Teaching Pretend Play Skills Using Video Modeling and Matrix Training. Clelia G. Deltour. The New England Center for Children

Transcription

1 Running head: VIDEO MODELING AND MATRIX TRAINING Teaching Pretend Play Skills Using Video Modeling and Matrix Training Clelia G. Deltour The New England Center for Children Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Applied Behavior Analysis in the Bouvé College of Health Sciences Graduate School of Northeastern University, August 2011

2 VIDEO MODELING AND MATRIX TRAINING 2 NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY Bouvé College of Health Sciences Graduate School Thesis Title: Teaching Pretend Play Skills Using Video Modeling and Matrix Training Author: Clelia Deltour Department: Counseling and Applied Educational Psychology (William Ahearn, Ph.D, BCBA-D) Date (Jessica Sassi, Ph.D, BCBA-D) Date (Susan Langer, M.A, BCBA) Date

3 VIDEO MODELING AND MATRIX TRAINING 3 Acknowledgments The author would like to express her appreciation to William Ahearn, the research supervisor of the author s thesis, for the guidance and support he provided and which allowed the completion of her research project. The author would also like to thank her thesis committee, William Ahearn, Jessica Sassi, and Rebecca MacDonald, for their assistance. Special thanks are also expressed to everyone who took part in data recording for reliability purposes.

4 VIDEO MODELING AND MATRIX TRAINING 4 Table of Contents A. Abstract B. Introduction C. General Method Phase I: Tact Assessment and Training Overview Method Results and Discussion Phase II: Video Modeling Training Overview Method Materials Independent Variables Response Definitions and Measurements Experimental Design Procedures Interobserver Agreement Results Discussion Phase III: Video Modeling Pre-Requisite Assessment Overview Method Results and Discussion D. General Discussion E. References F. Tables G. Figures H. Appendices

5 VIDEO MODELING AND MATRIX TRAINING 5 Abstract Children with autism often exhibit limited appropriate pretend play skills. Their play skills are often characterized by stereotypical behavior patterns. Because of their importance in a child s development, it is essential to find ways to teach pretend play skills when they are absent. In this study, we attempted to train three boys diagnosed with autism to play with three different play sets using video modeling. In phase I, a tact assessment and training was conducted to increase the participants familiarity with the materials from the play sets. Tacts were acquired by two out of three participants. In phase II, training was implemented with one play set and generalization to a related play set and an unrelated play set was assessed. A matrix system was used to enhance generalization when recombining materials from all 3 play sets. Additionally, each participants level of stereotypic behavior was recorded before and after training was implemented. Results showed that the video modeling training resulted in an increase in the appropriate play skills and a decrease in the stereotypic behavior of 1 out of 3 participants. For that participant, matrix training was effective at enhancing generalizations when materials from the 3 play sets were recombined. In phase III, a video modeling pre-requisite assessment was completed for the 2 participants whose levels of appropriate behavior did not increase during video modeling training. One of the 2 participants completed most of the tasks included in the assessment successfully. Implications of these results and areas for future research are also discussed. Keywords: video modeling, play skills, matrix training, generalization

6 VIDEO MODELING AND MATRIX TRAINING 6 Teaching Pretend Play Skills Using Video Modeling and Matrix Training Play is believed to significantly contribute to a child s development and therefore is an essential component of an individual s childhood (Ginsburg, 2007). Play is an activity that is enjoyed by the child, and that the child often engages in without the need for encouragement or prompting (Fewell & Rich, 1987; Pellegrini & Smith, 1998). According to Piaget (1962), three types of play can be distinguished in typical children, including sensory-motor, pretend play, and games with rules. These three types of play are thought to be related to developments in motor skills, language and social skills (Ginsburg, 2007) and to be exhibited by most children (Hughes, 1998). However, unlike most typically developing children, children diagnosed with autism often present deficits in play skills. One of those deficits, a lack of pretend play skills is listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (American Psychiatric Association [DSM-IV-TR], 2000). In the manual, the diagnosis of an autism spectrum disorder requires a lack of varied, spontaneous make-believe play or social imitative play appropriate to developmental level. The DSM-IV-TR also mentions that one of the possible characteristics of children with autism is stereotyped and repetitive motor mannerisms. Therefore, instead of appropriate play, children with autism often engage in repetitive and stereotyped play (Wing, Gould, Yeates, & Brierly, 1977). For instance, a child with autism may continuously align toys of the same shape or color or move a toy in the same manner repeatedly. Therefore, it is essential to find ways to teach children with autism appropriate play skills. Previous studies have investigated different strategies and procedures to teach appropriate play skills to individuals with autism. Such methods include the Developmental Play Assessment (Lifter, Edwards, Avery, Anderson, & Sulzer-Azaroff, 1988)), least-to-most prompting (DiCarno & Reid, 2004; Goldstein & Cisar, 1992), treatment packages such as pivotal response training

7 VIDEO MODELING AND MATRIX TRAINING 7 (Stahmer, 1995; Pierce & Schreibman, 1997), modeling and verbal description (Jahr, Eldevik, and Eikeseth, 2000), a combination of prompting and reinforcement (Eason, White, & Newsom, 1982), and video modeling. Video modeling is a method that consists of teaching new behaviors by showing a model exhibiting certain appropriate behaviors and subsequently giving an individual the opportunity to engage in those behaviors (Nikopoulos & Keenan, 2007). For instance, an individual is shown a video of a model, cleaning a table, then given the materials necessary to complete the task (spray and wipes), and provided with the opportunity to wipe a table. Video modeling is widely used in everyday life. For example, many cooking television shows consist of demonstrating the completion of a meal recipe, so that viewers can learn from it and subsequently complete it themselves. Sports instruction videos often involve the demonstration of a specific skill to be imitated. Video modeling is even used to teach play skills to adults. Indeed, many video games include a tutorial where players are shown how to perform certain actions and then given the opportunity to practice performing those actions. In a study by Charlop-Christy, Le, and Freeman (2000), video modeling was demonstrated to be more effective than in-vivo modeling. The authors conducted a study in which they compared the efficacy of video and in-vivo modeling for teaching tasks from the participants curricula. The study demonstrated that video modeling was more effective than in vivo modeling in teaching the task and in promoting generalization. Although this study has yet to be replicated, it suggests that video modeling may be preferable in vivo modeling in certain situations. According to the authors, video modeling has a couple of advantages that may account for these results. First, video modeling is relatively easy to implement once the video is taped. Indeed, one can simply show the video to the participant without having to perform the

8 VIDEO MODELING AND MATRIX TRAINING 8 behavior each time. Second, the video is recorded, therefore consistency increases: the behavior modeled is the same every session, reducing issues related to procedural integrity. Third, video modeling may increase the quality of the observation by enabling the individual to focus his or her attention on the screen. Finally, a major benefit of video modeling is that it allows individuals to learn skills that they have been unable to learn through observation of their natural environment (MacDonald, Sacramone, Mansfield, Wiltz, & Ahearn, 2009). For instance, individuals with autism may observe peers playing, yet be unable to develop play skills. In addition to the advantages listed by Charlop-Christy, Le, and Freeman (2000), another great benefit of video modeling is that it can be combined with and enhance the efficacy of other teaching procedures. Murzynski and Bourret (2007) combined video modeling and least-to-most prompting to teach daily living skills to two boys diagnosed with autism. They compared the package to least-to-most prompting alone and found that the combination was more effective. Tereshko, MacDonald, and Ahearn (2009) selected participants who had previously failed to imitate video models. They introduced a segmented video modeling teaching procedure. They showed the participants segments of the video and the number of segments shown was gradually increased as the participants met a pre-specified criterion. This procedure was effective in teaching an 8-step response chain to children who were previously unable to imitate the video model, possibly due to the fact that attending was facilitated by initially shorter videos. Video modeling has been shown effective in teaching and developing a variety of new behaviors, such as hygiene, academic, social, motor and play skills (Boyer, Miltenberger, Batsche, & Victoria Fogel, 2009; Charlop & Milstein, 1989; Charlop-Christy & Daneshvar, 2003; D Ateno & Mangiapanello, 2003; Delano, 2007; Keen, Brannigan, & Cuskelly, 2007), yet the necessary pre-requisite skills for learning through video modeling are still relatively

9 VIDEO MODELING AND MATRIX TRAINING 9 unknown. In an unpublished study reported in 2009, Robinson and colleagues conducted a study on the pre-requisites necessary to learn through video modeling. The results of the study suggested that delayed matching and delayed imitation may be pre-requisites to learning through video modeling and that training these skills enhances learning using video modeling. Several studies have investigated the use of video modeling as an intervention to teach play skills alone or in groups. D Ateno and Mangiapanello (2003) presented videos consisting of play sequences to one preschool child diagnosed with autism. The authors were able to teach the motor and vocal responses of three scenarios of alone pretend play to the participants. Their results were obtained without the use of explicit reinforcement and without any correction procedure. Both Reagon, Higbee, and Endicott (2006) and MacDonald et al. (2009) used video modeling to teach pretend play skills with one or several partners. Reagon, Higbee, and Endicott (2006) used video modeling as an intervention to teach a boy diagnosed with autism and his brother pretend play skills. The authors taught the participants to play with four different scenarios. The skills acquired were maintained and generalized to different play partners. MacDonald, Sacramone, Mansfield, Wiltz, and Ahearn (2009) conducted a study in which they taught reciprocal pretend play to two children with autism. The content of the videos included modeled verbalizations and play actions. The authors intervention was effective in enhancing the participants reciprocal play skills, and the participants performance maintained over time. This study was especially interesting due to an increase in unscripted verbalizations that was observed as well. This suggests that video modeling not only facilitates the acquisition of targeted skills, but may also have additional indirect consequences such as the acquisition of unscripted responses.

