Using videoconferencing to support teachers to conductpreference assessments with students with autism anddevelopmental disabilities

Wendy Machalicek a, Mark O’Reilly a,*, Jeffrey M. Chan a, Mandy Rispoli a,Russell Lang a, Tonya Davis a, Karrie Shogren a, Audrey Sorrells a,Giulio Lancioni b, Jeff Sigafoos c, Vanessa Green c, Paul Langthorne d

a University of Texas at Austin, United Statesb University of Bari, Italyc Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealandd University of Kent, United Kingdom

Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 3 (2009) 32–41

A R T I C L E I N F O

Article history:

Received 6 March 2008

Accepted 12 March 2008

Keywords:

Videoconferencing

Preference assessment

Teachers

A B S T R A C T

We used widely available videoconferencing equipment to support

teachers to conduct preference assessments for three students with

autism and developmental disabilities. Supervisors located at a

university used videoconferencing equipment to collect data on

students’ choice of items, the fidelity of teacher implementation of

the assessment protocol, and to provide feedback to the teachers.

Preference assessment results suggested a number of potentially

reinforcing items for each student. In a second phase of the study,

the students were given a routine classroom task to complete

(i.e., clean up). The students could choose to complete the clean up

task and gain access to a neutral item or one of the highly preferred

items identified in the prior preference assessment. All students

predominantly chose to complete the task in order to access a

preferred item identified in the preference assessment. The results

of this classroom intervention validated the results of the

preference assessments. The findings of this study provide

preliminary support for the use of videoconferencing equipment

when supporting teaching personnel during common educational

assessments.

� 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

* Corresponding author at: Department of Special Education, 1 University Station, D5300, The University of Texas at Austin,

Austin, TX 78712, United States. Tel.: +1 512 471 7140.

E-mail address: markoreilly@mail.utexas.edu (M. O’Reilly).

Conten ts l i s ts ava i lab le a t Sc ienceD i rec t

Research in Autism SpectrumDisorders

Journal homepage: http://ees.elsevier.com/RASD/default.asp

1750-9467/$ – see front matter � 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.rasd.2008.03.004

In many parts of the United States, there is an increasing shortage of specialists with the trainingto work with children with developmental disabilities (Boe & Cook, 2006; U.S. Department ofEducation, 2004a,2004b). Given current legislation that mandates the use of evidence-basedpractices (IDEA, 1990; IDEA Amendments, 1997; IDEA Improvement Act, 2004), the lack of teacherswho are qualified to implement such practices may be problematic for many schools. This issue maybe magnified for schools located in rural communities that face higher attrition rates than urbanschools (Westling & Whitten, 1996), and limited access to personnel training programs (Ludlow,Conner, & Schechter, 2005). However, recent advances in videoconferencing technology may provideeducators with one way to access the specialist support they need in a more efficient and costeffective manner.

Videoconferencing technology enables two or more parties to simultaneously communicate usingtwo way video and audio transmissions. In the health care field, videoconferencing is an increasinglycommon way to deliver services to patients who reside in communities with limited access tospecialists (Hilty, Luo, Morache, Marcelo, & Nesbitt, 2002). This technology has facilitated psychiatricassessments (Elford, 2000; Zarate, Weinstock, & Baer, 1997), psychotherapy, and the supervision oftrainee psychotherapists (Gammon, Sorlie, Bergvik, & Sorensen Hoifodt, 1998). It has also been used toprovide follow up care for older adults following discharge from hospital (Tousignant, Boissy,Corriveau, & Moffet, 2006).

Many special education teacher preparation programs have used videoconferencing technology toprovide coursework and feedback to pre-service and in-service teachers in rural or remote settings forover two decades (Howard, Ault, Knowlton, & Swall, 1992). The majority of these initiatives havetraditionally relied on broadcasts from Universities via satellite or fiber optic networks to localcolleges or schools in rural or remote sites. There are some disadvantages in delivering instruction viasatellite or fiber optic network. First, instructional delivery is limited to the geographic area servicedby satellite or fiber optic network. Second, technology needed to receive these broadcasts is expensivewhich limits the number of locales in remote areas that can receive such transmissions.

