View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Using a Video Activity Schedule to Teach Cooperative Games to Autistic Children in a Camp Setting

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Using a Video Activity Schedule to Teach Cooperative Games to Autistic Children in a Camp Setting
Language: English
Authors: Marie Kirkpatrick (ORCID 0000-0002-6253-0504), Mariela E. Tankersley, Gennina Noelle A. Ferrer, Roberta Carrillo Vega
Source: Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities. 2024 36(6):1019-1037.
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 19
Publication Date: 2024
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Autism Spectrum Disorders, Video Technology, Educational Games, Visual Aids, Time Management, Play, Children, Day Camp Programs, Summer Programs, Cooperation, Skill Development
DOI: 10.1007/s10882-024-09966-4
ISSN: 1056-263X
1573-3580
Abstract: Video activity schedules are a combination of video modeling and activity schedules that teach a singular task or a series of tasks to be completed. Instead of a sequence of pictures, videos demonstrate to the learner what is expected to be done. Research has focused heavily on using video activity schedules to teach daily living or vocational skills; however, there is a lack of research on using video activity schedules to teach play skills. In this study, a non-concurrent multiple baseline design across participants was used to evaluate the effect of a video activity schedule to teach four dyads of autistic children how to play cooperative games during a summer day camp. Results indicate that all participants learned how to play the game, including during generalization and maintenance probes. A limitation within the study was a lack of data collected for social communication and social validity. Future research should collect social communication data and/or other measures like indices of happiness (e.g., smiling, laughing, etc.).
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2024
Accession Number: EJ1447945
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwElal6PZdp22VqVWFRtSBcPAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDFMwa7R5xR6hLWnGyQIBEICBm59AxHIHNEzWP-65q_0kzsDnRyqB3iQPYUkUkg4FnVpz2n9fDw5FQhbrobr0GcOgts95pG_qwihyV0Q8WmdEImw48JTRXcS_TYp7uCqQearF91wp1H-nRCIhrGwh6j5YJoZRALxLX8F-9kJFiYsFatYLgzVtEYS0CVNjG0pXC9A4P-7g6Ww03vazTw7G515_AncSmFwdoaL1rcb8
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0180830220;jdp01dec.24;2024Nov14.05:12;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0180830220-1">Using a Video Activity Schedule to Teach Cooperative Games to Autistic Children in a Camp Setting </title> <p>Video activity schedules are a combination of video modeling and activity schedules that teach a singular task or a series of tasks to be completed. Instead of a sequence of pictures, videos demonstrate to the learner what is expected to be done. Research has focused heavily on using video activity schedules to teach daily living or vocational skills; however, there is a lack of research on using video activity schedules to teach play skills. In this study, a non-concurrent multiple baseline design across participants was used to evaluate the effect of a video activity schedule to teach four dyads of autistic children how to play cooperative games during a summer day camp. Results indicate that all participants learned how to play the game, including during generalization and maintenance probes. A limitation within the study was a lack of data collected for social communication and social validity. Future research should collect social communication data and/or other measures like indices of happiness (e.g., smiling, laughing, etc.).</p> <p>Keywords: Autism; Board Games; Video Activity Schedule; Summer camp</p> <p>Copyright comment Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.</p> <p>Autistic children often struggle with the social communication skills needed to successfully participate in play opportunities with peers (American Psychiatric Association, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref1">3</reflink>]). This includes skills such as turn-taking, initiating social interactions with others (e.g., commenting on play behaviors engaged by peers), or responding to social interactions (e.g., answering play-related questions by peers; (Kent et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref2">14</reflink>]; Lory et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref3">23</reflink>]). Due to their difficulties with these skills, autistic children may be provided fewer opportunities to participate in social or play related activities. However, play is a foundational aspect of childhood. Through play, children can learn initial social skills and form friendships (Kent et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref4">14</reflink>]). There are several social and community opportunities or environments, such as participating in play dates, attending birthday parties, attending summer camp, or visiting a children's museum, in which having good play or leisure skills and social skills are needed to successfully participate (Lussenhop et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref5">24</reflink>]; Raulston et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref6">25</reflink>]). Lack of these skills may be attributed to why autistic children and others with developmental disabilities are likely to be excluded from these opportunities or environments (Jones et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref7">13</reflink>]). Therefore, it becomes necessary to help foster these skills in autistic children to increase their learning opportunities.</p> <p>Previous research focused on helping young children acquire board game play to help facilitate social interaction opportunities has typically included systematic instruction as the primary teaching mechanism for game play and social communication. Systematic instruction includes systematic prompting procedures (e.g., least-to-most, most-to-least, graduated guidance, time delay; Cengher et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref8">9</reflink>]; Jimenez & Alamer, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref9">12</reflink>]; Lorah et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref10">22</reflink>];) delivered by external support personnel (e.g., teacher, parent), and is an evidence-based practice (EBP) for autistic people (Steinbrenner et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref11">32</reflink>]). Systematic instruction ensures that the learner engages in the correct response and prompts are faded as the learner demonstrates skill acquisition of the target behavior. This approach is beneficial for learners who are unable to demonstrate proficiency with the target behavior such as the case for play or social skills for autistic children. Barton et al. ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref12">5</reflink>]) and Trimlett et al. ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref13">33</reflink>]) both used an intervention package relying on the use of systematic instruction (i.e., least-to-most prompting), visual schedules, and neurotypical peers to teach game play behavior and social communication to young children with developmental disabilities. Both studies incorporated cooperative board games, which requires the players to work together to achieve a goal; thus, providing opportunities to socially interact in a, generally, positive manner toward one another to help develop initial social skills. These studies were successful at teaching game play behavior; however, Trimlett notes that systematic instruction can be resource intensive and access to neurotypical peers may be more challenging dependent on setting. While systematic instruction is effective for autistic people, some aspects may not be favored by autistic people. For example, autistic people have indicated that they find physical prompts to be aversive and unethical due to lack of consent obtained prior to doing so (Anderson, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref14">4</reflink>]; Sandoval-Norton et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref15">26</reflink>]). Therefore, other EBPs that are more preferred by autistic people, like video modeling (Cardon & Azuma, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref16">8</reflink>]), may be more socially valid.</p> <p>Video modeling is a video representation of a behavior being performed and involves an individual observing the video to imitate the behavior of the model (Cooper et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref17">11</reflink>]). The typical approach to video modeling requires the learner to watch the video in its entirety before imitating the target behavior (Charlop-Christy et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref18">10</reflink>]). However, a variation of video modeling, video activity schedules, has emerged as a more effective way to teach more complex behavior chains often included in skills such as adaptive skills, social skills, and play or leisure skills. Kirkpatrick et al. ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref19">16</reflink>]) describe two types of video activity schedules, within-activity and across-activity. Within-activity video activity schedules, also referred to as video prompting in the literature, sequence shorter video models that model a step, or cluster of steps, in a behavior chain of one target behavior (e.g., folding clothes). The learner watches a short video model of the step(s), imitates the behavior, then returns to the video activity schedule to proceed to the next video model. This process repeats until the behavior chain is complete (Cannella-Malone et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref20">7</reflink>]). An across-activity video activity schedule is used to teach the completion order of multiple activities (i.e., behavior chains), often those known to the learner (Shepley et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref21">27</reflink>]; Spriggs et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref22">31</reflink>]). Research suggests that these tasks can be similar in form (e.g., exercise moves), or different (e.g., household chores; Kirkpatrick et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref23">16</reflink>]). For example, teaching a learner to complete an arts and crafts task, then a yoga activity, and then reading a book. Recent literature syntheses indicate that video activity schedules are primarily being used to support acquisition of daily living skills and limited research exists on its use with play or leisure skills, particularly for young autistic children (Aljehany & Bennett, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref24">2</reflink>]; Kirkpatrick et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref25">16</reflink>]).</p> <p>Given the concerns noted by Trimlett et al. ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref26">33</reflink>]) regarding systematic instruction and accessibility of neurotypical peers, there is a need to evaluate interventions that do not focus on systematic instruction as the predominant teaching mechanism for game play, or the use of neurotypical peers. Further, an evaluation of approaches that can be included in opportunities where social interactions are fostered and needed such as camps would be warranted. Therefore, the purpose of the current study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a within-activity video activity schedule to teach young autistic children how to play cooperative board games during an inclusive camp experience. Specifically, the research questions posed were:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> To what extent does a within-activity video activity schedule increase game play behavior in autistic children?</item> <p></p> <item> Are similar effects observed when playing a novel game?</item> <p></p> <item> Do the effects with the within-activity video activity schedule maintain over time and with new autistic peers?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0180830220-2">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0180830220-3">Participants</hd> <p>Prior to the beginning the, the university's Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved the study. Participants were recruited from a university-led inclusive summer day camp for autistic children and their siblings. To participate in the study, participants must have met the following inclusion criteria: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref27">1</reflink>) communicate in short sentences using verbal communication (e.g., vocally speaking in a minimum of 4-word sentences), (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref28">2</reflink>) have no or limited challenging behavior (e.g., aggression toward others, elopement, etc.), (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref29">3</reflink>) be able to imitate from an in-vivo model, and (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref30">4</reflink>) be within the ages of six and nine years old. The researchers screened children into the study based on discussion with the child's parents/guardians and observation of required prerequisite skills (i.e., no challenging behavior, ability to communicate vocally, and imitate others). Written parental/guardian consent was obtained for all participants. Prior to each session, the researcher obtained verbal assent from each participant.</p> <p>Eight autistic children participated in this study and were grouped in to four dyads. In the first dyad was Diego, a 7-year-old Hispanic male, and Luke, an 8-year-old White male. Max, a 7-year-old White male, and Camila, a 9-year-old Hispanic female, were in the second dyad. Sofia, a 7-year-old Hispanic female, and Mariana, an 8-year-old Hispanic female. Elena, a 7-year-old Hispanic female, and Leah, a 7-year-old mixed race female, made up the fourth dyad.</p> <hd id="AN0180830220-4">Setting and Materials</hd> <p>The study was conducted on a university campus during a university-led inclusive summer day camp for autistic children and their siblings. The summer day camp focuses on increasing social communication skills, adaptive skills, and reducing challenging behavior. The participants were pulled from the main group activities to complete the study sessions and then rejoined the main group activities after research was conducted. The room where the study took place was an office-like room that was divided into a lounge space containing a small couch, a circular coffee table, chairs, and a TV, while the other side was a work area with a desk space, wall cabinets, and chairs. The participants sat around the coffee table while playing the game or sat on the sofa or chairs that were located no more than 3 feet from the coffee table when it was not their turn. Participants could elect to sit around the coffee table when it was not their turn; however, most elected to sit on the couch or chairs. During the study, the primary researcher stood near the participants to collect data and implement the protocol while the other members of the research team stood at the back of the room in the work area collecting reliability data.</p> <p>The materials used included two board games– Feed the Woozle, and Hoot Owl Hoot, an iPad, pens or pencils, data sheets, and clipboards. The Feed the Woozle board game consisted of one die, a plastic spoon approximately the size of a cooking utensil, food tokens (i.e., quarter sized tokens displaying pictures of monster snacks), Feed the Woozle picture tokens, a 10-spaced token board, a game spinner with six gross motor movement options (i.e., bunny hop, walk backwards, spinning in a circle, "go crazy", hula dance, and march), and a monster cardboard cutout that could stand upright and had a large whole cutout for the mouth. Hoot Owl Hoot consisted of a rectangular board with various colored circles (i.e., spaces) with a starting point near the edge of the board that spiraled inward toward a nest in a tree, four owl player pieces made of cardboard, and square game cards representing the different colored spaces (i.e., red, orange, yellow, green, blue, and purple).</p> <p>The video activity schedule for each game was created on an iPad using the Keynote app. Each video was recorded from a third person perspective involving two adults modeling the appropriate way to play the game based on the task analysis that was created and included two or three steps clustered together. The videos were shot using the iPad and uploaded to the appropriate slide on Keynote. One iPad was used for the video activity schedule. Participants would approach and engage with the iPad located on the coffee table during their turn. The video activity schedule for Feed the Woozle consisted of five videos to be completed per turn and the video activity schedule for Hoot Owl Hoot consisted of three videos to be completed per turn. The technology training video activity schedule consisted of four videos. When determining which step or steps should be included in the video models, the researcher considered whether producing a video for a single step would disrupt the chain of behaviors. For example, creating a 1 s video demonstrating die rolling, then another 2 s video demonstrating saying the corresponding number out loud, followed by another 3 s video demonstrating putting the matching number of snacks on the spoon, may disrupt the smaller chain of behaviors related to the game play behaviors around the die rolling. See Table 1 for the how the videos were matched to the game task analyses and the duration of the video models. See Figs. 1 and 2 for pictures of the video activity schedules. The video models for the games can be provided upon request to the first author.