10 VIDEO MODELING AND MATRIX TRAINING 10 Finally, one study by Paterson and Arco (2007) involved using video modeling to teach pretend play skills to two participants diagnosed with autism. The authors also recorded the effects of the intervention on the levels of repetitive motor and vocal behaviors. The authors trained 1 participant to play with a first play set using video modeling and then conducted probe sessions probe sessions did not include the presentation of a video model with two additional play sets that were considered related to the original one. Similarly, they trained a second participant to play with a play set using video modeling and then conducted probe sessions with two additional play sets considered unrelated to the original play set. The results showed that after training a first play set using video modeling, generalization occurred with related play sets, but not with unrelated play sets. Each unrelated play set had to be trained individually to obtain an increase in appropriate play behavior. The results also showed an inverse relation between appropriate play behavior and stereotypic behavior: when the former increased, the latter decreased. Furthermore, the results obtained in this study regarding maintenance were inconsistent with those obtained in previous studies on video modeling. In previous studies, once video modeling training was completed and the skills were mastered, follow-ups showed that the behaviors acquired maintained over extended periods of time, such as up to fifteen months (Charlop & Milstein, 1989). Alternatively, in Paterson and Arco s study (2007), the reversals conducted showed that levels of stereotypy increased and levels of appropriate play behavior decreased with the withdrawal of the video presentation. This study has several implications. First, the results of this study confirm the effectiveness of video modeling as an intervention to teach pretend play skills. Second, the results of this study suggest that a corollary effect of video modeling may be a decrease in stereotypic behavior. Finally, by comparing the effect of teaching appropriate play behavior for one play set on related and unrelated play sets,

11 VIDEO MODELING AND MATRIX TRAINING 11 this study further raises the question of the enhancement and generalization of skills acquired through video modeling. Matrix training, also called recombinative generalization, is a method that can be used to enhance generalization. Matrix training has been mostly used to produce generalization of language skills. It is an approach in which responding to certain stimulus combinations is trained, and responding to novel stimulus combinations is then assessed (Axe, 2008). For instance, as shown on Figure 1, an individual who is taught to say blue car in the presence of a blue car, and red truck in the presence of a red truck, may be able to say red car and blue truck in the presence of those without being directly trained to do so. Goldstein and Mousetis (1989) suggested that familiarity with the materials utilized plays an important role in the effectiveness of matrix training. For example, in the example above, being familiar with vehicles or colors in general may have an impact on the effect of the matrix system. Figure 1 is a representation of the matrix for the example above. The black shaded boxes represent trained responding to stimulus combinations blue car and red truck, and the grey shaded boxes represent possible emerging responding to novel stimulus combinations red car and blue truck. The effectiveness of matrix training has been demonstrated in several studies examining the generalization of language skills, but research on its effectiveness in the context of play skills is limited to two studies. In the first, Dauphin, Kinney, and Stromer (2004) taught sociodramatic play activities to a child diagnosed with autism using instructional matrices and video enhanced activity schedules. The authors created four 3x3 matrices and taught the participants to perform three of the nine possible play activities in all matrices. The results showed that the participant

12 VIDEO MODELING AND MATRIX TRAINING 12 demonstrated improved performance on all other untrained activities after training certain activities of the matrices. In the second, MacManus (2009) combined video modeling and matrix training to teach pretend play skills to three boys diagnosed with autism. Using video modeling, he taught them to play with three different toy sets according to 3-dimensional matrices. He then assessed generalization of the skills acquired when recombining the materials from the three play sets. The results of his study showed that after learning to play with each of the play sets, all three participants showed increases in generative play when presented with recombined play sets. Additionally, unscripted play increased for all three participants. In conclusion, the research literature discussed above shows that video modeling is a successful method for teaching appropriate play behavior, such as pretend play skills. Additionally, research suggests that a corollary effect of the instruction of play skills may be a decrease in stereotypic behavior. To increase the usefulness of teaching pretend play skills, it is important to find ways to enhance generalization, such as the use of a matrix system. The purpose of the following study was twofold. First, the purpose of the study was to replicate the study by Arco and Paterson (2007) by investigating whether video modeling would be a successful method for teaching appropriate non-verbal play sequences and play-related comments to individuals with limited play skills and engaging in stereotypic behavior. Second, the purpose of this study was to extend Arco and Paterson s study by further investigating the limits of and enhancing the generalization of the skills acquired through video modeling by combining it with matrix training. General Method Overview

13 VIDEO MODELING AND MATRIX TRAINING 13 This study included three phases: a tact assessment and training with materials from the three play sets, video modeling training for each of the play sets, and a video modeling prerequisite assessment for two out of the three participants included in this study. First, a tact assessment and training was conducted to familiarize the participants with the materials from all three play sets. A multiple probe across play sets design was used in order to demonstrate the effectiveness of video modeling as a method for teaching appropriate play skills with three play sets: two Pirate Ship play sets and one Castle play set. Then, training of the three play sets was conducted according to a matrix system. Second, generalization of the skills acquired was assessed by recombining elements of the different play sets. Levels of vocal and motor stereotypic behavior were recorded and examined throughout the experiment. Third, a video modeling pre-requisite assessment was conducted with two of the three participants. Participants and Settings Three students at a school for children with special needs participated in this study. All three participants were selected for participation in this study because they were identified by teachers and caregivers as 1) having limited play skills and 2) exhibiting either motor or vocal stereotypic behavior. Rick was a 6-year-old boy diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder. Rick expressed himself verbally. In his spare time, Rick enjoyed blowing bubbles, spinning tops or using a flash light in the dark. Mike was a 6-year-old boy diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder. Mike expressed himself with short sentences. Mike enjoyed activities, such as looking at books or manipulating musical toys. Jon was a 10-year-old boy diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder. Jon expressed himself with short sentences as well as the use of a communication device. Jon was the only participant reported to engage in any sort of pretend play. Jon s teachers stated that Jon sometimes made hats or clothes out of play dough for his

14 VIDEO MODELING AND MATRIX TRAINING 14 figurine toys. All sessions were conducted in the participants individual cubbies in their respective classrooms. Sessions were conducted up to three days a week, one to two times a day. Phase I: Tact Assessment and Training Overview Goldstein (1983) suggested that the effectiveness of matrix training depends on the familiarity with the materials involved. Because the goal of this experiment was to use video modeling to teach participants to play with three different play sets and enhance generalization with the use of matrix training, the characters, transportation means and objects of those play sets were included in a tact assessment and training in order to increase the participants familiarity with the materials. Method Materials. In all, twelve items were included: a princess, a crown, a treasure, a dark knight, a soldier, a ghost pirate, a horse, a raft, a rowboat, a knight, a pirate, and another pirate. During the sessions, two chairs and a table were located in the participants cubbies. Data sheets and a pencil were used for data recording. Procedures. Assessment and training were conducted according to the curriculum provided by the Autism Curriculum Encyclopedia (ACE ), a computer program that provides curricula for teaching a wide variety of skills. The objects were grouped in four sets of three: heroes, mean characters, object or person stolen/kidnapped, and transportation modes. This assessment and training was introduced after two baseline play sessions were conducted with each of the play sets. The assessment consisted of two baseline sessions and subsequent training sessions, of nine trials each. During baseline sessions, the experimenter presented one of the objects to the participant and gave him an expectant look. No other prompts were utilized during

15 VIDEO MODELING AND MATRIX TRAINING 15 baseline sessions. During training sessions, five levels of prompting were initially used: an immediate full verbal model, a 1-s delay verbal model, a 2-s delay verbal model, a 3-s delay verbal model, a 4-s delay verbal model. Because one participant made limited to no progress with this prompting procedure, a different prompting procedure was initiated. Four levels of prompting were used before prompting was entirely withdrawn: an immediate full verbal model, an immediate partial verbal model, and an initial sound. In order to move on to a less restrictive prompt, the participant had to successfully label at least 8/9 of the objects in a set. A return to the previous more restrictive prompt was conducted if the participant incorrectly labeled two objects consecutively or three objects total in one session. If the participant successfully labeled 8/9 of the objects in a set during baseline sessions, post-test sessions were conducted. If the participant correctly labeled 8 out of 9 objects for two consecutive sessions, post-tests sessions were initiated. If the participant then successfully labeled 8/9 objects in three consecutive post-test sessions, the set was considered mastered. If the participant labeled less than 8/9 objects in a set during baseline sessions, training was initiated. Interobserver agreement. For the tact assessment and training, interobserver agreement was calculated for 45% of all sessions for Rick, 54% of all sessions for Jon, and 35% of all sessions for Mike. Interobserver agreement was calculated by dividing the number of agreements by the number of agreements plus disagreements. For Rick, the mean interobserver agreement was 100% for all 4 sets during assessment and training sessions. For Jon, the mean interobserver agreement was 100% for set 1, 100% for set 2, 100% for set 3, and 99% (range, 89% to 100%) for set 4 during both assessment and training sessions. For Mike, the mean interobserver agreement was 100% for all 4 sets during both assessment and training sessions.

