Skip to main content
  • Guideline Summary
  • NGC:009273
  • 2012 Jun 21

Best evidence statement (BESt). The use of video-based modeling in teaching daily living skills to children with autism.

Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center. Best evidence statement (BESt). The use of video-based modeling in teaching daily living skills to children with autism. Cincinnati (OH): Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center; 2012 Jun 21. 7 p. [10 references]

View the original guideline documentation External Web Site Policy

This is the current release of the guideline.

Major Recommendations

The strength of the recommendation (strongly recommended, recommended, or no recommendation) and the quality of the evidence (1a‒5b) are defined at the end of the "Major Recommendations" field.

It is recommended that occupational therapists working with children and adolescents with autism use video-based modeling as a modality for teaching daily living skills (Bereznak et al., 2012 [4b]; Cannella-Malone et al., 2011 [4b]; Keen, Brannigan, & Cuskelly, 2007 [4b]; Rayner, 2011 [4b]; Rosenberg, Schwartz, & Davis, 2010 [4b]; Shipley-Benamou, Lutzker, & Taubman, 2002 [4b]).

Definitions:

Table of Evidence Levels

Quality Level Definition
1a† or 1b† Systematic review, meta-analysis, or meta-synthesis of multiple studies
2a or 2b Best study design for domain
3a or 3b Fair study design for domain
4a or 4b Weak study design for domain
5a or 5b General review, expert opinion, case report, consensus report, or guideline
5 Local Consensus

†a = good quality study; b = lesser quality study

Table of Language and Definitions for Recommendation Strength

Language for Strength Definition
It is strongly recommended that…
It is strongly recommended that… not…
When the dimensions for judging the strength of the evidence are applied, there is high support that benefits clearly outweigh risks and burdens (or vice versa for negative recommendations).
It is recommended that…
It is recommended that…not…
When the dimensions for judging the strength of the evidence are applied, there is moderate support that benefits are closely balanced with risks and burdens.
There is insufficient evidence and a lack of consensus to make a recommendation…

Note: See the original guideline document for the dimensions used for judging the strength of the recommendation.

Clinical Algorithm(s)

None provided

Disease/Condition(s)

Autism

Guideline Category

Management

Clinical Specialty

Family Practice

Pediatrics

Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

Intended Users

Advanced Practice Nurses

Nurses

Occupational Therapists

Physician Assistants

Physicians

Guideline Objective(s)

To evaluate, in children with autism, if the use of video-based modeling improves participation in daily living activities

Target Population

Children aged 3 to 18 years with a diagnosis of autism

Note: Children who are unable to attend to video screen for brief periods of time are excluded.

Interventions and Practices Considered

Video-based modeling as a modality for teaching daily living skills

Major Outcomes Considered

Participation in daily living activities

Methods Used to Collect/Select the Evidence

Searches of Electronic Databases

Description of Methods Used to Collect/Select the Evidence

Search Strategy

Databases: PubMed, Google Scholar, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO

Search Terms: Video modeling, video + autism, modeling + autism

Limits & Filters: English language, Search Dates: 1990-2012

Date Search Done: 4-17-2012

Number of Source Documents

Not stated

Methods Used to Assess the Quality and Strength of the Evidence

Weighting According to a Rating Scheme (Scheme Given)

Rating Scheme for the Strength of the Evidence

Table of Evidence Levels

Quality Level Definition
1a† or 1b† Systematic review, meta-analysis, or meta-synthesis of multiple studies
2a or 2b Best study design for domain
3a or 3b Fair study design for domain
4a or 4b Weak study design for domain
5a or 5b General review, expert opinion, case report, consensus report, or guideline
5 Local Consensus

†a = good quality study; b = lesser quality study

Methods Used to Analyze the Evidence

Systematic Review

Description of the Methods Used to Analyze the Evidence

Not stated

Methods Used to Formulate the Recommendations

Expert Consensus

Description of Methods Used to Formulate the Recommendations

Not stated

Rating Scheme for the Strength of the Recommendations

Table of Language and Definitions for Recommendation Strength

Language for Strength Definition
It is strongly recommended that…
It is strongly recommended that… not…
When the dimensions for judging the strength of the evidence are applied, there is high support that benefits clearly outweigh risks and burdens (or vice versa for negative recommendations).
It is recommended that…
It is recommended that…not…
When the dimensions for judging the strength of the evidence are applied, there is moderate support that benefits are closely balanced with risks and burdens.
There is insufficient evidence and a lack of consensus to make a recommendation…

Note: See the original guideline document for the dimensions used for judging the strength of the recommendation.

Cost Analysis

A formal cost analysis was not performed and published cost analyses were not reviewed.

Method of Guideline Validation

Peer Review

Description of Method of Guideline Validation

This Best Evidence Statement has been reviewed against quality criteria by two independent reviewers from the Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center (CCHMC) Evidence Collaboration.

References Supporting the Recommendations

Bereznak S, Ayres K, Mechling L, Alexander J. Video self-prompting and mobile technology to increase daily living and vocational independence for students with autism spectrum disorders. J Dev Phys Disabil. 2012;:1-17.

Cannella-Malone HI, Fleming C, Chung YC, Wheeler GM, Basbagill AR, Singh AH. Teaching daily living skills to seven individuals with severe intellectual disabilities: a comparison of video prompting to video modeling. J Posit Behav Interv. 2011;13(3):144-53.

Keen D, Brannigan KL, Cuskelly M. Toilet training for children with autism: the effects of video modeling category. J Dev Phys Disabil. 2007;19(4):291-303.