</p> <p>Table 1 Game Task Analyses and Video Model Duration</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Feed the Woozle</p></th><th align="left"><p>VM duration</p></th><th align="left"><p>Hoot Owl Hoot</p></th><th align="left"><p>VM duration</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>1. Roll the dice</p><p>2. Say the number on the dice out loud</p><p>3. Place the matching number of snacks on the spoon</p><p>4. Spin the spinner with finger(s)</p><p>5. Say the movement out loud</p><p>6. Pick up the spoon</p><p>7. Walk to the Woozle holding the spoon and engaging in the assigned movement</p><p>8. Feed the Woozle the snacks by dumping the contents of the spoon past the plane of the mouth</p><p>9. Walk back to the table (or starting point) with the spoon</p><p>10. Put the matching number of Woozle tokens on the token board</p><p>11. Give the spoon to the next child</p><p>12. Tell the next child, "That was fun. It's your turn."</p></td><td align="left"><p>9 s</p><p>6 s</p><p>16 s</p><p>9 s</p><p>4 s</p></td><td align="left"><p>1. Pick up one card from the pile</p><p>2. Place the card in front of you</p><p>3. Pick up another card from the pile</p><p>4. Place the card in front of you</p><p>5. Pick one of the two cards by holding it up</p><p>6. Move the owl forward to a color that matched the selected card</p><p>7. Put the two cards in the discard pile</p><p>8. Tell the other child, "That was fun. It's your turn."</p></td><td align="left"><p>7 s</p><p>16 s</p><p>5 s</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Note. VM video model</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 1 Feed the Woozle Video Activity Schedule</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 2 Hoot Owl Hoot Video Activity Schedule</p> <hd id="AN0180830220-5">Dependent Variable</hd> <p>The primary dependent variable was the percentage of game play behavior completed independently and correctly. The researchers developed a task analysis for both games that included each step necessary to play the game. The task analysis included responses related to directly playing the game and script to indicate turn taking amongst participants. A response was counted as correct when a participant independently completed a step from the task analysis within 5 s of watching the corresponding video to the step(s) of the game. See Table 1 for the task analyses for the games. Within each 10-min session, the participants took turns playing the game. Data were collected for each participant during each of their turns. The data reflected the total number of steps completed across all turns taken during the session. In baseline, the average number of turns per participant was two, while intervention had an average number of four. The number of steps correct were divided by the total number of correct and incorrect steps taken during the participant's turn and multiplied by 100 to calculate a percentage.</p> <hd id="AN0180830220-6">Interobserver Agreement and Procedural Fidelity</hd> <p>To evaluate the reliability of the data collected on the dependent variable, secondary researchers collected interobserver agreement (IOA). This was done in person during the session or from a video recording. IOA was collected for 100% of baseline sessions for Dyad 1, 83% for Dyad 2, 100% for Dyad 3, and 57% for Dyad 4. IOA for tech training was collected for 100% for Dyad 1 and Dyad 2. For Dyad 3 and Dyad 4, IOA for tech training was not collected. IOA was collected for 100% of intervention sessions for Dyad 1, 100% of Dyad 2, 60% of Dyad 3, and 40% of Dyad 4. IOA for generalization sessions was collected for 100% for Dyad 1, 66% for Dyad 2, 100% for Dyad 3, and 66% for Dyad 4. IOA was collected for 100% of maintenance sessions for all dyads. The primary and secondary researchers both independently collected data on the same version of data collection sheets. When both researchers recorded the same step on the task analysis the same way, an agreement was reached between the two researchers. IOA was calculated by taking the total number of agreements and dividing them by the number of agreements and disagreements and then multiplying by 100 to calculate a percentage. Training for all researchers included reviewing the data sheets for both board games, discussing the operational definition of an independent correct response, and discussion of the 5 s latency for the participant to engage in the step before a verbal prompt was provided. Further training included researchers role-playing the sessions to determine correct and incorrect responses. Mean IOA for baseline, including the generalization probe, was 100% across all dyads. Mean IOA for technology training was 100%, 97% (range, 91–100%), 100%, and 100% for Dyad 1, Dyad 2, Dyad 3, and Dyad 4, respectively. For intervention, the mean IOA, including the generalization probes, was 95% (range, 82–100%), 95% (range, 84–100%), 83% (range, 47–100%), and 94% (range, 72–100%) for Dyad 1, Dyad 2, Dyad 3, and Dyad 4, respectively. IOA for the combined generalization/maintenance probe was 95%, 99%, 100%, and 100% for Dyad 1, Dyad 2, Dyad 3, and Dyad 4, respectively. IOA was low in some phases of the study. This was hypothesized to be attributed to having different data collectors and lack of time to review the task analysis regularly. To account for poor IOA, correct and incorrect responses should have been reviewed more throughout the study or require the same IOA data collectors throughout the study.</p> <p>A secondary researcher observed and collected procedural fidelity either in person during the sessions or from a video recording. The researcher was expected to meet a minimum of 80% correct implementation during research sessions. Other researchers provided the implementer with feedback on their implementation of the research protocol and shared their procedural fidelity at the conclusion of each research session. Procedural fidelity was collected for 100% of baseline, intervention, generalization, and maintenance sessions for Dyad 1 and Dyad 2. Procedural fidelity was collected for 100% of baseline sessions, 40% of intervention sessions, 67% of generalization sessions, and 100% of maintenance sessions for Dyad 3. For Dyad 4, procedural fidelity was collected for 92% of baseline sessions, 100% of intervention sessions, 0% of generalization sessions, and 100% of maintenance sessions. Mean procedural fidelity for baseline, including generalization probes, was 81% (range, 56–100%), 89%, 97% (range, 78–100%), and 93% (range, 82–100%) for Dyad 1, Dyad 2, Dyad 3, and Dyad 4, respectively. For intervention, the mean procedural fidelity, including generalization probes, was 100%, 92% (range, 75–100%), 97% (range, 88–100%), and 91% (range, 75–100%) for Dyad 1, Dyad 2, Dyad 3, and Dyad 4, respectively.</p> <p>Fidelity for the combined generalization and maintenance probe was 100% across all participants. Baseline sessions for Dyad 1 & Dyad 2 with low procedural fidelity occurred due to the researcher failing to orient the participants to the phase (i.e., baseline) of the study they were in.</p> <hd id="AN0180830220-7">Experimental Design</hd> <p>A non-concurrent multiple baseline design across participant dyads (Ledford & Gast, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref31">20</reflink>]) was used to evaluate the effect of a video activity schedule on correct game play among participants. Due to the arrangement of the camp, participant dyads were only available for one week each, making a non-concurrent design the most feasible. While non-concurrent multiple baseline designs have historically been perceived to be less rigorous than concurrent multiple baseline designs, they can still afford researchers with the capability of determining a functional relation within and across tiers, particularly for designs evaluating effects across participants (see Ledford, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref32">19</reflink>]; Ledford & Zimmerman, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref33">21</reflink>]; Slocum et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref34">28</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref35">29</reflink>]; Smith et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref36">30</reflink>]). Additionally, the participants were randomized a priori to the number of baseline sessions they would receive (i.e., three, five, or seven sessions) and the tiers were organized in the visual depiction of the design to reflect this order. Scholars in single-case research methodology have advocated for the use of randomization to control for researcher bias (Kratochwill et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref37">17</reflink>]; Ledford & Zimmerman, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref38">21</reflink>]). This approach combined with the fact that the participant dyads completed all but the maintenance phase independent of each other, reduced any likelihood that one dyad's performance would impact the performance of another, thus, reducing threats to internal validity (Ledford, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref39">19</reflink>]; Slocum et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref40">29</reflink>]). Visual analysis of the data was used to determine the extent to which a functional relation could be determined.