16 VIDEO MODELING AND MATRIX TRAINING 16 Results and Discussion Results of the tact assessment and training are depicted on Figures 2, 3 and 4. The black portions of the bars represent the independent responses and the grey portions of the bars represent the prompted responses. During the assessment, Rick labeled 0/9 and 0/9 objects for set 1, 1/9 and 1/9 objects for set 2, 6/9 and 6/9 objects for set 3, and 3/9 and 3/9 objects for set 4. Rick mastered the tact training in 8 sessions for set 1, in 9 sessions for set 2, in 9 sessions for set 3, and in 8 sessions for set 4. During the assessment, Jon labeled 0/9 and 0/9 objects for set 1, 0/9 and 0/9 objects for set 2, 6/9 and 6/9 objects for set 3, and 0/9 and 0/9 objects for set 4. Jon mastered the tact training in 21 sessions for set 1, in 22 sessions for set 2, in 15 sessions for set 3, and in 16 sessions for set 4. During the assessment, Mike labeled 0/9 and 0/9 objects for set 1, 2/9 and 4/9 objects for set 2, 1/9 and 1/9 objects for set 3, and 0/9, and 0/9 objects for set 4. After 13 sessions without progress, the prompting procedure for Mike was changed. Six additional sessions were conducted. The participant s progress was limited with this type of prompting as well; due to time restrictions, training was discontinued. These results show that two out of the three participants completed the tact training. The third participant made limited progress and did not acquire tacts. Phase II: Video Modeling Training Overview In this phase of the experiment, a video model was used to teach the participants scenarios for each of the play sets involving 10 vocalizations and 10 actions. Training was conducted according to a matrix system designed to enhance generalization when recombining materials

17 VIDEO MODELING AND MATRIX TRAINING 17 from the three play sets. Levels of the participants vocal and motor stereotypy were recorded throughout the experiment during baseline, training, and probe sessions. Method Materials. All sessions were 3 minutes in length and taped by the experimenter. Play sessions were conducted in the participants cubbies in their classrooms. Video viewing was conducted right outside the participants cubbies, where a table and two chairs were placed. A 9- inch portable DVD player was used to show videos to the participants. Two Pirate Ship play sets and one Castle play set were used. A play set consisted of a main element (e.g., ship or castle) and related characters and accessories. The Pirate Ship 1 play set consisted of a Pirate Ship, an island and a rock, a pirate, a ghost pirate, a rowboat, a treasure, a map, a ladder, and an anchor. The Pirate Ship 2 play set consisted of a different Pirate Ship without an island, a rock, a different pirate, a soldier, a raft, a crown, a map, a ladder and an anchor. Finally, the Castle play set consisted of a castle, a knight, a dark knight, a horse, and a princess. Three video models were recorded. Each video model involved an adult exhibiting ten vocalizations and 10 actions related to one of the play sets according to scripts previously created. The scripts developed were based on the materials available in each of the play sets. The Pirate Ship 1 script (see Table 1) involved the ghost pirate hiding the treasure, the pirate going to the ghost pirate in a rowboat, and the fight between the ghost pirate and the pirate. The Pirate Ship 2 script (see Table 2) involved the soldier hiding the crown, the pirate going to the soldier in a raft, and the fight between the soldier and the pirate. The castle script (see Table 3) involved the dark knight kidnapping the princess, the knight going to the dark knight on his horse, and the fight between the dark knight and the knight.

18 VIDEO MODELING AND MATRIX TRAINING 18 Independent variables. The independent variables consisted of the presentation of the video models prior to the play sessions during training sessions and the use of a 3-dimensional matrix system, as in MacManus (2009). A diagonal matrix strategy, as opposed to a stepwise matrix strategy in which responding is trained to a greater number of stimulus combinations (MacManus, 2009), was used in this study. The 3-dimensional matrix, pictured in Figure 5, shows all the possible combinations of materials from the three play sets. The left column represents the possible combinations for the Pirate Ship 1 and alternative Pirate Ship 1 play sets. The middle column represents the possible combinations for the Pirate Ship 2 and alternative Pirate Ship 2 play sets. The right column represents the possible combinations for the Castle and alternative Castle play sets. Each row represents a scene. The top row represents the interaction between the villain and what was stolen or kidnapped. The middle row represents the hero using some mode of transportation to go to the villain. Finally, the bottom row represents the confrontation between the hero and the villain. The black shaded cubes in each column represent the combinations that were trained using video modeling. For example, the participant was trained to have the ghost pirate hide the treasure, then have the pirate use the rowboat to go to the ghost pirate, and finally to confront the ghost pirate and the pirate. The grey shaded cubes in each column represent the possible emerging script in alternative probe sessions. An example of an emerging script is, the soldier hides the princess in the cave, the knight uses the raft to go to the soldier, and the knight and soldier fight. Response definitions and measurements. Scripted vocalizations and play actions were recorded during baseline, training, and probes sessions. Scripted vocalizations were defined as any verbal statement related to a play set and included in the pre-determined scripts for that particular play set (MacManus, 2009). Examples included Raise the anchor or I need to look

19 VIDEO MODELING AND MATRIX TRAINING 19 at a map. Scripted play actions were defined, as in MacManus (2009), as object manipulation related to a play set and included in the pre-determined scripts for that particular play set. Examples of scripted actions included raising the anchor or putting the knight on the horse. Unscripted vocalizations and play actions were also recorded during baseline, training, and probe sessions. Unscripted vocalizations were defined as any vocalization related to a play set but not included in the scripts (MacManus, 2009). Examples included vocalizations such as Down the ladder or Lower the drawbridge. Unscripted play actions were defined as in MacManus (2009), as any object manipulation related to a play set but not included in the scripts. Examples included included lowering the drawbridge or putting the princess on the horse. Recombined vocalizations included any verbal statements expressed by an available alternative appropriate character instead of the unavailable character during alternative probe sessions (MacManus, 2009). For instance, the participant uses the knight to say, Raise the anchor instead of the unavailable pirate during an alternative Pirate Ship 1 play set session. As in MacManus (2009), recombined vocalizations also included verbal statements with appropriate substitutions during alternative probe sessions. For instance, the participant uses the knight to say I ll take my raft instead of the unavailable rowboat. Recombined play actions involved any action completed by an available alternative appropriate character instead of the unavailable character during alternative probe sessions (MacManus, 2009). For example, the participant uses the knight to lower the anchor instead of the unavailable pirate. Vocal and motor stereotypy were also operationally defined for each participant. For Rick, vocal stereotypy was defined as any non-functional vocalizations not directed towards his teacher or other people present in the room. An example included singing. A non-example

20 VIDEO MODELING AND MATRIX TRAINING 20 included Guys, wait for me for the lesson after hearing other students talking about it. Motor stereotypy was defined as moving the characters arms repeatedly in a non-functional way, rocking, dancing, spinning objects in a non-functional manner, tapping objects or floor in a nonfunctional manner with his fingers or with other objects, closing or opening the ship trap door or the treasure chest repeatedly, shaking the treasure chest, moving his hands and/or fingers in front of his eyes in a non-functional way. An example included spinning the flag on the ship. For Jon, vocal stereotypy was defined as any non-functional vocalizations or noises. An example included laughing out of context. Motor stereotypy included bringing the toy close to his eye while grimacing, doing the same movement or action more than once within 5s, rotating toys or objects with his wrists and fingers, rocking, taping objects with fingers or other objects, and closing his eyes tight. An example included rolling the parrot in his fingers repeatedly. For Mike, vocal stereotypy included any non-functional noises or vocalizations. An example included laughing out of context. Motor stereotypy was defined as hand flapping, non-functional arm movement, clapping, rolling objects between his fingers, and rubbing objects with his hands. An example included rubbing the raft with his hands. Appropriate scripted and recombined play vocalizations and actions were scored per opportunity. The total number of scripted vocalizations actually exhibited in each session was divided by the total number of possible scripted vocalizations and multiplied by 100 to obtain the percentage of scripted vocalizations in each session. The method used to record scripted actions, recombined vocalizations and recombined actions was identical. Unscripted vocalizations and actions were scored using frequency per session. Vocal stereotypy was recorded using continuous recording. The total number of seconds with vocal stereotypy in each session was divided by the total number of seconds 180s and

21 VIDEO MODELING AND MATRIX TRAINING 21 multiplied by 100 to obtain the percentage of the session with vocal stereotypy. The method used to record motor stereotypy was identical. Experimental Design. A multiple probe design across play sets within participant was implemented (Horner & Baer, 1978) and the performance obtained in the trained play sets was compared to that of untrained play sets to ensure that changes in the dependent variables were the result of video modeling training. For instance, after training the Pirate Ship 1 play set, the participant s performance with that play set could be compared to that of the knight play set to demonstrate that the increase in appropriate play vocalizations and actions was indeed a result of video modeling training. The order in which the play sets were trained for each participant was counterbalanced in order to control for order effect. Therefore, training for two participants was initiated with the Pirate Ship 1 play set, while training for the third participant was initiated with the Pirate Ship 2 play set. Procedures. Baseline. Baseline sessions were 3 minutes in duration and conducted with all three play sets as well as the alternative play sets. During baseline, the materials from the play sets were placed on the floor, with the characters and accessories aligned. Appendices A, B, and C show the play sets and their layouts at the beginning of the sessions. For instance, during the Pirate Ship 1 play set baseline, the materials from the Pirate Ship 1 play set were aligned on the floor next to the Pirate Ship and the island. The therapist told the participant It is time to play and started the timer. The therapist redirected the participant to the play area if he or she moved away from it for 5s or more. The end of the baseline sessions was signaled to the participant by

22 VIDEO MODELING AND MATRIX TRAINING 22 the timer going off and the therapist saying end. An edible was delivered after baseline sessions regardless of performance. Video modeling training. Prior to training sessions, the participants were shown the video model to be initiated. During video viewing, if the participants stopped looking at the screen for more than 5s, the experimenter redirected them to look at the screen with a verbal statement and a point cue. The video was presented twice. Following the viewing of the video, participants were directed to the play area, and the session started with the experimenter saying It s time to play. For instance, the participant was shown a video of an individual playing with the Pirate Ship 1 play set, then directed to the play set area, and was told It s time to play. An edible was delivered after training sessions regardless of performance. Once the participant completed 80% of both scripted actions and vocalizations for two consecutive sessions, a mastery probe session was conducted. Mastery probes. Mastery probes were identical to baseline sessions. If the participant completed 80% of both actions and vocalization during the mastery probe session, training for that particular play set was completed and training for the next play set was initiated. An edible was delivered after mastery probe sessions regardless of performance. If the participant did not meet mastery criterion, training was re-implemented for a minimum of two additional sessions or until mastery probe criterion was met again. Probe Sessions. Probe sessions were conducted with all other play sets after the mastery of one play set to examine the maintenance of the play skills acquired with the already trained play sets as well as generalization to untrained play sets. Probe sessions were identical to mastery probe sessions, except that probe sessions were conducted for all play sets except the one just mastered. An edible was also delivered after probe sessions regardless of performance.