Rayner C. Teaching students with autism to tie a shoelace knot using video prompting and backward chaining. Dev Neurorehabil. 2011;14(6):339-47. PubMed External Web Site Policy

Rosenberg NE, Schwartz IS, Davis CA. Evaluating the utility of commercial videotapes for teaching hand washing to children with autism. Educ Treat Child. 2010;33(3):443-55.

Shipley-Benamou R, Lutzker JR, Taubman M. Teaching daily living skills to children with autism through instructional video modeling. J Posit Behav Interv. 2002;4(3):165-75.

Type of Evidence Supporting the Recommendations

The type of supporting evidence is identified and graded for each recommendation (see the "Major Recommendations" field).

Potential Benefits

Improved participation in daily living activities

Potential Harms

Not stated

Qualifying Statements

This Best Evidence Statement addresses only key points of care for the target population; it is not intended to be a comprehensive practice guideline. These recommendations result from review of literature and practices current at the time of their formulation. This Best Evidence Statement does not preclude using care modalities proven efficacious in studies published subsequent to the current revision of this document. This document is not intended to impose standards of care preventing selective variances from the recommendations to meet the specific and unique requirements of individual patients. Adherence to this Statement is voluntary. The clinician in light of the individual circumstances presented by the patient must make the ultimate judgment regarding the priority of any specific procedure.

Description of Implementation Strategy

An implementation strategy was not provided.

Implementation Tools

Audit Criteria/Indicators

For information about availability, see the Availability of Companion Documents and Patient Resources fields below.

IOM Care Need

Living with Illness

IOM Domain

Effectiveness

Bibliographic Source(s)

Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center. Best evidence statement (BESt). The use of video-based modeling in teaching daily living skills to children with autism. Cincinnati (OH): Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center; 2012 Jun 21. 7 p. [10 references]

Adaptation

Not applicable: The guideline was not adapted from another source.

Date Released

2012 Jun 21

Guideline Developer(s)

Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center - Hospital/Medical Center

Source(s) of Funding

Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center

Guideline Committee

Best Evidence Statement (BESt) Development Team

Composition of Group That Authored the Guideline

BESt Development Team: Kristen Brevoort, OTR/L, MOT, Division of Occupational Therapy, Physical Therapy, and Therapeutic Recreation

Ad Hoc Members: Patti Besuner, RN, MN, EBP Mentor, Center for Professional Excellence, Research, & Evidence Based Practice; Michelle Kiger, OTR/L, Division of Occupational Therapy, Physical Therapy, and Therapeutic Recreation

Senior Clinical Director: Rebecca D. Reder, OTD, OTR/L, Division of Occupational Therapy, Physical Therapy, and Therapeutic Recreation

Financial Disclosures/Conflicts of Interest

No financial conflicts of interest were found.

Guideline Status

This is the current release of the guideline.

Guideline Availability

Electronic copies: Available from the Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center Web site External Web Site Policy.

Print copies: For information regarding the full-text guideline, print copies, or evidence-based practice support services contact the Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center Health James M. Anderson Center for Health Systems Excellence at EBDMInfo@cchmc.org.

Availability of Companion Documents

The following are available:

Print copies: For information regarding the full-text guideline, print copies, or evidence-based practice support services contact the Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center Health James M. Anderson Center for Health Systems Excellence at EBDMInfo@cchmc.org.

In addition, suggested process or outcome measures are available in the original guideline document External Web Site Policy.

Patient Resources

None available

NGC Status

This NGC summary was completed by ECRI Institute on September 18, 2012.

Copyright Statement

This NGC summary is based on the original full-text guideline, which is subject to the following copyright restrictions:

Copies of this Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center (CCHMC) External Web Site Policy Best Evidence Statement (BESt) are available online and may be distributed by any organization for the global purpose of improving child health outcomes. Examples of approved uses of CCHMC's BESt include the following:

  • Copies may be provided to anyone involved in the organization's process for developing and implementing evidence-based care guidelines.
  • Hyperlinks to the CCHMC website may be placed on the organization's website.
  • The BESt may be adopted or adapted for use within the organization, provided that CCHMC receives appropriate attribution on all written or electronic documents.
  • Copies may be provided to patients and the clinicians who manage their care.

Notification of CCHMC at EBDMInfo@cchmc.org for any BESt adopted, adapted, implemented or hyperlinked to by a given organization and/or user, is appreciated.

NGC Disclaimer

The National Guideline Clearinghouse™ (NGC) does not develop, produce, approve, or endorse the guidelines represented on this site.

All guidelines summarized by NGC and hosted on our site are produced under the auspices of medical specialty societies, relevant professional associations, public or private organizations, other government agencies, health care organizations or plans, and similar entities.

Guidelines represented on the NGC Web site are submitted by guideline developers, and are screened solely to determine that they meet the NGC Inclusion Criteria which may be found at http://www.guideline.gov/about/inclusion-criteria.aspx.

NGC, AHRQ, and its contractor ECRI Institute make no warranties concerning the content or clinical efficacy or effectiveness of the clinical practice guidelines and related materials represented on this site. Moreover, the views and opinions of developers or authors of guidelines represented on this site do not necessarily state or reflect those of NGC, AHRQ, or its contractor ECRI Institute, and inclusion or hosting of guidelines in NGC may not be used for advertising or commercial endorsement purposes.

Readers with questions regarding guideline content are directed to contact the guideline developer.