</p> <p>The following phases all occurred within the 1 week of camp- baseline, baseline generalization probes, technology training, intervention, and intervention generalization probes. The combined maintenance and generalization probe was conducted 1–2 months after the dyad participated in camp. For each tier of the multiple baseline design, baseline sessions occurred over at least 2 days, baseline generalization probes occurred in one day, technology training occurred in 1 day, intervention sessions occurred over at least 2 days, intervention generalization probes occurred in 1 day, and the combined maintenance and generalization probe occurred in 1 day.</p> <hd id="AN0180830220-8">Procedures</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0180830220-9">Baseline</hd> <p>The purpose of the baseline condition was to determine if the participants were able to play the game without the use of the video activity schedule. Before beginning the first session, the researcher explained the different materials of the game and randomly chose a participant to start their turn. Prior to each session, the researcher reviewed the objective of the game and showed the participants the materials, but indicated help could not be provided. The researcher informed the participants to play the game and often told the participants to "Try their best". The baseline condition occurred for 10 min for each session unless the session was terminated early. Termination criteria was established prior to the study. Criteria for terminating a session included: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref41">1</reflink>) any participants engaging in aggressive challenging behavior for 1 min, and/or (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref42">2</reflink>) if the participants did not engage, or ceased to engage, with game and materials for 1 min. Sessions were terminated in baseline due to non-engagement with game materials, no participants engaged in challenging behavior.</p> <hd id="AN0180830220-10">Technology Training</hd> <p>Prior to intervention session, the researchers taught all participants how to use a video activity schedule on the Keynote app on an iPad. The technology training consisted of a 15-step task analysis within a video activity schedule that included four video models that ranged in duration from 4–7 s. See Table 2 for the task analysis. The selected activity involved stacking Lego blocks in a specific manner. The researchers initially used an errorless learning session to teach the participants how to use the video activity schedule by helping each participant through each part of the schedule using verbal and gesture prompts. After the errorless learning, the participant was expected to independently complete the activity with the video activity schedule. The researcher prompted the participants to start the video activity schedule and waited 5 s for the participant to engage in the target behavior. If the participant did not engage in the step, the researcher provided systematic instruction via least-to-most (LTM) prompting starting with a verbal prompt. For the participants to be done with training, each participant had to independently operate the video activity schedule and imitate the model in the video with 100% accuracy for two consecutive sessions. These sessions typically lasted about 2 min.</p> <p>Table 2 Technology Training Task Analyses</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Step</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>1. Press the play button on the first video</p><p>2. Watch the first video to completion</p><p>3. Imitate the first video by selecting corresponding Lego piece and placing it in front of you</p><p>4. Select the second slide of the video activity schedule on the left side</p><p>5. Press the play button on the second video</p><p>6. Watch the second video to completion</p><p>7. Imitate the second video by selecting corresponding Lego piece and stacking it on top of the previous piece</p><p>8. Select the third slide of the video activity schedule on the left side</p><p>9. Press the play button on the third video</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>10. Watch the third video to completion</p><p>11. Imitate the third video by selecting corresponding Lego piece and stacking it on top of the previous piece</p><p>12. Select the fourth slide of the video activity schedule on the left side</p><p>13. Press the play button on the fourth video</p><p>14. Watch the fourth video to completion</p><p>15. Imitate the fourth video by selecting corresponding Lego piece and stacking it on top of the previous piece</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0180830220-11">Video Activity Schedule</hd> <p>After technology training was completed for each participant in the dyad, intervention sessions began. Before beginning the first session, the researcher explained the different materials of the game and randomly chose a participant to start their turn. At the beginning of each intervention session, the researcher instructed the participants to refer to the video activity schedule to complete the game. After reminding participants to refer to the video activity schedule, the researcher showed the participants the materials and reviewed the names of the movements on the spinner. If the participants did not engage in the target behavior within 5 s of watching the video model, or if an error was made, the researcher used systematic instruction (i.e., LTM). For example, if the participant did not engage in the step, the researcher provided a general verbal prompt (e.g., "Do what the video showed you"). If the participant made an error or still did not engage in the step after 5 s, the researcher then provided a specific verbal prompt (e.g., "Put three snacks on your spoon"), then a model (e.g., putting snacks on the spoon and saying, "You try"), etc. If a prompt was given, the step was marked as incorrect. After the first participant completed their turn, they sat down in the game play area, and the other participant took their turn. Each participant referred to the video activity schedule before imitating the steps in the video. After the participant completed the step(s) in a video, the participant would again refer to the video activity schedule to watch the next video showing the next steps, and then imitate those steps in the video. This pattern repeated until completion of their turn. Each participant took turns playing the game until the 10-min timer ran out. Data collection stopped at the conclusion of the 10-min session; however, participants were allowed to continue playing the game until it was finished (i.e., all tokens acquired). Instructions for the board game indicated the typical time to play the game was about 10–15 min. Participants were expected to demonstrate at least 80% of the steps correct for two consecutive sessions to move on to the intervention generalization probes. Due to the time constraints of the camp, decisions about reaching mastery criteria were made based on the data for at least one participant in the dyad.</p> <hd id="AN0180830220-12">Generalization Probes</hd> <p>The researchers tested for generalization in baseline and intervention using a different game, Hoot Owl Hoot. One baseline probe was conducted following baseline sessions, and two intervention probes were conducted following intervention sessions. During baseline, the researchers used the same procedures to the primary game, and the participants were not given the video activity schedule. During the intervention phase, the researchers introduced a video activity schedule for Hoot Owl Hoot that was formatted similarly to Feed the Woozle. The same procedures used with the primary game were used for the intervention generalization probes.</p> <hd id="AN0180830220-13">Maintenance and Generalization Probe</hd> <p>A single combined maintenance and generalization probe took place 1–2 months after the conclusion of the study. The session was conducted in a play date format in which a group of four participants played the game together. Additionally, the groups did not include the dyad partners. Specifically, Group 1 contained Luke, Camila, Sofia, and Leah, while Group 2 was Diego, Max, Mariana, and Elena. The probe for Group 1 occurred 1 month after the study was completed, while the probe for Group 2 occurred 2months after. The researchers followed the same procedures used in the intervention sessions for playing Feed the Woozle.