23 VIDEO MODELING AND MATRIX TRAINING 23 Alternative probe sessions. Alternative probes sessions were conducted after the mastery of a play set and consisted of sessions with modified alternative play sets. An alternative play set consisted of the main element (i.e., one of the two pirate Ships or the castle) from one of the play sets with the materials, such as characters and accessories, from all other play sets. The alternative Pirate Ship 1 play set, shown on Appendix D, consisted of the Pirate Ship and the island from the Pirate Ship 1 play set, with the characters and accessories from the Pirate Ship 2 and Castle play sets. The alternative Pirate Ship 2 play set, shown on Appendix E, consisted of the Pirate Ship from the Pirate Ship 2 play set with the characters and accessories from the Pirate Ship 1 and Castle play sets. The alternative Castle play set, shown on Appendix F, consisted of the castle from the Castle play set with the characters and accessories from the Pirate Ship 1 and Pirate Ship 2 play sets. A video model was not presented to the participant prior to the beginning of the alternative probe sessions. As in baseline and probe sessions, an edible was delivered after alternative probe sessions regardless of performance. Alternative probe 2 sessions with materials from one play set. Alternative probe 2 sessions with materials from one play set were conducted after the mastery of all three play sets and the completion of alternative probe sessions. Alternative probe 2 sessions with materials from one play set consisted of the main element (i.e., one of the two pirate Ships or the castle) from one of the play sets with the materials such as characters and accessories from only one other play set, instead of two as in regular alternative probe sessions. Six alternative probe 2 sessions were conducted. The alternative Pirate Ship 1 probe 2 session with Pirate Ship 2 play set materials consisted of the pirate ship from the Pirate Ship 1 play set with the materials from the Pirate Ship 2 play set. The alternative Pirate Ship 2 probe 2 session with Castle play set materials consisted of the pirate ship from the Pirate Ship 2 play set with the materials from the

24 VIDEO MODELING AND MATRIX TRAINING 24 Castle play set. The alternative Castle probe 2 session with Pirate Ship 1 materials consisted of the castle from the Castle play set with the materials from the Pirate Ship 1 play set. The alternative Pirate Ship 1 probe 2 session with Castle play set materials consisted of the pirate ship from the Pirate Ship 1 play set with the materials from the Castle play set. The alternative Pirate Ship 2 probe 2 session with Pirate Ship 1 play set materials consisted of the pirate ship from the Pirate Ship 2 play set with the materials from the Pirate Ship 1 play set. The alternative Castle probe 2 session with Pirate Ship 2 materials consisted of the castle from the Castle play set with the materials from the Pirate Ship 2 play set. Interobserver agreement. A second observer recorded scripted vocalizations, scripted actions, vocal stereotypy and motor stereotypy for a minimum of 33% of all sessions for each participant. Interobserver agreement or IOA was calculated by dividing the number of agreements by the total number of agreements plus disagreements and multiplying by 100. Rick. IOA was collected for 33% of all sessions for Rick, and averaged 99% for scripted vocalizations (range, 90% to 100%), 99% for scripted actions (range, 90% to 100%), 100% for recombined vocalizations during alternative probe sessions (range, 100% to 100%), 97% for recombined actions during alternative probe sessions (range, 90% to 100%), 97% for vocal stereotypy (range, 83% to 100%), and 95% for motor stereotypy (range, 82% to 100%). IOA for scripted vocalizations and actions was 100% for all 3 play sets in baseline. The mean IOA for scripted vocalizations and actions was 100% for the Pirate Ship 1 play set during training. IOA was 100% for scripted vocalizations and 90% for scripted actions for the Pirate Ship 1 play set during the mastery probe session. IOA for scripted vocalizations and actions was 100% for the Castle play set probe session after Pirate Ship 1 mastery. IOA for recombined vocalizations and actions was 100% for the alternative Pirate Ship 1 play set. The mean IOA for

25 VIDEO MODELING AND MATRIX TRAINING 25 scripted vocalizations and actions was 100% for the Pirate Ship 2 play set during training. IOA for scripted vocalizations and actions was 100% for the Pirate Ship 2 play set mastery probe session. IOA for scripted vocalizations and actions was 100% for the Pirate Ship 1 play set probe session after Pirate Ship 2 mastery. IOA for recombined vocalizations and actions was 100% for the alternative Pirate Ship 2 play set. The mean IOA for scripted vocalizations and actions was 98% for the Castle play set during training sessions (range, 90% to 100%). IOA for scripted vocalizations and actions was 100% for the Pirate Ship 2 play set probe after Castle mastery. IOA for recombined vocalizations and actions was 100% for the alternative Castle play set. IOA for scripted vocalizations and actions was 100% for the Pirate Ship 2 play set during re-training. IOA was 83% for vocal stereotypy and 86% for motor stereotypy for the Pirate Ship 1 play set in baseline. IOA was 92% for vocal stereotypy and 91% for motor stereotypy for the Pirate Ship 2 play set in baseline. IOA was 100% for vocal stereotypy and 84% for motor stereotypy for the Castle play set in baseline. The mean IOA for vocal stereotypy and motor stereotypy was 100% for the Pirate Ship 1 play set during training (range, 99% to 100%). IOA for vocal stereotypy and motor stereotypy was 100% for the Pirate Ship 1 play set during the mastery probe session. IOA was 83% for vocal stereotypy and 98% for motor stereotypy for the Castle play set probe session after Pirate Ship 1 mastery. IOA was 100% for vocal stereotypy and 97% for motor stereotypy for the alternative Pirate Ship 1 play set. The mean IOA was 99% for vocal stereotypy (range, 99% to 100%) and 92% for motor stereotypy (range, 82% to 100%) for the Pirate Ship 2 play set during training. IOA was 97% for vocal stereotypy and 92% for motor stereotypy for the Pirate Ship 2 play set mastery probe session. IOA was 100% for vocal stereotypy and 94% for motor stereotypy for the Pirate Ship 1 play set probe session after Pirate

26 VIDEO MODELING AND MATRIX TRAINING 26 Ship 2 mastery. IOA was 98% for vocal stereotypy and 100% for motor stereotypy for the alternative Pirate Ship 2 play set. The mean IOA was 97% for vocal stereotypy (range, 94% to 100%) and 95% for motor stereotypy (range, 84% to 100%) for the Castle play set during training sessions. IOA for vocal stereotypy and motor stereotypy was 100% for the Pirate Ship 2 play set probe after Castle mastery. IOA was 94% for vocal stereotypy and 98% for motor stereotypy for the alternative Castle play set. IOA for vocal stereotypy and motor stereotypy was 100% for the Pirate Ship 2 play set during re-training. Jon. IOA was calculated for 35% of all sessions for Jon, and averaged 100% for scripted vocalizations (range, 100% to 100%), 98% for scripted actions (range, 90% to 100%), 100% for recombined vocalizations during alternative probe sessions (range, 100% to 100%), 100% for recombined actions during alternative probe sessions (range, 100% to 100%), 95% for vocal stereotypy (range, 81% to 100%), and 94% for motor stereotypy (range, 82% to 100%). IOA for scripted vocalizations and actions was 100% for all 3 play sets in baseline. The mean IOA was 100% for scripted vocalizations and 98% for scripted actions (range, 90% to 100%) for the Pirate Ship 1 play set during the regular training sessions. The mean IOA for scripted vocalizations and actions was 100% for the Pirate Ship 1 play set during training sessions including the prompt Do and Say. The mean IOA was 100% for scripted vocalizations and 95% for scripted actions (range, 90% to 100%) for the Pirate Ship 1 play set during training sessions with the segmented video model. IOA for recombined vocalizations and actions was 100% for the alternative Pirate Ship 1 play set. IOA was 97% for vocal stereotypy and 100% for motor stereotypy for the Pirate Ship 1 play set in baseline. IOA was 99% for vocal stereotypy and 97% for motor stereotypy for the Pirate Ship 2 play set in baseline. IOA was 100% for vocal stereotypy and 99% for motor

27 VIDEO MODELING AND MATRIX TRAINING 27 stereotypy for the Castle play set in baseline. The mean IOA was 92% for vocal stereotypy (range, 81% to 100%) and 93% for motor stereotypy (range, 85% to 99%) for the Pirate Ship 1 play set during the regular training sessions. The mean IOA was 93% for vocal stereotypy (range, 92% to 93%) and 90% for motor stereotypy (range, 82% to 97%) for the Pirate Ship 2 play set during the training sessions including the prompt Do and Say. The mean IOA was 98% for vocal stereotypy (range, 97% to 100%) and 98% for motor stereotypy (range, 96% to 99%) for the Pirate Ship 2 play set during the training sessions with the segmented video model. IOA was 94% for vocal stereotypy and 91% for motor stereotypy for the alternative Pirate Ship 1 play set. Mike. IOA was calculated for 35% of all sessions for Mike, and averaged 100% for scripted vocalizations (range, 100% to 100%), 100% for scripted actions (range, 100% to 100%), 100% for recombined vocalizations during alternative probe sessions (range, 100% to 100%), 100% for recombined actions during alternative probe sessions (range, 100% to 100%), 97% for vocal stereotypy (range, 89% to 100%), and 87% for motor stereotypy (range, 81% to 95%). IOA for scripted vocalizations and actions was 100% for all 3 play sets in baseline. The mean IOA for scripted vocalizations and actions was 100% for the Pirate Ship 2 play set during the regular training sessions. The mean IOA for scripted vocalizations and actions was 100% for the Pirate Ship 2 play set during training sessions including the prompt Do and Say. The mean IOA for scripted vocalizations and actions was 100% for the Pirate Ship 2 play set during training sessions with the segmented video model. IOA for recombined vocalizations and actions was 100% for the alternative Pirate Ship 2 play set. IOA was 93% for vocal stereotypy and 87% for motor stereotypy for the Pirate Ship 1 play set in baseline. IOA was 100% for vocal stereotypy and 83% for motor stereotypy for the Pirate