Recent developments in videoconferencing technology may overcome many of the limitationsinherent when using the above technology and also may present opportunities for usingvideoconferencing in novel ways to support teachers in rural and remote areas. In a recent reportLudlow and Duff (2002) described a distance education initiative at the University of West Virginiathat delivered classes via video and audio streaming on the Internet. Students could participate in liveclasses and actively participate in class sessions using widely available and relatively inexpensivevideoconferencing equipment (e.g., laptop or desktop computer, web camera, and broadband Internetconnection). Conceivably, students could avail these live class sessions from any geographic locationin the world if they have access to such videoconferencing equipment coupled with broadbandInternet access.

The portability of this new videoconferencing equipment (e.g., many laptop computers now comewith an inbuilt web camera and can access the Internet using wireless technology) may open newavenues for the use of videoconferencing when working with pre-service and in-service specialeducation teachers. For example, a teacher could now bring a laptop computer in to the classroom tofacilitate live feedback from a specialist on any number of issues (e.g., conducting assessments,delivering instruction, classroom management, etc.). University supervisors could observe teachersdelivering instruction in classrooms and provide immediate feedback on their performance whileremaining at the University.

When working in highly specialized teaching areas that require considerable attention to detail theopportunity to provide immediate feedback to student teachers on their performance is of criticalimportance. However, despite the potential usefulness of technology in the provision of on-sitetraining to in-service and pre-service teachers little attention has been given to the way in which thistechnology may improve the skills of individuals working with students with disabilities.

One of the fundamental assessment skills that graduate students who are specializing in autismand other developmental disabilities at the University of Texas at Austin must acquire is the ability toaccurately conduct a preference assessment. Once preference assessment results have been obtainedit is then possible for the teachers to develop individualized instructional interventions for thechildren in their classrooms.

W. Machalicek et al. / Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 3 (2009) 32–41 33

In the current study we attempted to examine the use of laptop computers equipped with webcameras and wireless capabilities to deliver supervision to student teachers who were learning toimplement paired-choice preference assessments with children with autism and developmentaldisabilities in classroom settings. The preference assessment results were then used to develop aninstructional intervention for the children in the classroom (i.e., the children were to complete a cleanup task in order to gain access to a preferred item identified through the paired-choice preferenceassessment).

In order to ascertain whether the training via videoconference was valid we anticipated that if thepreference assessment has been conducted in an accurate way by the graduate student teachers (seeSection 2) the results from the intervention (see Section 3) would show that the children wouldcomplete the task in order to have access to the preferred items.

1. Method

1.1. Participants and settings

Three graduate students who were enrolled in the Autism and Developmental Disabilitiesgraduate training program in the Department of Special Education at the University of Texas atAustin participated as teachers. During this study the graduate students were enrolled in apracticum experience that focused on teaching them best practices in assessment and instructionfor young children with autism and other developmental delays. The graduate students had noexperience implementing paired-choice preference assessments prior to the study. Each teacher wasassigned to one student to conduct the paired-choice preference assessment (see below). Theresearch was conducted at a private school for students with developmental delays. Three childrenwith developmental delays participated in the study. Dusty (Caucasian male) and Eric (AsianAmerican male) were 5 and 7 years of age, respectively, and were both diagnosed with autism.They attended the same classroom at the school. Hayden (Caucasian male) was 34 months old andwas diagnosed with speech delay and pervasive developmental disorder. He attended a separateclassroom for younger children at the same school. All phases of the research were conducted in thechildren’s classroom during regular class schedules. Three to five other students with similardisabilities and three staff were typically present in the classroom during assessment sessions, butworked in separate areas of the classroom during sessions. Instruction for students not involved in theresearch continued normally during experimental sessions. Observation, data collection, andsupervision/coaching of the preference assessment procedures were conducted from a remote site(i.e., university office situated approximately 7 miles away from the participants’ school).Observation and supervision was conducted by three advanced doctoral students who were boardcertified behavior analysts and had extensive experience conducting research on the assessmentand treatment of children with autism and developmental disabilities. The supervisors providedguidance to the teachers (i.e., graduate students) via the videoconferencing equipment, collecteddata on teacher’s performance of the preference assessment, and collected data on student’spreferences.