</p> <hd id="AN0180830220-14">Results</hd> <p>Figure 3 depicts the results of this study. During baseline, for Dyad 1, neither Diego nor Luke played the game correctly during baseline. During the generalization probe, Diego completed 0% of steps correctly and Luke performed 25% of steps correctly. Both participants completed technology training after two sessions. During intervention, there was an immediate effect for both participants with high levels of responding and slight variability. No overlap occurred between baseline and intervention sessions for both participants. Diego and Luke each completed 88% of steps correctly (range, 83–92% for Diego and 85-94% for Luke). During generalization sessions, both participants performed at the same level as intervention. Diego performed 94% of steps correctly and Luke performed at 93%. For maintenance, both participants performed at a slightly lower level than intervention. Diego performed 83% of steps correctly and Luke performed at 67%.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 3 Participant Data. Note. TT technology training. Filled shapes represent Feed the Woozle game and open shapes indicate generalization probes with Hoot Owl Hoot</p> <p>For Dyad 2, during baseline, neither participant completed the game correctly, including during generalization baseline sessions. Both participants completed technology training in two sessions. During intervention, both participants showed an immediate increase in correct game play. Correct game play occurred at moderate to high levels, with some variability and an overall increasing trend. No overlap occurred between baseline and intervention sessions for both participants. Max completed an average of 84% (range, 58–97%) of steps correctly and Camila completed 80% (range, 44–97%) of steps correctly. During generalization and maintenance sessions, both participants performed correct game play at about the same level as intervention sessions. During generalization, Max and Camila completed an average of 94% (range, 88–100%) and 83% (range, 70–96%) of steps correct, respectively. Both participants maintained high levels during the maintenance session.</p> <p>During baseline, for Dyad 3, correct game play occurred at low levels with no variability and no trend for both participants. Sofia did not complete any steps correctly in baseline and Mariana completed an average of 2% (range, 0–8%). Sofia needed two sessions of technology training and Mariana needed three sessions to move on to intervention. During intervention, there was an immediate effect in correct game play for Sofia with correct game play occurring at high levels with no variability and a stable trend. Sofia completed an average of 90% (range, 75–100%) of steps correctly during intervention. For Mariana, correct game play occurred at low to moderate levels with slight variability and an increasing trend. No overlap occurred between baseline and intervention sessions for both participants. Mariana completed an average of 43% (range, 8–79%). During generalization sessions, Sofia performed at the same level as intervention with an average of 90% (range, 89–90%). Mariana performed at low levels during generalization sessions with an average of 7% (range, 0–13%). For maintenance, both participants maintained similar levels of responding as intervention, Sofia completed an average of 85% and Mariana completed an average of 67%.</p> <p>For Dyad 4, during baseline, correct game play occurred at low levels with no variability for both participants. During the generalization probe, Leah performed 25% of steps correctly and Elena did not complete any steps correctly. Elena and Leah each needed two technology training sessions to move on to intervention. During intervention, there was an immediate effect in correct game play for Elena with high levels of responding with slight variability. For Leah, correct game play occurred at moderate levels with some variability and an increasing trend. No overlap occurred between baseline and intervention sessions for both participants. Elena completed an average of 87% (range, 80–95%) steps correct and Leah completed an average of 50% (range, 42–64%). For generalization sessions, Elena performed at low levels with an average of 26% (range, 21–31%), and Leah performed at higher levels than intervention with an average of 79% (range, 69–88%). For maintenance, both participants maintained similar levels of responding as intervention. Elena completed 92% of steps correctly and Leah completed 78% of steps correctly.</p> <p>Across all dyads, errors occurred for each step of the task analysis for the Feed the Woozle game. The steps with the most errors included the step in which the participant was expected to state the number on the die rolled (i.e., Step 2; <emph>n</emph> = 37), the step in which the participant was expected to state the gross motor movement to engage in while feeding the Woozle (i.e., Step 5; <emph>n</emph> = 35), and the step in which the participant gave the spoon to the other participant and stated, "That was fun. It's your turn" (i.e., Step 12; <emph>n</emph> = 27). See Table 3 for the total number of errors omitted for each step of playing Feed the Woozle across all dyads.</p> <p>Table 3 Total Number of Errors Made during Intervention Sessions</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Feed the Woozle Steps</p></th><th align="left"><p>Total Number of Errors</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>1. Roll the dice</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>8</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>2. Say the number on the dice out loud</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>37</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>3. Place the matching number of snacks on the spoon</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>14</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>4. Spin the spinner with finger(s)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>10</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>5. Say the movement out loud</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>35</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>6. Pick up the spoon</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>7</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>7. Walk to the Woozle holding the spoon and engaged in the assigned movement</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>19</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>8. Feed the Woozle the snacks by dumping the contents of the spoon past the plane of the mouth</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>9. Walk back to the table (or starting point) with the spoon</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>10. Put the matching number of Woozle tokens on the token board</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>22</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>11. Give the spoon to the next child</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>24</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>12. Tell the next child, "That was fun. It's your turn."</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>27</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0180830220-15">Discussion</hd> <p>The purpose of this study was to evaluate <bold>t</bold>he effectiveness of a within-activity video activity schedule to teach young autistic children how to play cooperative board games. All participants improved their game play behavior from baseline. Specifically, six of the eight participants met mastery criteria of 80% across two sessions. These results suggest that a video activity schedule can be used to teach cooperative game play to autistic children.</p> <p>Previous studies have focused on using systematic instruction, visual schedules, and peers (Barton et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref43">5</reflink>]; Trimlett et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref44">33</reflink>]) to teach game play behavior. This study advances previous research on this topic by using a video activity schedule to teach more complex games to autistic children. Like the Trimlett study, Feed the Woozle was used as the primary board game. However, the current study increased the complexity of the game from Level 1 to Level 2. The creators of the game provide options of ways to play the game that increase in complexity. Level 1 (recommended for ages 3+) indicates players should just roll the dice and feed the Woozle the corresponding number of snacks and fill up their token board with the matching number of tokens to win the game. For Level 2 (recommended for ages 4+) the same rules apply; however, the player must also spin the movement spinner to engage in a gross motor movement while they attempt to feed the Woozle. Level 3 (recommended for ages 5+) requires players to do everything outlined in Level 1 and 2, but now requires them to close their eyes and seek guidance from peers to tell them where the Woozle is (e.g., peer says, "Go straight." "No, walk to the left."). Because the participants in this study were older than those of Trimlett et al. ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref45">33</reflink>]), it was assumed to be developmentally appropriate. Furthermore, it was hypothesized that the videos would help support the more complex game behavior. Our data suggests that the participants were able to independently spin the spinner and engage in the corresponding movement. This did require the researchers to review the movements on the spinner prior to sessions each day.</p> <p>To ensure that minimal prompts may be needed during intervention, this study employed a technology training phase. Through this phase, the learners were taught how to use the technology (e.g., press play, locate the next video, etc.) and the researchers ensured they could imitate the behaviors performed in the video. By using errorless learning and then checking for independence by introducing a time delay, the researchers were able to determine whether the participants could independently self-instruct themselves through the task. This approach is used in the video activity schedules literature (see Kirkpatrick et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref46">15</reflink>]; Ledbetter-Cho et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref47">18</reflink>]). Thus, decreasing the need to provide regular prompts as part of the intervention. During intervention, LTM was only used to correct errors made or if participants failed to imitate the behavior modeled in the video after 5 s. While data were not collected on types of prompts given during these sessions, anecdotally, the researchers never provided more than general or specific verbal prompts. However, seven of the eight participants did not require prompting to reach training mastery criteria. This approach differs from previous research in game play like Trimlett et al. ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref48">33</reflink>]) and Barton et al. ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref49">5</reflink>]) who both used LTM throughout the intervention phase as the primary teaching mechanism. The goal of the current study was for the participants to learn game play primarily using the video activity schedule and ultimately rely less on external prompts provided by an adult. This may result in a less stigmatizing and more feasible intervention in social environments like summer camps. Research indicates that autistic people often feel socially isolated in their communities because they struggle with social skills. For young children, this may hinder their access to common childhood experiences like summer camp which emphasizes play and activities requiring social skills. Using interventions that help autistic children be successful with play and social skills while reducing stigmatization and reliance on adults increases their chances at being more included.</p> <p>An audio social script was embedded into the video activity schedule for the participants to state as part of the task analysis on how to play the game. The participants used the social script to signal turn taking by indicating to the other player that they were finished with their turn. Previous literature on picture activity schedules has found embedded textual social scripts to be effective for game play behavior (Akers et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref50">1</reflink>]; Brodhead et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref51">6</reflink>]). During maintenance, 86% of the participants independently emitted the social script that was embedded into the task analysis for correct game play. However, it should be noted that the social script, along with other elements requiring a vocal response by the participants, were the steps in the task analysis with the most errors. Despite all children meeting the inclusion criteria of being able to communicate vocally in short sentences, Camila and Leah were noted to be "shy" by their parents. These two participants consistently failed to independently engage in the three steps with vocal responses despite multiple prompts. Perhaps if this study occurred over a longer period, the two girls would have felt more comfortable with their dyad partner to engage in the vocal responses, particularly the social script. Anecdotally, both were observed to engage in other behaviors such as laughing and smiling at their partners. Friendships are an integral part of childhood and social inclusion in environments like summer camps. This study indicates that game play behavior and initial social skills (i.e., turn taking) can be taught to young autistic children with minimal adult support. Ideally, leading to more opportunities for the children to interact, have fun, and develop friendship.</p> <p>Findings from Kirkpatrick et al. ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref52">16</reflink>]) showed that 75% of the 192 participants were 12 years and older. They found that 87% of participants used a within-activity video activity schedule to teach daily living skills (48%), leisure skills (22%), vocational skills (17%), and academic skills (16%). Overall, the review indicated that few studies focused on teaching leisure or play skills to young children (i.e., under 10). This study addressed these limitations by focusing on play skills for young autistic children. This study advances the current literature by incorporating a technology training phase to ensure each participant could self-instruct the technology. Additionally, the intervention was used in a group setting, although each participant individually used the intervention during their turn, this is a novel approach that had not yet been evaluated in the video activity schedule literature.</p> <hd id="AN0180830220-16">Limitations and Future Research</hd> <p>This study has a few limitations that should be noted and addressed in future research. Previous research in this area (e.g., Barton et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref53">5</reflink>]; Trimlett et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref54">33</reflink>]) not only collected data on game play behavior, but also collected data on social communication. The current study captured this data to some extent with the step in the task analysis regarding turn taking and the coinciding vocal response; however, data were not collected about any additional social communicative responses the participants said to one another. Given that games are a common way to teach social skills for autistic children, as it is socially valid and acceptable to have conversations during games, future research should look to collect this data and/or other measures like indices of happiness (e.g., smiling, laughing, etc.). Particularly, it would be interesting to collect data on positive language observed between peers such as peers encouraging each other, and negative language such as peers telling each other to hurry or that they were not playing fast enough. Throughout the study, the researchers observed both positive (e.g., "You fed the Woozle, yeah!", "Way to go!") and negative language (e.g., "Hurry up!", "You're so slow!") used by the participants. It would be interesting to know which type of language emerges when the participants learn to play the game and begin communicating with one another.</p> <p>Another limitation is the lack of social validity data for the participants. Many of the participants that were recruited for the study were identified by their parents as having difficulty playing games and/or making friends. Given that games are often a way for young children to have fun and socialize with one another, it would be ideal to understand whether the participants enjoyed the game and felt the intervention helped them.</p> <p>The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of the video activity schedule on game play behavior for young autistic children. All children were successful at increasing their game play behavior from baseline with six out of eight reaching mastery criteria. Unfortunately, due to the time constraints and availability of the participants at camp, the video activity schedules were not able to be faded out to determine the extent to which the participants would be able to play the game without the supports. Anecdotally, the researchers noticed that in the last few sessions some participants started to imitate the videos while watching them rather than waiting for the video model to finish. Future research may want to investigate fading procedures such as combining additional steps into longer video models, transitioning from a video activity schedule approach to a singular video model watched once prior to taking a turn, or visuals rather than videos as the children are more familiar with the game play behaviors. Additionally, the combined maintenance and generalization probe included the use of the video activity schedule, however, a more ideal maintenance probe would have tested performance without it. Because this probe was intended to capture generalization and be like a play date experience or larger camp group experience, the researchers did not want too many confounding variables to effect performance.