelevant factors that might influence the results. Last but not least， no matter what kind of intervention is applied in promoting play skills of children with ASD， participants’ prerequisite skills need to be carefully identified because one intervention is effective for this child may not bring same effects for another one.

Bibliographies

Fein， Greta G. 1987. “Pretend Play： Creativity and Consciousness.” In Curiosity， Imagination， and Play： On the Development of Spontaneous Cognitive and Motivational Processes， edited by Dietmar G?rlitz and Joachim F. Wohlwill， 281–304.

Bergen， D. （2002）. The role of pretend play in children's cognitive development. Early Childhood Research amp; Practice， 4（1）， n1.

Bellini， S.， amp; Akullian， J. （2007）. A meta-analysis of video modeling and video self-modeling interventions for children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorders. Exceptional children， 73（3）， 264-287.

Paterson， C. R.， amp; Arco， L. （2007）. Using video modeling for generalizing toy play in children with

autism. Behavior Modification， 31， 660–681.