Video Self-Modeling

Abstract

The current study investigated the effects of a Video Self-Modeling (VSM) intervention on the compliance and aggressive behavior of three children placed in a psychiatric hospital. Each participant viewed brief video clips of himself following simple adult instructions just prior to the school's morning session and the unit's afternoon free period. A multiple baseline design across settings was used to evaluate the effects of the VSM intervention on compliance with staff instructions and aggressive behavior on the hospital unit and in the hospital-based classroom. All three participants exhibited higher levels of compliance and fewer aggressive episodes during the intervention condition, and the effects were generally maintained when the intervention was withdrawn. Hospital staff reported at the conclusion of the study that the VSM intervention was easy to implement and beneficial for all participants. Taken altogether, the results suggest VSM is a promising, socially acceptable, and proactive intervention approach for improving the behavior of noncompliant children.

A systematic review of video‐modelling interventions for children and adolescents with attention‐deficit hyperactivity disorder

“…In one study (Foley-Nicpon et al, 2017), it was unclear which measure/ methods were used for self-reported ADHD. Comorbid conditions reported in participants with ADHD across the studies were oppositional defiant disorder (Axelrod et al, 2014;Sibley et al, 2012;Wilkes et al, 2011;Wilkes-Gillan et al, 2014b, 2016 and mild intellectual disability (Embregts, 2002). Participants' medication use/status was reported in all except two studies (Embregts, 2002;Foley-Nicpon et al, 2017).…”

“…Eight studies reported using rating scales (e.g., Conner's rating scales) based on the International Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 3rd and 4th edition with parent and/or teacher reports to confirm ADHD symptomology. Two studies did not report the use of a screening tool to confirm ADHD symptomology of participants (Axelrod et al, 2014;Embregts, 2002). In one study (Foley-Nicpon et al, 2017), it was unclear which measure/ methods were used for self-reported ADHD.…”

“…For target outcomes, three studies targeted behaviour, three targeted social play skills, two targeted social behaviour, one targeted social skills, one targeted goal orientation and friendship quality, and one targeted comprehension of social behaviour. Three studies used video-modelling as the whole intervention, with no other intervention components described (Axelrod et al, 2014;Carrol et al, 1994;Woltersdorf, 1992). Intervention components used in conjunction with video-modelling reported in the other eight studies included the following: direct-care staff training (Embregts, 2002), verbal feedback and positive reinforcement from the teacher (Laurin, 1993), the use of MotivAider signaling for self-monitoring of behaviour (Schmitt, 2009), a summer treatment program (Sibley et al, 2012), a social skills lunch group (Foley-Nicpon et al, 2017), and a combination of peer-modelling, therapist-modelling, play and parent training (Wilkes et al, 2011;Wilkes-Gillan et al, 2014b, 2016.…”

A method to establish stimulus control and compliance with instructions

“…& Williams, 1994; Mace et al 1988); graduated guided compliance (Wilder et al, 2012); a package of antecedent interventions (proximity, posture, eye contact, attention and response interruption; Stephenson & Hanley, 2010); and video self-modeling (Axelrod, Bellini & Markoff, 2014), among others. Although these interventions have been shown to improve compliance, and none has significant limitations, some can be time consuming to implement or impractical (e.g., video self-modeling requires multiple video clips to be made of the child that capture the child being compliant in multiple contexts and video viewing prior to evaluation of the intervention; Axelrod et al, 2014).…”

“…& Williams, 1994; Mace et al 1988); graduated guided compliance (Wilder et al, 2012); a package of antecedent interventions (proximity, posture, eye contact, attention and response interruption; Stephenson & Hanley, 2010); and video self-modeling (Axelrod, Bellini & Markoff, 2014), among others. Although these interventions have been shown to improve compliance, and none has significant limitations, some can be time consuming to implement or impractical (e.g., video self-modeling requires multiple video clips to be made of the child that capture the child being compliant in multiple contexts and video viewing prior to evaluation of the intervention; Axelrod et al, 2014). Others employ aversive procedures that may produce pain (spanking; Forehand & McMahon, 1981) or possible emotional distress such as a loud scolding voice or visual glare (Doleys et al, 1976), or have relatively long latencies to reach target levels of compliance (e.g., seven treatment sessions to increase compliance above 80%; Rortvedt & Miltenberger, 1994).…”