28 VIDEO MODELING AND MATRIX TRAINING 28 Ship 2 play set in baseline. IOA was 100% for vocal stereotypy and 83% for motor stereotypy for the Castle play set in baseline. The mean IOA was 95% for vocal stereotypy (range, 89% to 98%) and 86% for motor stereotypy (range, 81% to 94%) for the Pirate Ship 2 play set during the regular training sessions. The mean IOA was 98% for vocal stereotypy (range, 97% to 98%) and 88% for motor stereotypy (range, 85% to 91%) for the Pirate Ship 2 play set during the training sessions including the prompt Do and Say. The mean IOA was 100% for vocal stereotypy and 95% for motor stereotypy (range, 95% to 95%) for the Pirate Ship 2 play set during the training sessions with the segmented video model. IOA was 100% for vocal stereotypy and 81% for motor stereotypy for the alternative Pirate Ship 2 play set. Results Rick. Scripted and recombined play. The percentages of scripted vocalizations, scripted actions, recombined vocalizations and recombined actions for Rick are depicted on Figure 12 and summarized on Table 4. During baseline sessions, Rick exhibited low percentages of scripted and recombined actions and vocalizations for all three play sets. During alternative probe sessions before training, Rick exhibited low percentages of recombined actions and vocalizations. After completing the tact training, a probe session was conducted for each play set, with results similar to those observed in baseline for both scripted actions and scripted vocalizations. Video modeling training for the Pirate Ship 1 play set was implemented after tact training, and Rick met mastery criterion after 11 sessions. Following mastery of the Pirate Ship 1 play set, probe sessions and alternative probe sessions were conducted for all play sets. Rick exhibited low to moderate percentages of scripted actions and low percentages of scripted vocalizations for the Pirate Ship 2 and Castle play sets. He also exhibited low to moderate

29 VIDEO MODELING AND MATRIX TRAINING 29 percentages of recombined play for the Pirate Ship 1 and Castle play sets, and high percentages of recombined play for the Pirate Ship 2 play set. At session 29, video modeling training for the Pirate Ship 2 play set was initiated, and mastery criterion was met after 13 sessions. After mastery of the Pirate Ship 2 play set, probe sessions and alternative probe sessions were conducted for all three play sets. Rick exhibited low percentages of scripted play for the Castle play set, and high percentages of scripted play for the Pirate Ship 1 play set. He also exhibited percentages of recombined play that were low to moderate for the Castle play set, moderate to high for the Pirate Ship 1 play set, and high for the Pirate Ship 2 play set. At session 47, video modeling training for the Castle play set was initiated, and mastery criterion was met after 13 sessions. After mastery of the Castle play set, probe sessions and alternative probe sessions were conducted for all three play sets. Rick exhibited high percentages of scripted play for the Pirate Ship 1 play set, but only moderate percentages of scripted play for the Pirate Ship 2 play set. Rick exhibited low to moderate percentages of recombined vocalizations and high percentages of recombined actions during all three types of alternative probe sessions. Because Rick s percentages of scripted vocalizations and scripted actions had dropped below mastery criterion for the Pirate Ship 2 play set, training was re-implemented and mastery quickly achieved in 3 sessions. To further assess generalization, alternative probe 2 sessions were then conducted. During those sessions, the percentages of recombined actions in general were higher than the percentages of recombined vocalizations, and recombination was greater when recombining materials from related play sets than unrelated play sets. Vocal and motor stereotypy. The percentages of Rick s motor and vocal stereotypy across phases and the three play sets are depicted on Table 5. Rick exhibited low to moderate percentages of vocal and motor stereotypy for all three play sets during baseline sessions, during

30 VIDEO MODELING AND MATRIX TRAINING 30 alternative probe sessions before training, and during probe sessions after the completion of the tact training. Once training was implemented for the Pirate Ship 1 play set, the percentage of vocal stereotypy decreased significantly and the percentage of motor stereotypy remained low. Probe sessions were then run with the other play sets, and Rick did not exhibit any stereotypic behavior for the Pirate Ship 2 play set. He also exhibited percentages of motor and vocal stereotypy lower than in baseline for the Castle play set. He also exhibited low percentages of motor and vocal stereotypy during all alternative probe sessions, except for his high percentage of vocal stereotypy during the alternative Castle probe session. When training was implemented for the Pirate Ship 2 play set, low percentages of motor and vocal stereotypy were observed. Low percentages of motor and vocal stereotypy were subsequently observed during probe and alternative probe sessions. When training was implemented for the castle play set, low percentages of motor and vocal stereotypy were observed. Low percentages of motor and vocal stereotypy were subsequently observed during probe and alternative probe sessions, except during the alternative Pirate Ship 1 probe sessions, in which more moderate percentages were noted. Rick did not exhibit any motor or vocal stereotypy during the Pirate Ship 2 re-training sessions. Rick generally exhibited low percentages of vocal and motor stereotypy for all alternative probe 2 sessions, except for a few. More moderate percentages of vocal stereotypy in the alternative Pirate Ship 2 probe 2 session with materials from the Pirate Ship 1 play set and in the alternative Castle probe 2 sessions with the materials from the Pirate Ship 2 play set. More moderate percentages of motor stereotypy were observed during the alternative Pirate Ship 1 probe 2 session with materials from the Pirate Ship 2 play set. Unscripted play vocalizations and actions. The number of unscripted vocalizations during baseline sessions averaged 0.33 for the Pirate Ship 1 play set (range, 0 to 1). During

31 VIDEO MODELING AND MATRIX TRAINING 31 alternative probe sessions, Rick exhibited 1 unscripted vocalization in the first alternative Pirate Ship 1 probe session and 2 unscripted vocalizations in the first alternative Pirate Ship 2 probe session. No other unscripted vocalizations were scored during the rest of the sessions. The number of unscripted actions during baseline sessions averaged 1.7 for the Pirate Ship 1 play set (ranged, 0 to 3). Once training was implemented, the number of unscripted actions decreased and averaged 0.4 (range, 0 to 3). After completion of the training for the Pirate Ship 1 play set, the number of unscripted actions was 2 for the Pirate Ship 2 play set and 1 for the Castle play set. The number of unscripted actions during baseline sessions averaged 1.3 for the Pirate Ship 2 play set (range, 0 to 2). Once training was implemented, the number of unscripted actions decreased and averaged 0.2 (range, 0 to 2). After completion of the training for the Pirate Ship 2 play set, no other unscripted actions were observed during the rest of the sessions. During alternative probe sessions, only 2 unscripted actions occurred in the first alternative Pirate Ship 1 probe session. Jon. Scripted and recombined play. The percentages of scripted vocalizations, scripted actions, recombined vocalizations and recombined actions for Jon are depicted on Figure 13 and summarized on Table 6. The percentages of scripted actions and vocalizations were low during baseline sessions for all three play sets, before and after completion of the tact training. Jon also exhibited low percentages of recombined actions and vocalization for all three play sets. After completion of the tact training, video modeling training for the Pirate Ship 1 play set was implemented but after 10 sessions, Jon had not exhibited any of the scripted vocalizations and very few of the actions. Therefore, a prompt was added. After the presentation of the video, the participant give the discriminative stimulus It s time to play and told to Do and say what you

32 VIDEO MODELING AND MATRIX TRAINING 32 saw in the video. Six sessions were run with the additional prompt, in which Jon did not display any vocalizations or actions. The video was cut (Tereshko et al., 2009) in 13 shorter segments and video modeling was used to teach the first segment. Six additional sessions were conducted, in which Jon did not exhibit any scripted vocalizations and very few of the actions. Vocal and motor stereotypy. The percentages of Jon s motor and vocal stereotypy across phases and the three play sets are depicted on Table 7. The percentage of vocal stereotypy during baseline sessions was fairly low for all three play sets. Once training was implemented for the Pirate Ship 1 play set, the percentage of vocal stereotypy slightly increased slightly at first, but decrease when an additional prompt was added and when training was implemented with a segmented video. Training was never implemented for the Pirate Ship 2 play set and therefore the percentages of vocal stereotypy for that play set during training could not be assessed. Training was never implemented for the Castle play set and therefore the percentages of vocal stereotypy for that play set during training could not be assessed. The percentage of vocal stereotypy during alternative probe sessions were low to moderate. The percentage of motor stereotypy during baseline sessions for all three play sets was moderate. Although on a slightly decreasing trend, the percentage of motor stereotypy during the different training phases for the Pirate Ship 1 play set was generally variable. Training was never implemented for the Pirate Ship 2 play set and the percentages of motor stereotypy for that play set during training were not assessed. Training was never implemented for the Castle play set, and therefore the percentages of motor stereotypy for that play set during training could not be assessed. The percentage of motor stereotypy during alternative probe sessions were low to moderate.

33 VIDEO MODELING AND MATRIX TRAINING 33 Unscripted vocalizations and actions. During the course of the experiment, Jon only exhibited 1 unscripted vocalization which occurred in the first alternative Pirate Ship 2 probe session. During baselines sessions, Jon exhibited 1 unscripted action in the second Pirate Ship 1 baseline session. He also exhibited 1 unscripted action in the first alternative Pirate Ship 2 probe session, and a total of 6 unscripted actions in the 22 Pirate Ship 1 training sessions. Mike. Scripted and recombined play. The percentages of scripted vocalizations, scripted actions, recombined vocalizations and recombined actions are depicted on Figure 14 and summarized on Table 8. The percentages of scripted actions and vocalizations were low during baseline sessions for all three play sets, before and after completion of the tact training. Mike did not exhibit any recombined actions or vocalization for all three play sets. After completion of the tact training, video modeling training for the Pirate Ship 1 play set was implemented but after 10 sessions, Mike had not exhibited any of the scripted vocalizations and very few of the actions. Therefore, a prompt was added. After the presentation of the video, the participant give the discriminative stimulus It s time to play and told to Do and say what you saw in the video. Six sessions were run with the additional prompt, in which Jon did not display any vocalizations or actions. The video was cut (Tereshko et al., 2009) in 13 shorter segments and video modeling was used to teach the first segment. Six additional sessions were conducted, in which Mike did not exhibit any scripted vocalizations and very few of the actions. Vocal and motor stereotypy. The percentages of Mike s motor and vocal stereotypy across phases and the three play sets are depicted on Table 9. The percentages of vocal stereotypy during baseline sessions were low for all three play sets. They remained low once training was implemented for the Pirate Ship 2 play set during all training phases. Training was never