1.2. Videoconferencing equipment

Videoconferencing between the classrooms and the University was achieved using (a) one 2.0 GHzMacBookTM laptop computer connected to one external iSightTM camera located in the classroom and(b) one iMacTM desktop computer with a built-in iSightTM camera located at the University. The laptopcomputer used in the classroom was secured to a chair next to the teacher. iChatTM videoconferencingsoftware was used on both computers. Audio communication was achieved with a JabraTM bluetooth-wireless headset worn by the teacher, while the supervisor used the iMacTM’s built-in microphone. Awireless connection was used to access the Internet.

The iSightTM camera has a 640 � 480-pixel video graphics array (VGA), auto exposure, auto focus,and video capture at 30 frames per second. The iSightTM camera used in the classroom was attachedvia cable to the laptop computer and was placed on a plastic standing mount which was secured to awide windowsill above the table where the assessment was implemented so that the university

W. Machalicek et al. / Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 3 (2009) 32–4134

supervisor could see the entire assessment area. Data were transmitted via a wireless local areanetwork (LAN) with Wi–Fi protected network access (WPN) maintained by the school where theresearch was conducted to a separate LAN maintained by the university. The confidentiality of datatransmission was secured through subscription to an Internet service providing a virtual privatenetwork (VPN) with 128-bit encryption.

2. Phase I: preference assessment

2.1. Procedures

The first phase of this experiment was designed to examine whether we could successfully use thevideoconference technology to instruct pre-service teachers to conduct a preference assessment withchildren with developmental disabilities in their regular classroom settings, to collect data on theteacher’s performance of the preference assessment, and to collect data on the classroom student’sperformance during the preference assessment.

2.1.1. Paired-choice preference assessment

The teachers were taught to implement a paired-choice preference assessment with the students(Fisher et al., 1992; Lattimore, Parsons, & Reid, 2002). First, teachers were given a task analysis of howto implement a paired-choice preference assessment (see Table 1) and were told to practice thisprotocol with the target students prior to videoconferencing sessions. Teachers were also given awritten list of eight items to be assessed using the paired-choice preference assessment protocol.Some items differed for each child and are presented in Table 2. The items selected for each child weredeemed to be reinforcing for the child based on teacher and parent verbal reports. The list of items alsoincluded the sequence of pairing of the items as well as the location (left versus right) of each of theitems that summed to a total of 84 pairing trials for each student.

The teacher began the preference assessment by presenting the student with two items. If thestudent failed to approach either item within 5 s, the teacher withdrew this pair of items and movedon to the next trial. If the student touched one of the items, the teacher immediately removed the otheritem. The student was then given access to the chosen item for 5 s. If the student touched both items atthe same time, the teacher held the two items down to the tabletop and waited for the participant toremove their hands from the table. The participant was once again allowed to choose between the twoitems. The 84 pairing trials were conducted over a 2-day period for each student. The total amount oftime to conduct these trials did not exceed 2 h for each student.

Table 1Preference assessment protocol

Step I Place two items on table in front of the student and wait 5 s for the student to touch an item

Step II If the student attempts to touch both items, block the attempt by securing the items to the tabletop.

Step III If the student touches an item, remove the other item.

Step IV Allow the student to interact with the chosen item for 5 s

Step V If the student does not approach either item, move on to the next pair.

Table 2Items used in preference assessments for each student

Participant Items

Dusty ABC board (music toy), 2 ball castles (ball race), ball drop (musical ball race), frog (plastic frog),

marble tube (marble race), noise tube (funny noise tube), train (wind up train)

Eric Male doll (action figure), fish (plastic fish), Mermaid (action figure), numbers (foam numbers),

number puzzle, action board game, sand sifter, timer (kitchen timer)

Hayden Ball castle (ball race), book (board book), toy car, lock box (box with latches and locks),

2 marble tubes (marble race), plastic monkeys, sand sifter with beans

W. Machalicek et al. / Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 3 (2009) 32–41 35

2.1.2. Supervision and data collection via videoconferencing

At times that were mutually convenient for the pre-service teachers and university supervisors avideo link was established between the university and the classroom. Cameras and headsets werethen adjusted to ensure that the trials were visible and audible to the university supervisors and thatcommunication via the headset worn by the teacher was clear. The university supervisors thenindicated to the teacher where to begin on the list of pairings (e.g., ‘‘For Dusty we did the first 50pairings on the list yesterday. So we need to start today with pairing 51 on the list which is ABC board

placed on the right of the table and plastic frog placed on the left of the table.’’). The supervisor thenindicated to the teacher to begin the trials.

