Abstract
We compared the effectiveness of a peer and staff model on observational learning by four adults with developmental disabilities. An alternating treatment design was used to evaluate the effects of a staff-as-model and peer-as-model condition. Results indicated that all four participants acquired the skill at a faster rate in the peer-as-model condition. Generalization and maintenance of the skills acquired with both models was also evaluated. Implications of programming for observational learning in education and habilitation settings are discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bandura, A. (Ed.) (1971). Psychological modeling: Conflicting theories. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Bellini, S., & Akullian, J. (2007). A meta-analysis of video modeling and video self-modeling interventions for children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorders. Exceptional Children, 73, 261–284.
Catania, A. C. (2007). Learning interim (4th ed.). Cornwall-on-Hudson: Sloan.
Charlop, M. H., Schreibman, L., & Tryon, A. S. (1983). Learning through observation: the effects of peer modeling on acquisition and generalization in autistic children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 11, 355–366.
Charlop-Christy, M. H., Loc, 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, 537–552.
Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2007). Applied behavior analysis (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson.
Fryling, M. J., Johnston, C., & Hayes, L. J. (2011). Understanding observational learning: an interbehavioral approach. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 27, 191–203.
Greer, R. D., Singer-Dudek, J., & Gautreaux, G. (2006). Observational learning. International Journal of Psychology, 42, 486–489.
Griffen, A. K., Wolery, M., & Schuster, J. W. (1992). Triadic instruction of chained food preparation responses: acquisition and observational learning. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 193–204.
Ihrig, K., & Wolchik, S. A. (1988). Peer versus adult models and autistic children's learning: acquisition, generalization, and maintenance. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 18, 67–79.
Ledford, J. R., Gast, D. L., Luscre, D., & Ayres, K. M. (2008). Observational and incidental learning by children with autism during small group instruction. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 38, 86–103.
Marcus, A., & Wilder, D. A. (2009). A comparison of peer video modeling and self-video modeling to teach textual responses in children with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42, 335–341.
Rehfeldt, R. A., Latimore, D., & Stromer, R. (2003). Observational learning and the formation of classes of reading skills by individuals with autism and other developmental disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 24, 333–358.
Storlie, J. L., Rehfeldt, R. A., & Aguirre, A. A. (2015). Observational learning across three verbal operants in a child with autism. International Journal of Behavior Analysis & Autism Spectrum Disorders, 1, 113–121.
Taylor, B. A., & DeQuinzio, J. A. (2012). Observational learning and children with autism. Behavior Modification, 36, 341–360.
Taylor, B. A., DeQuinzio, J. A., & Stine, J. (2012). Increasing observational learning of children with autism: a preliminary analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 45, 815–820. doi:10.1901/jaba.2012.45-815
Van Laarhoven, T., & Van Laarhoven-Myers, T. (2006). Comparison of three video-based instructional procedures for teaching daily living skills to persons with developmental disabilities. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 41, 365–381.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethical Approval
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.
Informed Consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Appendices
Appendix A
Task Analysis for Peer-as-Model (Making Coffee)
1. Wash your hands |
2. Get a mug from the cabinet |
3. Get out the measuring cups |
4. Get out a spoon |
5. With one (or two) hands, open the top lid of the coffee maker |
6. Pour 2 cups of water in the back water container of the coffee maker |
7. Get coffee filters |
8. Open the coffee filter, and place it in the opening holder |
9. Get the coffee grinds |
10. Measure 1 tablespoon of coffee |
11. Pour the coffee in the filter area |
12. Measure 1 more tablespoon of coffee |
13. Pour the coffee where the filter is |
14. Close the top lid of the coffee maker (snap) |
15. Press the button on the coffee maker ‘on’ |
16. Press the button on the coffee maker ‘off’ |
17. Grab a kitchen towel and remove the pot from underneath the coffee maker |
18. With one hand lift up the pot and tip the coffee inside the mug |
19. Measure 1 teaspoon of sugar |
20. Pour the sugar inside the mug |
21. Stir all contents with a spoon |
Appendix B
Task Analysis for Staff-as-Model (Making Oatmeal)
1. Wash your hands |
2. Get out a bowl |
3. Get a spoon |
4. Get measuring cups out |
5. Take box of oats out |
6. Measure ½ cups of oats |
7. Pour ½ cup of oats into your eating bowl |
8. Measure 1 cup of water |
9. Pour the 1 cup of water in the bowl with the oats |
10. Open the microwave |
11. Place bowl in the microwave with one (or both) hands and close the microwave door |
12. Heat oatmeal for 1 min |
13. Open the microwave and remove the bowl with the kitchen towel |
14. Place the bowl on table surface |
15. Get the fruit |
16. Measure ¼ cup of fruit |
17. Pour the fruit in the bowl |
18. Get the brown sugar |
19. Measure 1 teaspoon of brown sugar |
20. Pour the sugar in the bowl |
21. Stir all of the contents in the bowl |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Castro, M., Rehfeldt, R.A. Comparing the Efficacy of Peer versus Staff Models on Observational Learning in Adults with Developmental Disorders. J Dev Phys Disabil 28, 609–622 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-016-9498-9
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-016-9498-9