34 VIDEO MODELING AND MATRIX TRAINING 34 implemented for the Pirate Ship 1 play set and therefore the percentages of vocal stereotypy for that play set during training sessions could not be assessed. Training was never implemented for the Castle play set, and we were therefore unable to assess the percentages of vocal stereotypy for that play set during training sessions. The percentage of vocal stereotypy during alternative probe sessions were also generally low. The percentage of motor stereotypy during baseline sessions for all three play sets was high. They remained high once training was implemented for the Pirate Ship 2 play set during all training phases. Training was never implemented for the Pirate Ship 1 play set and therefore the percentages of motor stereotypy for that play set during training could not be assessed. Training was never implemented for the Castle play set, and therefore the percentages of motor stereotypy for that play set during training could not be assessed. The percentage of motor stereotypy was high during all alternative probe sessions. Unscripted vocalizations and actions. Throughout the experiment, Mike did not exhibit any unscripted vocalizations or unscripted actions. Discussion One out of three participants completed training for the three play sets. The targeted appropriate play behavior of the other two participants did not increase, even after modifications were made to the procedures, contrasting with results from other studies on the efficacy of video modeling as a teaching procedure (D Ateno et al. 2003; MacDonald et al., 2005; Paterson & Arco, 2007). A decrease in stereotypic behavior was observed only clearly for the participant who successfully completed the video modeling training, suggesting that decreases in stereotypic behavior following video modeling training, are directly linked to the increase in appropriate behavior. Unscripted play behavior was only observed for Rick and Jon. For Rick, unscripted

35 VIDEO MODELING AND MATRIX TRAINING 35 play vocalizations and actions appeared to decrease as training advanced, replicating results obtained by D Ateno et al. (2003) but contrasting with those obtained by MacManus (2009) on the evolution of unscripted play following video modeling training. Jon s level of unscripted play was low but steady throughout experiment. Phase III: Video Modeling Pre-Requisite Assessment Overview Video modeling training, even after modifications were made to increase its efficacy, was ineffective at increasing the scripted play behavior of two out of three participants. Therefore, a video modeling pre-requisite assessment was conducted to determine whether the lack of increase in appropriate behavior may have been due to a deficit in the skills required to learn with video modeling. Method Participants and Materials. The two participants who did not acquire play skills were included in this phase of the study. The video modeling pre-requisite assessment was conducted based on the procedures developed by Robinson (2009). Included in this assessment were 7 tasks, including 2 video modeling tests, one simultaneous and one delayed match to sample tests, one immediate one delayed imitations of actions with objects tests, and one gross motor imitation test. The materials used for the video modeling tests included a cake with 2 toppings and the pieces forming the character Abby Cadabby. The materials used for the match-tosample (MTS) and imitation of actions with objects tasks included a ball, a plate, a fork, a spoon, a book, 2 cups, and a book. Procedures. The two video modeling tests consisted of assessing the participants ability to imitate certain skills shown on a video. The video modeling scenarios consisted of four and

36 VIDEO MODELING AND MATRIX TRAINING 36 twelve steps. The first one involved making a cake, and eating it paired with the vocalization hmmm. The second one involved building the character Abby Cadabby and making her walk. A single session was conducted with each test. The participant was shown the video model twice consecutively, and then the discriminative stimulus It s time to play was introduced. The participant was then provided with 2 minutes of playtime. The match to sample task consisted of 3 demonstration trials and 9 testing trials. During the demonstration, the participant was shown the sample, followed by the comparisons. The participant was asked which one?, tapped on the elbow and manually guided to make the correct selection. During testing, similar procedures were employed, with some changes. If the participant did not respond within a minute, the experimenter asked which one? If the participant still did not respond, the experimenter tapped his elbow, but manual guidance was not used. A correct response was scored as a + and an incorrect one as a -. The delayed MTS was run identically, except that the comparisons were presented 3s after the sample. The imitation of actions with objects task consisted of having the experimenter provide the discriminative stimulus Do this and model an action with an object, such as stacking 2 cups or putting a ball on a plate. The same materials were provided to the participant who was given 5s to complete the same action. A correct response was scored as a + and an incorrect one as a -. The delayed imitation of actions with objects task was identical except that after the experimenter modeled the action, and the materials were removed from the participant s view for 3s. The gross motor imitation task consisted of the experimenter providing the discriminative stimulus Do this, and modeling a gross motor physical action such as clapping one s hands. The participant was given 3 to 5s to complete the same action. A correct response was scored as a + and an incorrect one as a.

37 VIDEO MODELING AND MATRIX TRAINING 37 Interobserver Agreement. Interobserver agreement was calculated for 100% of all tasks for Jon and 43% of all tasks for Mike during the video modeling pre-requisite assessment. Interobserver agreement was calculated by dividing the number of agreements in a session by the number of agreements plus disagreements. For both participants, the mean interobserver agreement during the video modeling pre-requisite assessment was 100%. Results and Discussion The results of the video modeling pre-requisite assessment for Jon are depicted on Table 10. Jon completed 2/4 and 11/12 steps of the video modeling tests. He responded correctly in 9/9 trials for the simultaneous match to sample task, 9/9 trials for the imitation of actions with objects task, and 9/9 trials for the gross motor imitation task. His responses were also correct in 7/9 trials for the delayed match to sample task and 8/9 trials for the delayed imitation of actions with objects task. The results of the video modeling pre-requisite assessment for Mike are depicted on Table 11. Mike completed 3/4 and 1/12 steps of the video modeling tests. He responded correctly in 3/9 trials for the simultaneous match to sample task, 4/9 trials for the imitation of actions with objects task, and 9/9 trials for the gross motor imitation task. His responses were also correct in 3/9 trials for the delayed match to sample task and 2/9 trials for the delayed imitation of actions with objects task. These results show that one participant, Jon, successfully completed 4 out of 5 of the tasks suggested by Robinson to be pre-requisites to learning with video modeling and was one correct response away to master the 5 th task. It is therefore unclear why Jon did not learn the target skills in Phase II of our study. Mike on the other hand, only successfully completed 1 out of the 5 tasks, which may explain his failure to learn pretend play skills in Phase II of our study.

38 VIDEO MODELING AND MATRIX TRAINING 38 General Discussion The results of Phase I of this study show that two out of three participants met criteria for tact training mastery. Out of the three participants, only one subsequently successfully completed the video modeling training in Phase II of the study. For that participant, after mastery of the Pirate Ship 1 play set, generalization occurred to the related Pirate Ship 2 play set, but not to the unrelated Castle play set. When materials were recombined according to the matrix system, generalization was enhanced, although limited in certain aspects that will be reviewed further. For the other two participants, Phase III was conducted and consisted of a video modeling pre-requisite assessment based on the procedures by Robinson (2009). One of the two participants successfully completed 5/7 of the tasks included in the assessment, while the other participant only completed 2/7 of the task included in the assessment. The results of the participant, Rick, who acquired play skills in Phase II of the study replicate those obtained by Paterson and Arco (2007) in that the skills acquired while training on one play set generalized to a related play set but not to an unrelated play set. It is interesting to note that when training Rick with the Pirate Ship 1 play set, he never exhibited one of the actions, moving the ship. However, after training him with the Pirate Ship 2 play set, which contained the same action, Rick was able to complete the action during the Pirate Ship 1 probe session after mastery of the Pirate Ship 2 play set, showing generalization across related play sets. Rick s results also replicate those obtained by MacManus (2009) by showing that matrix training enhanced generalization when recombining materials from the three play sets, as shown by the increase in recombined vocalizations and actions during alternative probe sessions once training was completed. During these alternative probe sessions, Rick exhibited appropriate play

39 VIDEO MODELING AND MATRIX TRAINING 39 skills with combinations of materials he had not been directly taught to respond to before. Although generalization occurred with Rick, it was limited in several ways. First, generalization of play actions was greater than that of the play vocalizations. Although Rick often used the characters and accessories appropriately during alternative probe sessions, he often simply repeated the script corresponding to the main element of the play set, regardless of the changes in characters and accessories. For instance, in the alternative Pirate Ship 1 probe session, Rick would use the soldier to hide the crown, which was scored as a correct recombined action, but would pair it with the script from the Pirate Ship 1 play set: Arrrggh, I am the ghost pirate, I stole the treasure fro the good pirates. Second, during alternative probe sessions, materials from the other two play sets were available, allowing Rick to choose which one to use. Therefore, during alternative Pirate Ship 1 probe sessions and alternative Pirate Ship 2 probe sessions, Rick would generally use the materials from the related Pirate Ship play set rather than the materials from the unrelated Castle play set. To further assess generalization of the play skills between specific play sets, alternative probe 2 sessions were introduced. In alternative probe 2 sessions, materials from two specific play sets, for instance from a Pirate Ship play set and the Castle play set, were recombined. The results of the alternative probe 2 sessions showed that generalization was greater when recombining materials from the related play sets, that when recombining materials from two unrelated play sets. It is unclear why, yet interesting to notice, that generalization between unrelated play set during alternative Castle probe 2 sessions was greater than between unrelated play sets during the alternative Pirate Ship 1 probe 2 session with materials from the Castle play set and during the alternative Pirate Ship 2 probe 2 session with materials from the Castle play set.

