Teaching laundry skills to individuals with developmental disabilities using video prompting.

Abstract

Introduction To live as independently as possible, individuals with disabilities need to learn functional skills. For example, living in an apartment may require the person to learn how to prepare meals, wash clothes, and maintain his or her hygiene. To be employed, the individual must learn skills such as answering the phone, washing dishes, bagging items, or mopping the floor. A variety of training procedures has been evaluated for teaching skills to individuals with disabilities. One procedure that has been proven effective through several studies is video modeling (Charlop-Christy & Daneshvar, 2005; Charlop & Milstein, 1989; D'Ateno, Mangiapanello, & Taylor, 2003; Haring, Kennedy, Adams, & Pitts-Conway, 1987; Hine and Wolery, 2006; MacDonald, Clark, Garrigan, & Vangala, 2005; Nikopoulos & Keenan, 2003; Nikopoulos & Keenan, 2004; Reagan, Higbee, & Endicott, 2006; Rehfeldt, Dahman,Young, Cherry, & Davis 2006; Taylor, Levin, & Jasper, 1999). This procedure involves an individual viewing the target skill in segments or in its entirety on video and then performing the skill in a similar setting immediately following the video. Sometimes other techniques are embedded into the procedure such as various prompting hierarchies, feedback, time delay, and/or reinforcement (Ayres & Langone, 2005; Bellini & Akullian, 2007; Delano, 2007). A number of studies have shown that video modeling techniques are an effective strategy for teaching skills such as perspective taking (Charlop-Christy & Daneshvar, 2005), purchasing skills (Nikopoulos & Keenan, 2003; Nikopoulos & Keenan, 2004), play skills (D'Ateno et al., 2003; MacDonald et al., 2005; Reagan et al., 2006; Taylor et al., 1999), cooking skills (Rehfeldt et al., 2003) , self-help skills (Norman, Collins, & Schuster, 2001; Shipley-Benamou, Lutzker, & Taubman, 2002), and social skills (Charlop & Milstein, 1989) to individuals with developmental disabilities. Rehfeldt et al. (2003) demonstrated this procedure for teaching meal preparation skills to 3 adults with moderate to severe mental retardation. The participants watched a 2 1/2 min video and then were cued to perform the task. Praise was delivered for correct responding after each step completed. Findings showed that the video modeling technique was effective for teaching preparation of a simple meal. For some individuals watching the entire skill being performed at once does not lead to skill acquisition. These individuals may require the task to be broken down into steps that are more manageable. When a video model of a complex task is broken down into smaller units and each unit is viewed individually as a cue for the behavior, the process is called video prompting. Sigafoos et al. (2005) demonstrated this strategy when teaching microwave skills to three adults with moderate mental retardation. A 10-step task analysis was created for preparing popcorn in a microwave oven. The participants were then instructed to view one step of the task analysis at a time and complete the step immediately after watching the segment. No reinforcement was delivered for correct responding. Results showed that video prompting was an effective strategy for teaching microwave skills to 2 of the 3 individuals with moderate mental retardation, with maintenance of the skill at the 10-week follow-up. Similarly, Graves, Collins, and Shuster, (2005) demonstrated the effectiveness of video prompting with a constant time delay procedure for teaching meal preparation skills to individuals with disabilities. In a subsequent study Sigafoos et al., (2007) demonstrated that video segments could be chunked together after skill acquisition with video prompting. After the 3 men with autism and mild to moderate mental retardation learned a 10 step dishwashing task with video prompting, the authors faded the procedure by combining the videos into 3-step segments, 5 step segments, and then one whole 10 step segment. …

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 39 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.