Comparison of Three Video Perspectives When Using Video Prompting by Students with Moderate Intellectual Disability

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by dhado

Study compares effects of three video perspectives—point-of-view, scene view, and a combination—on task completion for three young adults with moderate intellectual disability. An Adapted Alternating Treatments Design evaluates performance across three fundamentally different gift-wrapping tasks using step-by-step video prompting. Results show minimal performance differences among the three students by perspective; the combined point-of-view plus scene view angle produces fewer errors for two participants. Findings support video technology for academic, communication, employment, daily living, social, leisure, and transition skills.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages13

Reading Time33 min

AccessFree to download

Abstract

Purpose and design

Video perspectives compared

Key findings and implications

Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 2015, 50(3), 330 –342 © Division on Autism and Developmental Disabilities Comparison of Three Video Perspectives When Using Video Prompting by Students with Moderate Intellectual Disability Galen P. Spencer, Linda C. Mechling, and Alexandria N. Ivey University of North Carolina Wilmington Abstract: The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of three video perspectives: point-of-view, scene view, and a combination of point-of-view and scene view on task completion by three young adults with moderate intellectual disability. The comparison was made, using an Adapted Alternating Treatments Design, across three sets of fundamentally different gift wrapping tasks as each of three students used step-by-step video prompting. Overall, results of the study showed minimal differences in performance across the three students regardless of the video perspective while a combination of point-of-view and scene view camera angle resulted in fewer errors by two of the three students. Research strongly suggests that video technology is an effective means for enhancing academic, communication, employment, daily living, social, leisure, and transitioning skills for persons with intellectual disability and/or autism (Ayres & Langone, 2005; Banda, Dogoe, & Matuszny, 2011; Bellini & Akullian, 2007; Delano, 2007; Mason, Ganz, Parker, Burke, & Camargo, 2012; McCoy & Hermansen, 2007; Mechling, 2005; Rayner, Denholm, & Sigafoos, 2009; Shukla-Mehta, Miller, & Callahan, 2010). What appears to be missing in the literature is a clear delineation of what components of the actual videos lead to higher quality, more effective videos. As the use of video instruction increases in the ﬁeld of special education it is important that guidelines be developed for those interested in creating their own videos for instruction. Production of quality videos, superior to those lacking key components, has implications for the level of effectiveness of the pro The research reported here was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through Grant R324A100094 to the University of Georgia. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of the Institute or the U.S. Department of Education. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Linda Mechling, University of North Carolina Wilmington, Department of Education of Young Children and Special Education, 601 S. College Road, Wilmington, NC 28404-5940 . E-mail: [mechlingl@uncw.edu](mechlingl@uncw.edu) grams (Mechling, Ayres, Foster, & Bryant, in press; Rosenberg, Schwartz, & Davis, 2010). To this end, researchers recommend that further work be done to evaluate the features of custommade programs that are most important in order to better inform decisions regarding their development (Ayres & Langone, 2007; Ramdosset al., 2012). Minimal work has been done to date to differentiate between video features that are critical for presenting information to the viewer. Most of the comparative work and analysis of video technology has focused on characteristics of the model – who is in the video-and whether there is a difference when a user views him or herself (video self-modeling) or another adult or peer in the video (Cihak & Schrader, 2008; Jones & Schwartz, 2004; Mason, Ganz et al., 2013; Sherer et al., 2001) . Other studies, although limited in number, have compared the timing of the presentation of the video when using video modeling (Cannella-Malone et al., 2006; 2011; Mechling, Ayres, Bryant, & Foster, 2014; Sancho, Sidener, Reeve, & Sidener, 2010; Taber-Doughty, Patton, & Brennan, 2008) . The difference in timing occurs through use of video modeling (video presented prior to the task); video prompting (video presented step by step as each step of a task is completed); simultaneous video modeling (video presented as the task is simultaneously being completed);

FAQs

What is the study’s main purpose?

To compare how three different video perspectives affect task completion when students with moderate intellectual disability use step-by-step video prompting.

Which video perspectives were compared?

Point-of-view, scene view, and a combination of point-of-view with scene view.

What did the study find about performance differences?

Overall, differences in performance across the three video perspectives were minimal; however, the combined perspective led to fewer errors for two of the three students.

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by dhado