40 VIDEO MODELING AND MATRIX TRAINING 40 The results of Phase II of this study are also interesting in that they contrast with the results of previous studies on the efficacy of video modeling for teaching pretend play skills (D Ateno et al. 2003; MacDonald et al., 2005; Paterson & Arco, 2007). Although video modeling was a successful method for teaching pretend play skills for all three play sets to one participant, the other two participants in our study, Jon and Mike, failed to complete video modeling training, although both demonstrated during the pre-requisite assessment in Phase III of our study that they could learn simple short sequences with video modeling. One reason for this could be that they did not have the necessary pre-requisites for longer and more complex sequences. It could especially be the case for Mike who did not pass any of the pre-requisite assessment tasks, except for the completion of 3/4 steps in one of the video modeling tests. Mike did not acquire tacts in Phase I of the study, which could be explained by the fact that more sessions were needed in order for Mike to complete training or that he simply did not have the pre-requisite necessary to complete such training. Tacting, in turn, may be a necessary pre-requisite skill to learning pretend play vocalizations, and it may explain why he did not acquire play related vocalizations during video modeling training. Jon, unlike Mike, demonstrated that he could do most of the video modeling pre-requisite skills suggested by Robinson (2009). It is therefore unclear why he did not learn the play sequences trained in our study. In addition to the possibility that other pre-requisites than the ones tested in this study are necessary to learn with video modeling, a possible explanation could be that although Jon had the video modeling prerequisites skills, he did not have the pre-requisite skills to engage in pretend play. The results of this study replicate the outcomes of D Ateno et al. (2003) but contrast with those of MacManus (2009) regarding the evolution of unscripted play behavior throughout the experiment. Both Rick and Jon exhibited some unscripted play vocalizations and actions during

41 VIDEO MODELING AND MATRIX TRAINING 41 baseline sessions. For Rick, the number of unscripted vocalizations and actions gradually decreased after the introduction of video modeling training. For Jon, the number of unscripted vocalizations and actions remained stable throughout the experiment. A possible explanation for these results may have been that the video acted as a discriminative stimulus to do exactly and only what was shown by the model. The last question addressed in this study was whether a corollary effect of video modeling was a decrease in stereotypic behavior. The results for Rick show an inverse relation between appropriate play and stereotypic behavior. When scripted play behavior was low, stereotypic behavior was generally moderate to high, and when scripted play behavior increased, stereotypic behavior was generally low. Stereotypic behavior remained at high baseline levels for the other two participants whose percentages of scripted play did not increase. For the other two participants who did not acquire play skills, no or only very slight decreases in stereotypic behaviors were observed. These results suggest that the increase in appropriate play behavior rather than the video modeling procedure itself appears to have resulted in the decrease in stereotypic behavior for Rick. Our study had several limitations that may have contributed to the results. A first limitation is that the different categories of materials heroes, villains, modes of transportation, and a stolen element were not distinct enough. This may explain why generalization during alternative probe sessions was somewhat limited for Rick. For instance, because a character, the princess, was used as the stolen element in the Castle play set, it may not have been clear to a participant that it was meant to be the equivalent of the crown or the treasure, rather than that of the pirate, resulting in limited recombinative generalization.

42 VIDEO MODELING AND MATRIX TRAINING 42 A second limitation and possible reason for the limited recombinative generalization could be that a diagonal matrix strategy rather than a stepwise matrix strategy was used in our study. Goldstein (1983) suggested that a stepwise training strategy may be more effective in producing recombinative generalization than a diagonal training strategy as used in our study. A stepwise training strategy was not used because Goldstein also stated that it may not be required when individuals are familiar with the materials as our participants should have been after the tact training. A third limitation is that it is unclear what role the tact training conducted in this experiment played on the generalization of the skills acquired. This training was included because Goldstein and Mousetis (1989) suggested that the effectiveness of matrix training depends on the familiarity with the materials used. This training was conducted after two baseline sessions and one alternative probe session for each play set. One probe session was conducted for each play set after the tact training, and changes in play behavior were not observed during these probe sessions. Therefore, for the participants in this study, the familiarity with the materials involved did not result in an increase in play behavior during baseline/probe sessions. Also, although generalization did occur in Rick s case, it was limited, and therefore it is uncertain what impact the training actually had on the effectiveness of the matrix system. A fourth limitation is that the three play sets used were from the same brand and the characters and accessories very similar to each other. It would be interesting to examine if generalization could have been obtained with play sets from different brands. A final limitation in our study is that follow up was not conducted in a non-structured leisure time at school or at the participant s home to determine whether the participant would engage in the skills taught without being prompted to do so or whether they would choose it

43 VIDEO MODELING AND MATRIX TRAINING 43 when given the option. Several times in between or after sessions occurred, Jon requested the toys as a leisure item, and it was granted to him, but formal assessment of generalization should be included in the future. Future research should attempt to replicate the results obtained with Rick in this study, while continuing to focus on ways to maximize recombinative generalization in the context of play skills. For example, one might use of a stepwise training strategy. A stepwise training strategy has not yet been used in the context of teaching play skills using video modeling according to a three-dimensional matrix system. Future research on the topic should either include a stepwise training strategy, or upon failure to generalize the skills acquired using a diagonal training strategy, include additional non-diagonal training items. Another area of future research should involve the combination of video modeling with other teaching procedures for individuals who failed to learn with video modeling alone. Although Murzynski and Bourret (2007) successfully combined video modeling and least-tomost prompting to teach daily-living skills such as folding a shirt, it is unclear whether the participants could have acquired the skills with video modeling alone. Future research should therefore include a comparison of video modeling alone against video modeling with least-tomost prompting, or determine whether video modeling can enhance the efficacy of other teaching procedures for participants who failed to learn with video modeling alone. Additionally, future research should attempt to replicate the results obtained by Murzynski and Bourret (2007) for teaching pretend play skills such as those include in our study.

44 VIDEO MODELING AND MATRIX TRAINING 44 References American Psychiatric Association (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4 th ed., text rev.). Washington, DC: Author. Axe, J. B. (2008). Matrix training of instruction following of pre-academic skills with preschoolers with autism (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. Baron-Cohen, S. (1987). Autism and symbolic play. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 5(2), Boyer, M., Miltenberger, R. G., Batsche, C., & Fogel, V. (2009). Video modeling by experts with video feedback to enhance gymnastic skills. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42, Charlop, M. H., & Milstein, J. P. (1989). Teaching autistic children conversational speech using video modeling. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 22, Charlop-Christy, M. H. & Daneshvar, S. (2003). Using Video Modeling to Teach Perspective Taking to Children with Autism. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 5(1), 12. Charlop-Christy, M. H., Le, L., & Freeman, K. A. (2000). A comparison of video modeling with in vivo modeling for teaching children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 30(6), D Ateno, P., Mangiapanello, K., & Taylor, B. (2003). Using video modeling to teach complex play sequences to a preschooler with autism. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 5(1), 5-11.

45 VIDEO MODELING AND MATRIX TRAINING 45 Dauphin, M., Kinney, E.M., & Stromer, R. (2004). Using video-enhanced activity schedules and matrix training to teach sociodramatic play to a child with autism. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 6(4), Delano, M. E. (2007). Video modeling interventions for individuals with autism. Remedial and Special Education, 28(1), Eason, L. J., White, M. J., & Newsom, C. D. (1982). Generalized reduction of self-stimulatory behavior: An effect of teaching appropriate play to autistic children. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 2, Esper, E. A. (1925). A technique for the experiment investigation of associative interference in artificial linguistic material. Language Monographs, 1, Fewell, R. R., & Rich, J. S. (1987). Play assessment as a procedure for examining cognitive, communication, and social skills in multihandicapped children. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 5(2), Ginsburg, K. (2007). The importance of play in promoting healthy child development and maintaining strong parent-child bonds. Pediatrics, 119 (1), Golstein, H., Angelo, D., & Mousetis, L. (1987). Acquisition and extension of syntactic repertoires by severely mentally retarded youth. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 8(4), Goldstein, H., & Mousetis, L. (1989). Generalized language learning by children with severe mental retardation: Effects of peers expressive modeling. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 22,

46 VIDEO MODELING AND MATRIX TRAINING 46 Goldstein, H., & Cisar, C. L. (1992). Promoting interaction during sociodramatic play: Teaching scripts to typical preschoolers and classmates with disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, Guess, D., Sailor, W., Rutherford, G., & Baer, D. M. (1968). An experimental analysis of linguistic development: The productive use of the plural morpheme. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, Hughes, F. P. (1998). Play in special population. In O. N. Saracho, & B. Spodek (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on play in early childhood education (pp ). Albany, NY, US: State University of New York Press, xiii, 323 pp. Jahr, E., Eldevik, S., & Eikeseth, S. (2000). Teaching children with autism to initiate and sustain cooperative play. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 21, Keen, D., Brannigan, K. L., & Cuskelly, M. (2007). Toilet training for children with autism: The effects of video modeling. Journal of Physical and Developmental Disabilities, 19(4), Kinney, E.M., Vedora, J., Stromer, R. (2003). Computer-presented video models to teach generative spelling to a child with an autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 5(1), Lifter, K., Edwards, G., Avery, D., Anderson, S. R., & Sulzer-Azaroff, B. (1988). The Developmental Play Assessment (DPA) Instrument. Mini-seminar presented to the Annual Convention of the American Speech Language Hearing Association, Boston, MA, November Developmental assessment of young children s play: Implications for interventions. Revised, July, 1994.

47 VIDEO MODELING AND MATRIX TRAINING 47 Lifter, K., Sulzer-Azaroff, B., Anderson, S. R., & Edwards Cowdery, G. (1993). Teaching play activities to preschool children with disabilities: The importance of developmental considerations. Journal of Early Intervention, 17(2), MacDonald, R., Sacramone, S., Mansfield, R., Wiltz, K., & Ahearn, W. H. (2009). Using video modeling to teach reciprocal pretend play to children with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 42, MacManus, C. (2009). Teaching and generalising pretend play in children with autism using video modelling and matrix training (unpublished master s thesis). University of Ulster, Ireland. Mueller, M., Olmi, J., & Saunders, K. J. (2000). Re- combinative generalization of withinsyllable units in prereading children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33, Murzynski, N. T., & Bourret, J. C. (2007). Combining video modeling and least-to-most prompting for establishing response chains. Behavioral Interventions, 22, Nikopoulos, C. K., & Keenan, M. (2007). Using video modeling to teach complex social sequences to children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 36, Paterson, C. R., & Arco, L. (2007). Using video modeling for generalizing toy play in children with autism. Behavior Modification, 31, Pellegrini, A. D., & Smith, P. K. (1998). Physical activity play: The nature and function of a neglected aspect of play. Child Development, 69, Piaget, J. (1962). Play, dreams and imitation in childhood. New York, USA: W.W. Norton and Company, Inc.