</p> <p>In conclusion, video activity schedules were found to help increase game play behavior for young autistic children, including a communicative response to a peer. This study extended previous research on teaching play skills to young autistic children, as well as addressed areas of need for the video activity schedule research. Future research should focus on using a video activity schedule to facilitate conversations among peers, measure social validity, and evaluate ways to fade the intervention.</p> <hd id="AN0180830220-17">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>We acknowledge and thank the children who participated in this study. The authors would also like to thank our research assistants for their work assisting with data collection. In particular we thank, Aparna Mathews, Lauren Gonzales, Ivan Duarte, and Jasbeth De La Rosa.</p> <hd id="AN0180830220-18">Author Contributions</hd> <p>Marie Kirkpatrick contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection, and analysis were performed by Marie Kirkpatrick, Mariela Tankersley, Gennina Ferrer and Roberta Carrillo Vega. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Mariela Tankersley and edited by Marie Kirkpatrick. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.</p> <hd id="AN0180830220-19">Funding</hd> <p>Please note that this work was supported in whole or in part by a grant from the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) Award #22987 and #26525. The opinions and conclusions expressed in this document are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the opinions or policy of the THECB.</p> <hd id="AN0180830220-20">Declarations</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0180830220-21">Ethics Approval</hd> <p>All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.</p> <hd id="AN0180830220-22">Informed Consent</hd> <p>Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants involved in the study. The researchers gained approval for this study from university's Institutional Review Board.</p> <hd id="AN0180830220-23">Conflict of Interest</hd> <p>The authors declare no competing interests.</p> <hd id="AN0180830220-24">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0180830220-25"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref27" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Akers JS, Higbee TS, Gerencser KR, Pellegrino AJ. An evaluation of group activity schedules to promote social play in children with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 2018; 51; 3: 553-570. 10.1002/jaba.474. 29761491</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref24" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Aljehany MS, Bennett KD. Meta-analysis of video prompting to teach daily living skills to individuals with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Special Education Technology. 2019; 34; 1: 17-26. 10.1177/0162643418780495</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref1" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-5. American Psychiatric Association.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref14" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Anderson LK. Autistic experiences of applied behavior analysis. Autism. 2023; 27; 3: 737-750. 10.1177/13623613221118216. 35999706</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref12" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Barton EE, Pokorski EA, Sweeney EM, Velez M, Gossett S, Qiu J, Flaherty C, Domingo M. An empirical examination of effective practices for teaching board game play to young children. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions. 2018; 20; 3: 138-148. 10.1177/1098300717753833</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref51" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Brodhead MT, Higbee TS, Pollard JS, Akers JS, Gerencser KR. The use of linked activity schedules to teach children with autism to play hide-and‐seek. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 2014; 47; 3: 645-650. 10.1002/jaba.145. 24905481</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref20" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Cannella-Malone HI, Jimenez ED, Schaefer JM, Miller M, Byrum H. Examination of the effects of video prompting across different types of tasks. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals. 2018; 41; 4: 200-211. 10.1177/2165143417739609</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref16" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Cardon T, Azuma T. Visual attending preferences in children with autism spectrum disorders: A comparison between live and video presentation modes. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders. 2012; 6; 3: 1061-1067. 10.1016/j.rasd.2012.01.007</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref8" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Cengher M, Shamoun K, Moss P, Roll D, Feliciano G, Fienup DM. A comparison of the effects of two prompt-fading strategies on skill acquisition in children with autism spectrum disorders. Behavior Analysis in Practice. 2016; 9: 115-125. 10.1007/s40617-015-0096-6. 27606243</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Charlop-Christy MH, Le L, Freeman KA. A comparison of video modeling with in vivo modeling for teaching children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 2000; 30: 537-552. 10.1023/A:1005635326276. 11261466</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cooper, J. O, Heron, T. E, & Heward, W. L. (2021). Applied behavior analysis (3rd ed.). Pearson.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jimenez BA, Alamer K. Using graduated guidance to teach iPad accessibility skills to high school students with severe intellectual disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology. 2018; 33; 4: 237-246. 10.1177/0162643418766293</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jones SC, Gordon CS, Akram M, Murphy N, Sharkie F. Inclusion, exclusion and isolation of autistic people: Community attitudes and autistic people's experiences. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 2022; 52; 3: 1131-1142. 10.1007/s10803-021-04998-7. 33884534</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kent C, Cordier R, Joosten A, Wilkes-Gillan S, Bundy A, Speyer R. A systematic review and meta-analysis of interventions to improve play skills in children with autism spectrum disorder. Review Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 2020; 7; 1: 91-118. 10.1007/s40489-019-00181-y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kirkpatrick M, Lang R, Lee A, Ledbetter-Cho K. A video-enhanced activity schedule reduces food stuffing in child with pervasive developmental disability: A single subject design case study. Advances in Neurodevelopmental Disorders. 2019; 3: 281-286. 10.1007/s41252-019-00100-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kirkpatrick M, O'Guinn KN, Carrillo Vega R, Akers JS, Davis TN, Avery SK. Systematic review of video activity schedules to teach autistic people. Journal of Behavioral Education. 2023. 10.1007/s10864-023-09535-3Advanced online publication</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kratochwill TR, Levin JR, Morin KL, Lindström ER. Examining and enhancing the methodological quality of nonconcurrent multiple-baseline designs. Perspectives on Behavior Science. 2022; 45; 3: 651-660. 10.1007/s40614-022-00341-2. 36249170. 9458816</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ledbetter-Cho, K, O'Reilly, M, Watkins, L, Lang, R, Lim, N, Davenport, K, & Murphy, C. (2020). The effects of a teacher-implemented video-enhanced activity schedule intervention on the mathematical skills and collateral behaviors of students with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-020-04495-3.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ledford JR. Concurrence on nonconcurrence in multiple-baseline designs: A commentary on Slocum. Perspectives on Behavior Science. 2022; 45; 3: 661-666. 10.1007/s40614-022-00342-1. 36249166. 9458782</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ledford, J. R, & Gast, D. L. (2018). Single case research methodology: Application in special education and behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ledford JR, Zimmerman KN. Rethinking rigor in multiple baseline and multiple probe designs. Remedial and Special Education. 2023; 44; 2: 154-167. 