During each trial the supervisor collected data on the number of steps of the preference assessmenttask analysis performed correctly by the teacher (see Table 1) and the item chosen by the student (seeTable 2). The supervisor also recorded those trials when the student did not select an item.Additionally, some of the preference assessment procedures were not relevant during each trial andhence were not included in the scoring (e.g., blocking the student (see step II in Table 1) was onlyscored during a trial if the student attempted to access both of the items simultaneously). Thesupervisor also delivered feedback to the teacher. Immediately following successful completion of atrial the supervisor delivered specific and positive feedback to the teacher (‘‘Great job! You correctlyplaced the two items in front of Dusty. You removed the marble tube immediately when he touched thetrain. You then let him play with the train for 5 s. Well done!’’). Any errors in implementing thepreference assessment protocol were to be immediately interrupted by the supervisor and specificcorrective feedback was to be delivered (‘‘You did not remove the ABC board when Dusty touched thenoise tube. You need to remove the second item immediately when he touches the other item.). If anerror occurred during a trial then that trial was to be repeated. This corrective feedback protocolhowever, was never implemented during the study, as the teachers did not make any errors whenconducting the paired-choice assessment trials.

2.2. Interobserver agreement on student choice and teacher fidelity

Two university supervisors simultaneously yet independently scored student choice (i.e., the itemselected by the student) and teacher implementation of the preference assessment protocol on 67% ofall assessment trials. Both supervisors simultaneously viewed the preference assessment trials on thesame computer in the university setting.

An agreement for student choice was scored if both observers agreed on the item selected by thestudent (e.g., both observers circled train as the item chosen by the student for that preference trial). Adisagreement for student choice was scored if the observers disagreed on the item chosen by thestudent (e.g., one observer circled train as the item chosen by the student and the second observercircled lock box as the item chosen by the student). The total number of agreements was divided by thetotal number of trials and multiplied by 100%. Interobserver agreement on student choice for Dusty,Hayden, and Eric was 100%, 100%, and 98% (range: 96–100%), respectively.

Both supervisors also used the task analysis in Table 1 to score teacher adherence to the preferenceassessment protocol during 67% of the trials. Interobserver agreement on teacher fidelity wascalculated for each trial by totaling the number of steps that both observers agreed were implementedcorrectly by the total number of steps of the preference assessment protocol and multiplied by 100%.The results for each trial were then totaled and divided by the total number of trails during whichreliability was conducted. Agreement on procedural fidelity was 100%, 99% (range: 98–100%), and 99%(range: 99–100%) for Dusty’s, Eric’s, and Hayden’s teachers, respectively.

2.3. Results and discussion

All three pre-service teachers implemented the paired-choice assessment protocol with 100%accuracy during the observations. Such performance might be explained by the fact that the teacherswere given a task analysis of the assessment protocol plus a list of the preferred items to be tested andwere told to practice with the students prior to the observations. Additionally, student teachersreceived descriptive and comprehensive feedback from the university supervisor following eachpaired-choice assessment trial. These training protocols seem to be a relatively unobtrusive yet

W. Machalicek et al. / Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 3 (2009) 32–4136

effective way of training pre-service teachers to implement core assessment protocol with studentswith autism and other developmental delays in classroom settings. These results do support previousresearch findings that have demonstrated that various combinations of prior instruction coupled withcomprehensive feedback can produce rapid acquisition of instruction and assessment skills forteachers and child care staff (e.g., Dib & Sturmey, 2007; Lavie & Sturmey, 2002). One significantdifference between our current research and the previous findings is that feedback was delivered tothe teachers via videoconferencing.

The results of the paired-choice preference assessments produced a clear pattern of preferences forDusty, Eric, and Hayden. A ranking of eight preferred items was obtained for each participant. ForDusty, his three most frequently chosen items were the ball castle, ABC board, and ball drop, which hechose 90%, 71%, and 66% of the trials offered. His least frequently chosen item was the frog, which hechose on 19% of trials offered. For Eric, his three most frequently chosen items were the timer, fish, andnumbers, which he chose 76%, 66%, and 66% of the trials offered. His least frequently chosen item wasthe little mermaid, which he chose 23% of trials offered. For Hayden, his three most frequently chosenitems were the marble tube, ball castle, and sand sifter with beans, which he chose 90%, 61%, and 52%of the trials offered. His least frequently chosen item was the book, which he chose just 14% of trialsoffered.

