Improving the Socio-Vocational Skills of Adults with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Using Video Modeling: A Pilot Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors present the results of two separate studies in the manuscript. First, they investigated the social validity and comprehensibility of adaptive videos utilized in video modeling for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD). Second, they examined the efficacy of the Cog 'n' Role Intervention, which includes participant role-playing (VSM) and Social Problem-Solving Therapy (SPST), on social-vocational skills and work performance. While the findings regarding the social validity and efficacy of the Cog 'n' Role Intervention based on video modeling may hold significance for researchers and service providers in the IDD field, challenges are evident in the study's purpose, design, analysis, and the insufficient interpretation or implications presented. The author(s) are encouraged to consider the following suggestions.

Introduction
p2, 57-59: This is the first instance where the term 'social validity' is introduced. Readers encounter its components (i.e., key factors) without any prior explanation. It would be beneficial to discuss the importance of social validity for individuals with IDD beforehand.

Readers would understand the studies better if clear research questions were listed. What hypotheses are being examined?

It would be beneficial to articulate the purpose of the manuscript in a manner more closely aligned with the analysis. In the analysis, the authors compared social validity scores and comprehension levels between instances where participants selected adapted videos (i.e., adapted solutions) and those where participants selected non-adapted videos (i.e., common solutions). Social validity generally assesses the acceptability, relevance, perceived effectiveness, and positive experience of the entire intervention from the perspective of those involved or affected by it. While it may be appropriate to evaluate the social validity and comprehension of specific components of the intervention, comparing social validities within the same intervention (i.e., VM) requires justification. Why can it be hypothesized that the social validity and comprehension of adapted videos are good when their scores are significantly better than those for non-adapted videos? It might be expected that participants would naturally have difficulty understanding common solutions that may already occur in reality.

Phase 1
p3, line 114: It would be better to have more information about the eight professionals who participated in the focus group.

p7, lines 189-190: What are the numbers of SFQ responses for the adapted and non-adapted videos?

p7, lines 192-202: What do the numbers 4.31 and 4.54 represent? Letters used as statistical symbols need to be italicized.

Phase 2
p7, line 204 – p8, line 211: What are Mild or moderate stauts of the participants in the intervention? Age range? It might be easier to understand the participants if there is information about why and how these inclusion criteria were developed

Intervention Results
It would be much better to provide a graph showing the progress of the 17 participants, with demarcation lines for A1, A2, and so on.

There are numbers that lack information about what they represent (e.g., 7.57, p9, line 263).

p 9, line 263: Why is it N = 16 not 17?

p 9, line 270: p < 0.08 is not statistically significant.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Thank you for allowing me to read your manuscript "Improving Socio-Vocational Skills of Adults with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Using a Novel Socially Valid Video Modelling Intervention". The article has potential as it explores an interesting topic, but to be considered for publication you should revise your manuscript based on the comments below.

Title is a little bit long, but if you cannot find a better, you can keep it like that.

Abstract

Clear and good abstract.

Introduction

The introduction provides a clear overview of the challenges faced by people with intellectual and developmental disabilities in achieving employment, including the role of social skills and evidence-based interventions such as video modelling and social problem solving therapy. The foundation is solid, but some areas could benefit from clarification. The introduction mentions that there is a paucity of documentation on VM and SPST in employment contexts, but does not elaborate sufficiently on this gap. Clearly state why current interventions are inadequate and how the combination of VM and SPST addresses specific unmet needs. Strengthening the links between soft skills, social intelligence and workplace integration

Methods

The use of a convenience sample is mentioned but not justified. Explain why this sampling method was chosen and its limitations (e.g., generalizability).

Provide additional context about the participants' background. For instance, what types of jobs did participants in the sheltered workshops and supported employment programs hold?

Explain whether there were differences in the level of support provided to participants in these two groups, as this may affect outcomes.

Consider including information about how the adapted videos were pre-tested or validated before use. For example, was there a pilot phase to ensure that participants understood the scenarios and solutions?

Highlight why PowerMod was chosen over existing platforms or tools. How does it address gaps in currently available tools for people with IDD?

Stage 2

Explain why participants exhibiting the four identified behaviors (e.g. difficulty waiting for breaks, inappropriate sexual behavior) were prioritized.

Address whether these behaviors are representative of wider socio-occupational challenges faced by people with IDD or whether they are specific to this sample.

For the SVSQ, provide details of its development and validation process. Was it piloted before use? Were any adjustments made based on feedback?

For the WPQ, include a brief explanation of how its ability domains were adapted to align with the intervention's focus on socio-professional behaviors.

Results

Discuss why improvements were observed between certain time points (e.g., A1 to A2) but not others (e.g., A2 to A3).

Offer possible explanations for why adaptive solutions increased immediately post-intervention but behavioral changes were more evident one month later.

Discussion

No comment

Conclusion & Limitation

I will change the order of these two sections. First conclusion and afterwards limitation.

Kind regards

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review this work. It seems like a promising intervention to explore further. Improving employment outcomes for individuals with IDD is critical and I commend the authors for focusing their work in this area. I also appreciate your explicit focus on the social validity of the intervention. Finally, I appreciate the work you did to ensure that the intervention was accessible to participants with a wide range of characteristics.  

 

Please see below for specific suggestions that I believe are needed to strengthen the manuscript. For the single-subject design component of the study, my review is guided by quality indicators for single-subject research (Horner et al., 2005).

 

1.     I believe that the introduction would be strengthened by clearly indicating that a goal of the intervention is to move individuals with IDD out of sheltered settings. As it stands, para 4 makes it seem as if sheltered work is an acceptable support structure for individuals with IDD. Reframing this part of the introduction to make clear the concerns with segregating people with IDD from their peers and communities would strengthen argument for the need for this type of intervention.  

 

2.     Please clearly state the research questions.  

 

3.     The participant section is lacking information that would allow others to select individuals with similar characteristics.

a.     Can you be clearer about the process for selecting participants? Why did you use a convenience sample?

b.     Is there other demographic information to report on the participants besides age range and gender?

c.     In the last sentence of the participants paragraph in the single-case section, it seems like more information could be present, but the sentence is cut off… “A demographic questionnaire 11 participants” – but the sentence ends there.

d.     How did you ensure that participants in sheltered settings, who are largely isolated and completing menial tasks, had adequate opportunities for social interaction that would allow for accurate measurement of the impact of the interventions?

 

4.     Is timepoint A considered basline data collection? If so, it would be helpful to make this clearer. 

 

5.     I was wondering whether fidelity of implementation was measured.

 

6.     A visual analysis (e.g., graph) of the single-subject intervention data, as is standard for single-subject research, would be helpful in improving clarity and transparency of the findings.

 

7.     I am having trouble understanding how you measured changes in employment type and attributed it to the effects of the intervention. I worry about the internal validity and whether the findings in their current form are overstated. This may just be an issue of clarity, but I think it is important to address prior to publication.   

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has undergone substantial enhancements, with all of the suggestions effectively integrated into the revised version. The author(s) put great effort into the revision work, resulting in clearer descriptions in the methodology and results sections, while the introduction and literature review are presented in a more logical manner. The findings are sensible and meaningful within the given research design.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the time the authors took to revise the manuscript. I believe their revisions strengthened the manuscript and in turn, its contribution to the field. I am recommending the revised version of the article for publication.