Expanding Toy Play through Visually Structured Tasks and Scripting for Young Children with Developmental Disabilities
Hampshire, Patricia Korzekwa; Crawford, Michael (2022). Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, v22 n1 p44-53. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1323627
-
examining3Students, gradePK
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: April 2026
- Practice Guide (findings for Visual supports and scripts and least to most prompting to expand toy play - Hampshire & Crawford (2022) )
- 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.
-
Male: 100% -
- 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
Idaho
-
Race Other or unknown 100% -
Ethnicity Other or unknown 100% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The setting for this study was a pre-kindergarten inclusion classroom and an outdoor educational space at a university-based early childhood education center.
Study sample
Three students diagnosed with a developmental disability between the ages of 3 to 5 years old participated in the study. Sutton, age 5, was diagnosed with an Autism Spectrum Disorder. Elliott, age 5, was diagnosed with Downs Syndrome. Simon, age 5, was diagnosed with a cognitive and social delay but was also being monitored for Autism.
Intervention Group
The study used an intervention package that combined three approaches, including visual supports, scripts, and least-to-most prompting. Toys were introduced to the students and then the interventionists used a least-to-most prompting technique to move the student through the play script. As students gained skills with the materials, the prompting was faded. Two different sets of toys and scripts were used throughout the intervention condition based on the students' interests; these were the same toys used with each student during the baseline sessions. For instance, a dinosaur playset included a volcano, trees, and wooly mammoths; the play script provided a narrative of the scene, such as describing the dinosaur and wooly mammoth climbing the volcano and the volcano being hot. Students were allowed to bring in additional materials and deviate from the script as they played. All play sessions were 15 minutes in length for a total of 11 intervention sessions for Elliott, six for Simon, and nine for Sutton.
Comparison Group
There is no comparison group in single-case designs. All play sessions were 15 minutes in length for a total of three baseline sessions for Elliott, four for Simon, and five for Sutton, for each toy set. Two different toy sets were used throughout the baseline condition based on the student's interest. The interventionists provided no prompting to the student to use the toys.
Support for implementation
The study collected data on the fidelity of program implementation via a fidelity checklist. If fidelity fell below 90 percent for more than two consecutive weeks, the study team would provide the interventionist with a booster training. Fidelity never fell below the threshold, so no booster training was needed during the study.
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).