The first phase of this study demonstrated that it was possible to collect reliable data on pre-serviceteachers’ performance of paired-choice preference assessments and on classroom student responsesusing this widely available videoconferencing technology. It was also possible to provide ongoingfeedback to teachers as they conducted these preference assessments via videoconferencing. Theteachers did not err when conducting the preference assessments and this curtailed our evaluation ofthe effectiveness of corrective feedback contingent upon teacher errors using this technology.However, it is conceivable that comprehensive corrective feedback could be delivered immediatelyusing this technology when a teacher errs.

The pre-service teachers reported satisfaction with the supervision protocol. They noted that thevideoconferencing was relatively unobtrusive during the preference assessment and that feedbackfrom the supervisors was both helpful and positive. The university supervisors noted that thevideoconferencing technology was relatively simple to implement and that there were very fewtechnical difficulties when conducting supervision. During five observations of choice trials theInternet connection was lost and the supervisors had to reconnect to the classroom. Reconnection tookless than 5 min during any of these observations and therefore did not significantly interfere with datacollection. Additionally, these five choice trials were less than 1% of the total number of choice trialsobserved during this phase of the study.

3. Phase 2: instructional intervention

In the second phase of this experiment we designed an instructional intervention for Dusty, Eric,and Hayden. This intervention was developed based on the results of the paired-choice preferenceassessment conducted in the first phase of the study. The reason for conducting this second phase wasto examine whether the results of the preference assessment could be translated in to an effectiveclassroom intervention for the students. A successful educational intervention derived from theresults of the preference assessment would provide some support for the validity of the priorpreference assessment and videoconferencing for training student teachers to conduct suchassessments. The same teachers implemented the instructional intervention with the studentsunder the guidance of the university supervisors. All observations and data collection procedures wereconducted in the student’s classrooms. Videoconferencing was not used during this phase of the study.

3.1. Procedures and experimental design

A task was selected that each of the three students had acquired, but often required prompting andphysical guidance to complete: cleaning up instructional items from a tabletop. The student waspresented with two identical tasks (placing five same color plastic screws into matching clearcontainers) on two separate tables placed approximately three feet apart. The three most frequently

W. Machalicek et al. / Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 3 (2009) 32–41 37

chosen items were selected from the prior preference assessment to serve as highly preferred items foreach student. The classroom teachers identified the neutral item. On one table, a highly preferred item(selected from the prior preference assessment) was placed in plain view next to the clear container.On the other table, a neutral item (i.e., a cloth) was placed next to the clear container. Each of the threepreferred items was presented an equal number of times and the presentation order of the three itemswas randomized over 42 trials for each student over 2 non-consecutive days. The position of the highlypreferred and neutral item was randomly placed on the left or right table in order to account forpossible position preference.

Before each trial, the teacher walked the student to each table and said, ‘‘If you work here, you get‘‘either the preferred item or the neutral item’’. The student was then brought back to a chair placed anequal distance from either table and the teacher said, ‘‘Choose one’’. The student’s choice of table wasrecorded when both of their feet crossed a taped line on the floor between the two tables. Once thestudent had completed the task (i.e., placing all five screws into the plastic container) he was allowedto access the associated item (highly preferred or neutral item) for 30 s. At the end of 30 s, another trialwas initiated. If the student did not approach either task the teacher re-presented the trial. If thestudent approached a table, but did not engage in the task, a least-to-most prompting procedure wasused to ensure task completion and the student was allowed to access the item. The student wasblocked if he attempted to access the preferred or neutral item prior to completing the task and thetrial was repeated. Student choice was measured and was operationalized as (a) selecting a task(crossing the line between the two tables), (b) independent completion of the task selected (withoutteacher prompting), and (c) subsequent engagement with the item (preferred or neutral) for 30 s.

3.2. Interobserver agreement

Two independent observers collected data on each student’s choice of items during theintervention on 50% of the trials for Dusty and Hayden, and 40% of the trials for Eric. An agreement for atrial was scored if both independent observers agreed on the choice (as operationalized above). Adisagreement was scored if the independent observers disagreed on student choice. The number ofagreements were divided by the total number of trials and multiplied by 100%. Interobserveragreement for each of the three students was 100%.