48 VIDEO MODELING AND MATRIX TRAINING 48 Pierce, K., & Schreibman, L. (1997). Multiple peer use of pivotal response training to increase social behaviors of classmates with autism: results from trained and untrained peers. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, Reagon, K. A., Higbee, T. S., & Endicott, K. (2006). Teaching pretend play skills to a student with autism using video modeling with a sibling as model and partner. Education and Treatment of Children, 29(3), Robinson, M. (2009). Examining prerequisite skills for learning through video modeling (unpublished master s thesis). Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts. Sherrat, D. (2002). Developing pretend play in children with autism: A case study. Autism, 6(2), Stahmer, A. C. (1995). Teaching symbolic play skills to children with autism using pivotal response training. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 25(2), Tereshko, L., MacDonald, R., & Ahearn, W. H. (2009). Strategies for teaching children with autism to imitate response chains using video modeling (unpublished master s thesis). Northeastern University, Southborough, Massachusetts. Ungerer, J. A., & Sigman, M. (1981). Symbolic play and language comprehension in autistic children. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 20(2), Wing, L., Gould, J., Yeates, S.R., & Brierly, L.M. (1977). Symbolic play in severely mentally retarded and in autistic children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 18,

49 VIDEO MODELING AND MATRIX TRAINING 49 Table 1 Data Sheet with Script for the Pirate Ship 1 Play Set

50 VIDEO MODELING AND MATRIX TRAINING 50 Table 2 Data Sheet with Script for the Pirate Ship 2 Play Set

51 VIDEO MODELING AND MATRIX TRAINING 51 Table 3 Data Sheet with Script for the Castle Play Set

52 VIDEO MODELING AND MATRIX TRAINING 52 Table 4 Mean Percentages of Scripted and Recombined Play Actions and Vocalizations for Rick Across the Different Conditions Baseline Alt Probe before training BL after Tact Training Pirate Ship 1 Training Probe after Pirate Ship 1 Training Alt Probe after Pirate Ship 1 Training Pirate Ship 2 Training Probe after Pirate Ship 2 Training Alt Probe after Pirate Ship 2 Training Castle Training Probe after Castle Training Alt Probe after Castle Training Pirate Ship 2 Re- Training Alt Probe 2 Castle Materials Alt Probe 2 Pirate Ship 1 Materials Vocalizations Alt Probe 2 Pirate Ship 2 Materials Pirate Ship 1 0% 0% 0% Mastery Probe Criterion met in 10 sessions 90% 30% 100% 40% 100% 30% 0% 50% Pirate Ship 2 0% 0% 0% 0% 90% Mastery Probe Criterion met in 12 sessions 90% 100% 60% 30% Mastered in 3 sessions 0% 50% Castle 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Mastery Probe Criterion met in 12 sessions 90% 20% 40% 40% Pirate Ship 1 5% 10% 0% Mastery Probe Criterion met in 10 sessions 90% 40% 90% 100% 90% 80% 50% 100% Actions Pirate Ship 2 0% 10% 0% 40% 90% Mastery Probe Criterion met in 13 sessions 90% 90% 60% 100% Mastered in 3 sessions 40% 50% Castle 15% 10% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% Mastery Probe Criterion met in 12 sessions 100% 80% 70% 70%

53 VIDEO MODELING AND MATRIX TRAINING 53 Table 5 Mean Percentages of Vocal and Motor Stereotypy for Rick Across the Different Conditions Baseline Alt Probe before training BL after Tact Training Pirate Ship 1 Training Probe after Pirate Ship 1 Training Alt Probe after Pirate Ship 1 Pirate Ship 2 Training Probe after Pirate Ship 2 Training Alt Probe after Pirate Ship 2 Castle Training Probe after Castle Training Alt Probe after Castle Training Vocal Pirate Ship 2 Re- Training Pirate Ship 1 39% 10% 42% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6% 15% Pirate Ship 2 9% 22% 8% 0% 0% 1% 3% 0% 0% 5% 0% Castle 41% 40% 17% 15% 41% 2% 0% 2% 5% 3% Pirate Ship 1 11% 0% 0% 3% 8% 6% 8% 0% 0% 11% Motor Pirate Ship % 0% 11% 0% 0% 6% 11% 2% 9% 0% 0% Castle 11% 1% 20% 1% 0% 0% 0% 2% 12% 9%

54 VIDEO MODELING AND MATRIX TRAINING 54 Table 6 Mean Percentages of Scripted and Recombined Play Actions and Vocalizations for Jon Across the Different Conditions Baseline Alt Probe before training BL after Tact Training Pirate Ship 1 Training Pirate Ship 1 Training with added prompt Vocalizations Pirate Ship 1 Training with Segmented Video Pirate Ship 1 Pirate Ship 2 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Castle 0% 0% 0% Pirate Ship 1 0% 0% 0% No more than 10% 0% No more than 10% Actions Pirate Ship 2 0% 0% 0% Castle 5% 0% %

55 VIDEO MODELING AND MATRIX TRAINING 55 Table 7 Mean Percentages of Vocal and Motor Stereotypy for Jon Across the Different Conditions Baseline Alt Probe before training BL after Tact Training Pirate Ship 1 Training Pirate Ship 1 Training with added prompt Vocal Pirate Ship 1 Training with Segmented Video Pirate Ship 1 6% 13% 26% 14% 4% 4% Pirate Ship 2 2% 2% 11% Castle 4% 3% 9% Pirate Ship 1 20% 22% 22% 13% 7% 14% Motor Pirate Ship 2 4% 7% 24% Castle 5% 2% 29%

56 VIDEO MODELING AND MATRIX TRAINING 56 Table 8 Mean Percentages of Scripted and Recombined Play Actions and Vocalizations for Mike Across the Different Conditions Baseline Alt Probe before training BL after Tact Training Pirate Ship 1 Training Pirate Ship 1 Training with added prompt Vocalizations Pirate Ship 1 Training with Segmented Video Pirate Ship 1 Pirate Ship 2 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Castle 0% 0% 0% Pirate Ship 1 0% 0% 0% Actions Pirate Ship 2 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Castle 0% 0% 0%

57 VIDEO MODELING AND MATRIX TRAINING 57 Table 9 Mean Percentages of Vocal and Motor Stereotypy for Mike Across the Different Conditions Baseline Alt Probe before training BL after Tact Training Pirate Ship 1 Training Pirate Ship 1 Training with added prompt Vocal Pirate Ship 1 Training with Segmented Video Pirate Ship 1 1% 12% 9% Pirate Ship 2 1.5% 0% 4% 5% 6% 2% Castle 0% 0% 22% Pirate Ship 1 70% 71% 58% Motor Pirate Ship 2 63% 56% 63% 51% 55% 63% Castle 74% 84% 66%

58 VIDEO MODELING AND MATRIX TRAINING 58 Table 10 Results of the Video Modeling Pre-requisite Assessment for Jon Task # Correct/ Total Video Modeling Test 1 2/4 Video Modeling Test 2 11/12 Simultaneous Match to Sample: Pictures to objects 9/9 Imitation of actions with objects 9/9 Gross Motor Imitation 9/9 Delayed Match to Sample: Pictures to objects 7/9 Delayed Imitation of actions with objects 8/9

59 VIDEO MODELING AND MATRIX TRAINING 59 Table 11 Results of the Video Modeling Pre-requisite Assessment for Mike Task # Correct/ Total Video Modeling Test 1 3/4 Video Modeling Test 2 1/12 Simultaneous Match to Sample: Pictures to objects 3/9 Imitation of actions with objects 4/9 Gross Motor Imitation 9/9 Delayed Match to Sample: Pictures to objects 3/9 Delayed Imitation of actions with objects 2/9

60 VIDEO MODELING AND MATRIX TRAINING 60 Instruction: Emergence: BLUE/CAR RED/CAR RED/TRUCK BLUE/TRUCK Blue Red Car Truck Figure 1. Example of a 2-dimentional matrix system with black boxes representing trained combinations and grey boxes representing possible emerging combinations.

61 VIDEO MODELING AND MATRIX TRAINING 61 RICK Figure 2. Results for Rick during the tact assessment and training in sets 1 through 4 in consecutive order.

62 VIDEO MODELING AND MATRIX TRAINING 62 JON Figure 3. Results for Jon during the tact assessment and training in sets 1 through 4 in consecutive order.

63 VIDEO MODELING AND MATRIX TRAINING 63 MIKE Figure 4. Results for Mike during the tact assessment and training in sets 1 through 4 in consecutive order.

64 VIDEO MODELING AND MATRIX TRAINING 64 Figure 5. 3-dimensional matrices according to which training was conducted for Rick, Jon, and Mike.

65 VIDEO MODELING AND MATRIX TRAINING 65 Figure 6. Percentages of scripted vocalizations, scripted actions, recombined vocalizations, and recombined actions for Rick.

66 VIDEO MODELING AND MATRIX TRAINING 66 Figure 7. Percentages of scripted vocalizations, scripted actions, recombined vocalizations, and recombined actions for Jon.

67 VIDEO MODELING AND MATRIX TRAINING 67 Figure 8. Percentages of scripted vocalizations, scripted actions, recombined vocalizations, and recombined actions for Mike.

68 VIDEO MODELING AND MATRIX TRAINING 68 Appendix A Pirate Ship 1 Play Set

69 VIDEO MODELING AND MATRIX TRAINING 69 Appendix B Pirate Ship 2 Play Set

70 VIDEO MODELING AND MATRIX TRAINING 70 Appendix C Castle Play Set

71 VIDEO MODELING AND MATRIX TRAINING Appendix D Alternative Pirate Ship 1 Play Set 71

72 VIDEO MODELING AND MATRIX TRAINING Appendix E Alternative Pirate Ship 2 Play Set 72

73 VIDEO MODELING AND MATRIX TRAINING Appendix F Alternative Castle Play Set 73