Using Visual Activity Schedules for Young Children with Challenging Behavior
Zimmerman, Kathleen N.; Ledford, Jennifer R.; Barton, Erin E. (2017). Journal of Early Intervention, v39 n4 p339-358 Dec 2017. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1159218
-
examining3Students, gradePK
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: March 2026
- Practice Guide (findings for Constant time delay (CTD) on visual activity schedules (VAS) - Zimmerman et al. (2017))
- Single Case Design
- Meets WWC standards without reservations
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Findings
To view more detailed information about the study findings from this review, please download findings data here.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
Female: 67%
Male: 33% -
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
South
-
Race Black 33% White 67% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 33% Not Hispanic or Latino 67% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in two inclusive preschool classrooms at one university-affiliated childcare center in the southeastern United States. Sessions occurred during morning free play centers.
Study sample
Participants included three preschool children at-risk for social delays who engaged in challenging behaviors. Children ranged in age from 43- to 52-months old. Two of the children were females. Two of the children were White, one was Black, and one was White Hispanic. One participant had a speech and language impairment and was eligible for speech therapy through an individualized education program (IEP), and one participant had a seizure disorder and received special education services as a student with a developmental delay in speech, language, and social development. The third participant did not have a reported disability.
Intervention Group
One doctoral level and two master's students in special education used constant time delay (CTD) to teach children with challenging behaviors to use visual activity schedules (VAS) to complete classroom routines or engage in play activities, such as creating art or playing with blocks. Intervention sessions lasted for ten minutes and occurred during a daily 60-minute morning free play block. The VAS were displayed on rectangular laminated cardstock and depicted one activity broken down into four steps with graphics/icons for each step necessary to complete the task. For example, the four steps for engaging in an art activity were: (1) pick a creature, (2) color the creature, (3) cut out the creature's name, and (4) glue the name to picture. The VAS were placed near the activity areas and the session began when the classroom teacher asked the child to begin the activity. The researcher prompted the child to complete each step of the task analysis following a pre-set wait time. These task analysis steps included: (1) walk to VAS after task direction, (2) locate and remove task icon, (3) locate and walk to designated location, (4) initiate task, and (5) return completed task icon to "all done" bucket. Task analysis steps 2 to 5 were repeated for each play activity step on the VAS. If a child did not complete a step within the designated wait interval, or initiated a step out of sequence, the researcher provided controlling physical prompts that differed for each child and were predetermined in consultation with the classroom teacher. Wait times for each procedural step also varied depending on the task and were predetermined with the classroom teacher. A terminal reinforcer was not provided after independent completion of task analysis steps but the child was allowed to choose or engage with other materials after completing the required tasks. Challenging behavior was ignored by researchers.
Comparison Group
There is no comparison group in single-case designs. Baseline sessions lasted for ten minutes and occurred during a daily 60-minute morning free play block. Baseline sessions began when the classroom teacher asked the child to begin the activity. Teachers were instructed to conduct free play time and interact with the children per the typical classroom routine. Visual activity schedules were not were present during baseline sessions and no verbal, gestural, or physical prompts to complete the activity were provided. Classroom teachers were instructed to ignore any screaming or throwing of materials, but displays of hitting were redirected by classroom teachers with a verbal prompt, which was the normal classroom procedure. The researcher stood away from the child while videotaping the session and provided no prompts.
Support for implementation
A doctoral student in special education was the primary implementer. Two master's students in special education were trained by the doctoral student and conducted sessions when the doctoral student was not available. Procedural fidelity data was collected via video for a minimum of 33% of sessions in each baseline and intervention condition for all participants.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, statistical significance, and sample size of the findings within a domain, the WWC assigns effectiveness ratings as one of the following: Tier 1 (strong evidence), Tier 2 (moderate evidence), Tier 3 (promising evidence), uncertain effects, and negative effects. For more detail, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).