Fig. 1. Cumulative frequency of Dusty’s choice of task associated with neutral and preferred items during intervention.

W. Machalicek et al. / Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 3 (2009) 32–4138

3.3. Results and discussion

The cumulative frequency of preferred and neutral item selection for Dusty, Eric, and Hayden ispresented in Figs. 1–3, respectively. Each of the students consistently chose to complete the taskassociated with one of the preferred items over the neutral item. For Dusty, the total number of times

Fig. 2. Cumulative frequency of Eric’s choice of task associated with neutral and preferred items during intervention.

Fig. 3. Cumulative frequency of Hayden’s choice of task associated with neutral and preferred items during intervention.

W. Machalicek et al. / Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 3 (2009) 32–41 39

he chose one of his preferred items (ball castle, ABC board, and ball drop) was 27 times while he chosethe neutral item 15 times. For Eric, the total number of times he choose one of his preferred items(timer, fish, and numbers) was 30 times while he chose the neutral item 12 times. For Hayden, thetotal number of times he choose one of his preferred items (marble tube, ball castle, and sand sifterwith beans) was 30 times while he chose the neutral item 12 times.

Overall, the results for phase 2 seem to indicate that the toys, selected from the results of thepreference assessments (conducted in phase 1), were indeed preferred items capable of acting asreinforcers for a task demand. It appears that videoconferencing may offer a viable strategy for teachereducators to provide instructions and feedback to teachers, and other practitioners during preferenceassessments.

4. General discussion

Videoconferencing has been used widely in the preparation and support of teachers over the lasttwo decades (Howard et al., 1992). Recent developments in videoconferencing technology mayfacilitate new ways of using videoconferencing to facilitate the training and support of teachers inschools (Ludlow & Duff, 2002). In the current study we provided preliminary data on the use ofrelatively inexpensive videoconferencing equipment (computers equipped with web cameras andbroadband Internet connection) to provide ongoing feedback to pre-service teachers as they learned toimplement paired-choice preference assessment protocols with students with autism and relateddevelopmental disabilities.

The results of this investigation demonstrated that the supervisors, located at a university setting,were able to observe the teachers implement the preference assessment protocol in real time andcollect reliable data on several variables (i.e., teacher implementation of the assessment protocols andstudent outcomes). The university supervisors were also able to give immediate feedback to thestudent teachers on their performance in real time. Both the university supervisors and studentteachers noted that the technology used was unobtrusive in the classroom setting and was relativelyeasy to use.

The fact that we were able to use this technology to deliver immediate feedback to student teachersin real time emphasizes the strong potential of this technology in the preparation of pre-serviceteachers. Several empirical studies have suggested that immediate feedback on performance is themost powerful supervision strategy to enhance skill acquisition in new teachers (O’Reilly & Renzaglia,1994). One of the perennial difficulties with immediate feedback is that university supervisors need tobe present in the classroom to deliver such instruction to pre-service teachers. This suggestion isdifficult, if not impossible, to implement in many teacher preparation programs as classroompracticum sites can be dispersed over large geographic areas and the ratios of university supervisors tostudent teachers can be burdensome. The use of laptop computers coupled with web cameras mayovercome some of these logistical difficulties and allow university teacher preparation programs theopportunity to provide real time feedback to pre-service teachers as they learn critical teaching skills.

This type of technology may also facilitate the availability of specialist support to schools thatmight otherwise be difficult to obtain. For example, a school district may require specialist support fora student who engages in severe challenging behavior. If that school district is in a geographicallyremote locale then accessing specialist support may be logistically and financially burdensome. Theuse of such videoconferencing equipment may overcome these difficulties. A specialist could observethe student with challenging behavior in real time in classroom settings, provide suggestions toteachers with regard to assessment and intervention, and provide ongoing follow up with such a case.This consultation could be potentially accomplished without the specialist ever traveling to the schooldistrict. Of course, this suggestion would need empirical verification.