10.1177/07419325221102539</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lorah ER, Tincani M, Dodge J, Gilroy S, Hickey A, Hantula D. Evaluating picture exchange and the iPad™ as a speech generating device to teach communication to young children with autism. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities. 2013; 25: 637-649. 10.1007/s10882-013-9337-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lory C, Rispoli M, Gregori E. Play interventions involving children with autism spectrum disorder and typically developing peers: A review of research quality. Review Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 2018; 5: 78-89. 10.1007/s40489-017-0124-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lussenhop A, Mesiti LA, Cohn ES, Orsmond GI, Goss J, Reich C, Osipow A, Pirri K, Lindgren-Streicher A. Social participation of families with children with autism spectrum disorder in a science museum. Museums & Social Issues. 2016; 11; 2: 122-137. 10.1080/15596893.2016.1214806</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Raulston TJ, Ousley CL, Gilhuber C. A scoping review of playdate literature with children on the autism spectrum. Early Childhood Education Journal. 2023. 10.1007/s10643-023-01616-2Advance online publication</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sandoval-Norton AH, Shkedy G, Shkedy D. How much compliance is too much compliance: Is long-term ABA therapy abuse?. Cogent Psychology. 2019; 6; 1: 1641258. 10.1080/23311908.2019.1641258</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shepley SB, Spriggs AD, Samudre M, Elliot M. Increasing daily living independence using video activity schedules in middle school students with intellectual disability. Journal of Special Education Technology. 2018; 33; 2: 71-82. 10.1177/0162643417732294</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Slocum TA, Joslyn PR, Nichols B, Pinkelman SE. Revisiting an analysis of threats to internal validity in multiple baseline designs. Perspectives on Behavior Science. 2022; 45; 3: 681-694. 10.1007/s40614-022-00351-0. 36249172. 9458797</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Slocum TA, Pinkelman SE, Joslyn PR, Nichols B. Threats to internal validity in multiple-baseline design variations. Perspectives on Behavior Science. 2022; 45; 3: 619-638. 10.1007/s40614-022-00326-1. 36249165. 9458807</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith, S. W, Kronfli, F. R, & Vollmer, T. R. (2022). Commentary on Slocum et al. (2022). Additional considerations for evaluating experimental control. Perspectives on Behavior Science, 45(3), 667–679. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-022-00346-x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Spriggs AD, Shepley SB, Samudre MD, Keene HE, O'Neill K, Hall S. Behavioral skills training to teach self-instruction of video activity schedules for vocational skills. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals. 2023. 10.1177/21651434231211258Advance online publication</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Steinbrenner, J. R, Hume, K, Odom, S. L, Morin, K. L, Nowell, S. W, Tomaszewski, B, Szendrey, S, McIntyre, N. S, Yücesoy-Özkan, S, & Savage, M. N. (2020). Evidence-based practices for children, youth, and young adults with autism. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute, National Clearinghouse on Autism Evidence and Practice Review Team.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Trimlett GM, Barton EE, Baum C, Robinson G, Schulte L, Todt M. Teaching board game play to young children with disabilities. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions. 2022; 24; 1: 32-45. 10.1177/1098300720985287</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Marie Kirkpatrick; Mariela E. Tankersley; Gennina Noelle A. Ferrer and Roberta Carrillo Vega</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref47"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1447945
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Using a Video Activity Schedule to Teach Cooperative Games to Autistic Children in a Camp Setting
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Marie+Kirkpatrick%22">Marie Kirkpatrick</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6253-0504">0000-0002-6253-0504</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Mariela+E%2E+Tankersley%22">Mariela E. Tankersley</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Gennina+Noelle+A%2E+Ferrer%22">Gennina Noelle A. Ferrer</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Roberta+Carrillo+Vega%22">Roberta Carrillo Vega</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Developmental+and+Physical+Disabilities%22"><i>Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities</i></searchLink>. 2024 36(6):1019-1037.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 19
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Autism+Spectrum+Disorders%22">Autism Spectrum Disorders</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Video+Technology%22">Video Technology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Games%22">Educational Games</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Visual+Aids%22">Visual Aids</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Time+Management%22">Time Management</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Play%22">Play</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Children%22">Children</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Day+Camp+Programs%22">Day Camp Programs</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Summer+Programs%22">Summer Programs</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cooperation%22">Cooperation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Skill+Development%22">Skill Development</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s10882-024-09966-4
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1056-263X<br />1573-3580
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Video activity schedules are a combination of video modeling and activity schedules that teach a singular task or a series of tasks to be completed. Instead of a sequence of pictures, videos demonstrate to the learner what is expected to be done. Research has focused heavily on using video activity schedules to teach daily living or vocational skills; however, there is a lack of research on using video activity schedules to teach play skills. In this study, a non-concurrent multiple baseline design across participants was used to evaluate the effect of a video activity schedule to teach four dyads of autistic children how to play cooperative games during a summer day camp. Results indicate that all participants learned how to play the game, including during generalization and maintenance probes. A limitation within the study was a lack of data collected for social communication and social validity. Future research should collect social communication data and/or other measures like indices of happiness (e.g., smiling, laughing, etc.).
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1447945
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1447945
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s10882-024-09966-4
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 19
        StartPage: 1019
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Autism Spectrum Disorders
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Video Technology
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Games
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Visual Aids
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Time Management
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Play
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Children
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Day Camp Programs
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Summer Programs
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Cooperation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Skill Development
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Using a Video Activity Schedule to Teach Cooperative Games to Autistic Children in a Camp Setting
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Marie Kirkpatrick
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Mariela E. Tankersley
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Gennina Noelle A. Ferrer
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Roberta Carrillo Vega
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 12
              Type: published
              Y: 2024
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1056-263X
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1573-3580
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 36
            – Type: issue
              Value: 6
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities
              Type: main
ResultId 1