The suggestions above must be tempered by the fact that the current investigation is a preliminaryone. Future research needs to replicate and extend these findings with pre-service and in-serviceteachers in school settings. The use of such videoconferencing protocols to facilitate other forms ofassessment such as functional analysis of challenging behavior and student performance oninstructional goals should be examined. Additionally, researchers should explore the use ofvideoconferencing as a method to support teachers when they are implementing intervention and

W. Machalicek et al. / Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 3 (2009) 32–4140

teaching strategies such as positive behavior support plans, daily living, social and communicationskills instruction with students. Some other forms of assessment and instructional interventionstrategies may be more difficult to capture using videoconferencing as they may require transition todifferent settings in the classroom, school, or community. For example, it may be difficult to conduct avideoconferencing strategy as outlined in this study with a student who engages in challengingbehavior in community settings such as the mall. Teachers may require face-to-face support in suchcircumstances or the use of more portable technology such as palmtop computers with web camerasand wireless facilities.

Acknowledgement

We wish to thank the Capital School of Austin for their support in conducting this research.

References

Boe, E., & Cook, L. (2006). The chronic and increasing shortage of fully certified teachers in special and general education. ExceptionalChildren, 72(4), 443–460.

Dib, N., & Sturmey, P. (2007). Reducing student stereotypy by improving teachers’ implementation of discrete-trial training. Journalof Applied Behavior Analysis, 40(2), 339–343.

Elford, R. (2000). A randomized controlled trial of child psychiatric assessments conducted using videoconferencing. Journal ofTelemedicine and Telecare, 6(2), 73–82.

Fisher, W., Piazza, C., Bowman, L., Hagopian, L., Owens, J., & Slevin, I. (1992). A comparison of two approaches for identifyingreinforcers for persons with severe and profound disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 491–498.

Gammon, D., Sorlie, T., Bergvik, S., & Sorensen Hoifodt, T. (1998). Psychotherapy supervision conducted via videoconferencing: Aqualitative study of users’ experiences. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry, 52(5), 411–421.

Hilty, D., Luo, J., Morache, C., Marcelo, D., & Nesbitt, T. (2002). Telepsychiatry: An overview for psychiatrists. CNS Drugs, 16(8), 527–548.

Howard, S., Ault, M., Knowlton, H., & Swall, R. (1992). Distance education: Promises and cautions for special education. TeacherEducation and Special Education, 15(4), 275–283.

Lattimore, P., Parsons, M., & Reid, D. (2002). A prework assessment of task preferences among adults with autism beginning asupported job. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 35(1), 85–88.

Lavie, T., & Sturmey, P. (2002). Training staff to conduct a paired-stimulus preference assessment. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,35(2), 209–211.

Ludlow, B., & Duff, M. (2002). Live broadcasting online: Interactive training for rural special educators. Rural Special EducationQuarterly, 21(4), 26–30.

Ludlow, B., Conner, D., & Schecter, J. (2005). Low incidence disabilities and personnel preparation for rural areas: Current status andfuture trends. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 24(3), 15–24.

O’Reilly, M., & Renzaglia, A. (1994). A systematic approach to curriculum selection and supervision strategies: A preservice practicumsupervision model. Teacher Education and Special Education, 17, 170–180.

Tousignant, M., Boissy, P., Corriveau, H., & Moffet, H. (2006). In home telerehabilitation for older adults after discharge from an acutehospital or rehabilitation unit: A proof-of-concept study and costs estimation. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology,1, 209–216.

IDEA Improvement Act. (2004). The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004. Pub. L. No. 108–446, § 101, Stat.2647.

IDEA Amendments. (1997). The Individuals with Disabilities Act Amendments of 1997. Pub. L. No. 17–105, § 101, 111 Stat. 37.IDEA. (1990). The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990. 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq.U.S. Department of Education. (2004a). IDEA Part B annual report tables. Personnel 2004. Table 3-2. http://www.ideadata.org/

tables29th%5Car_3-1.htm. Accessed 08.04.07.U.S. Department of Education. (2004b). IDEA Part B annual report tables. Personnel 2004. Table 3-1. http://www.ideadata.org/

tables29th%5Car_3-1.htm. Accessed 08.04.07.Westling, D., & Whitten, T. (1996). Rural special education teachers’ plans to continue or leave their teaching positions. Exceptional

Children, 62(4), 319–355.Zarate, C., Weinstock, L., & Baer, L. (1997). Applicability of telemedicine for assessing patients with schizophrenia: Acceptance and

reliability. The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 58(1), 22–25.

W. Machalicek et al. / Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 3 (2009) 32–41 41