JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS 2016, 49, 1–6 NUMBER 4 (WINTER)

AN EVALUATION OF PHOTOGRAPHIC ACTIVITY SCHEDULES TO

INCREASE INDEPENDENT PLAYGROUND SKILLS IN YOUNG
CHILDREN WITH AUTISM
JESSICA S. AKERS, THOMAS S. HIGBEE, JOY S. POLLARD, AZURE J. PELLEGRINO,
AND KRISTINA R. GERENCSER
UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY

We used photographic activity schedules to increase the number of play activities completed by
children with autism during unstructured time on the playground. All 3 participants engaged in
more playground activities during and after training, and they continued to complete activities
when novel photographs were introduced.
Key words: activity schedules, autism, playground

A photographic activity schedule is a set of
pictures that prompt an individual to complete
a sequence of activities (McClannahan &
Krantz, 2010). Activity schedules have been
used to teach children with autism spectrum
disorders (ASD) a variety of skills, including
completing academic tasks (Bryan & Gast,
2000) and playing appropriately during free
play (Morrison, Sainato, Benchaaban, & Endo,
2002). Children with ASD often do not inde-
pendently engage in appropriate behaviors dur-
ing unstructured periods such as recess
(McClannahan & Krantz, 2010). For example,
when on the playground, rather than independ-
ently playing appropriately on the playground
equipment (e.g., climbing up the stairs and
then descending on the slide), they may engage
in repetitive (e.g., going up and down the stairs
repeatedly) or inappropriate (e.g., throwing
woodchips in the air) behavior. Activity sche-
dules may be useful to promote initiation and
appropriate play on the playground because
they provide visual cues to signal appropriate
responses.
Joy S. Pollard is now with the Behavior Change
Institute.
Address correspondence to Thomas S. Higbee, Utah
State University, 2865 Old Main Hill, Logan, Utah
84322 (e-mail: tom.higbee@usu.edu).
doi: 10.1002/jaba.327
Machalicek et al. (2009) evaluated the use of
activity schedules on the playground for chil-
dren with ASD. The activity schedule required
several steps: (a) pointing to the picture,
(b) removing the picture of the play structure,
(c) taking the picture to the corresponding play
structure, (d) engaging in play behavior at the
target structure for 2 min, and (e) returning to
activity schedule when prompted by the
teacher. The results showed that the schedules
produced decreases in problem behavior and
increases in play. Although the activity schedule
led to improvements in behavior, there are pro-
cedural limitations that warrant discussion. The
primary limitation is that the adults prompted
participants to return to the schedule rather
than teaching them to transition between activ-
ities independently. Strategies for fading adult-
delivered prompts are worthy of investigation
to promote independent play behavior with the
activity schedule.
Assessment of the generalizability of activity
schedules after responses to novel environments
is an important endeavor for behavior analysts.
The utility of this technology could be greatly
enhanced if, after teaching a child to follow an
activity schedule in one context (e.g., a class-
room), he or she was able to follow schedules
in other contexts (e.g., the playground) without
extensive teaching. Therefore, the purpose of

1
2 JESSICA S. AKERS et al.
the present study was to evaluate the effective-
ness of a photographic activity schedule for
increasing the number of appropriate play
activities independently completed by children
with ASD in a novel environment, the
playground.
METHOD
Participants and Setting
Three boys, aged 4 to 5 years, who attended
a university-based preschool for children with
ASD, participated in this study. Miles, Alvin
and Dexter were able to follow activity sche-
dules with four to five activities with 80% or
better accuracy for three consecutive sessions in
their preschool classroom. Participants had defi-
cits in outdoor playground play skills, which
we defined as engaging in stereotypic or repeti-
tive movements or activities (e.g., playing in
the wood chips) and not appropriately complet-
ing at least five playground activities (e.g., lad-
der, slide, stairs) during a 10-min observation.
All three participants had advanced visual-
matching skills and some basic listener-
responding skills.
The study took place in an outdoor play area
that contained a playground structure com-
posed of a rock wall, two sets of stairs, two
slides, and four variations of ladders. Play-
ground activities were defined as interacting
with the play structures fixed to the playground
area (e.g., slide) and other typical outside activ-
ities (e.g., t-ball). There were 16 total activities,
including a tube slide, a slide with three tracks,
short stairs, tall stairs, four different ladders, a
rock wall, soccer, t-ball, basketball, tricycle,
scooter, bean bag toss, and a flying disc. Many
of the activities included in the schedule were
naturally close ended, meaning that they had a
clear beginning and ending (e.g., going down
the slide). Open-ended activities were made
close ended by teaching the participants to
engage in a specific pattern of behavior in the
presence of the schedule (e.g., kicking two
soccer balls into a goal, riding the tricycle on a
specific route).
Materials
The activity schedule consisted of a small
three-ring binder, and each page contained an
attached picture of one activity (e.g., slide).
The schedule pictured five to eight activities
and a terminal reinforcer (small snack) on the
last page. The snack was located next to the
activity schedule, and the participant retrieved
it after the schedule had been completed. We
determined the number of activities in the
schedule by adding four activities to the highest
number of activities each participant completed
during baseline. Miles’s, Alvin’s, and Dexter’s
schedules contained five, eight, and seven activ-
ities, respectively. We randomly selected and
rotated among eight activities each session, and
there were an additional eight activities for the
novel-activities phase of the study. A video
camera recorded all sessions for subsequent
scoring.
Response Measurement and Interobserver
Agreement
The primary dependent variable was the
number of different playground activities
appropriately completed per session. Activities
that required one response (e.g., riding the
bike) or a sequence of responses (e.g., going
down the slide) counted as one activity. We
also recorded the percentage of independently
completed schedule components, which was
defined as the participant remaining more than
0.5 m from the instructor, and we used these
data to make decisions about phase changes.
We also measured engagement using a 10-s
momentary time-sampling procedure. Engage-
ment was defined as playing on or with the
equipment appropriately and continually mov-
ing on the equipment and on the ground.
Engagement was not scored if the participants
displayed stereotypy (e.g., playing in the wood
 AN EVALUATION OF PHOTOGRAPHIC ACTIVITY SCHEDULES
chips) or played on or with the equipment in a
way other than it was intended (e.g., throwing
soccer balls at others).
We assessed interobserver agreement and
treatment fidelity for 33% of the sessions dis-
tributed evenly across all phases and partici-
pants. We calculated trial-by-trial interobserver
agreement by dividing the total number of
agreements of activities completed and inde-
pendent schedule components completed
(when the schedules were present) by the num-
ber of agreements plus disagreements and con-
verting the result to a percentage. Mean
agreement was above 96% (range, 67% to
100%) for all participants. We calculated agree-
ment for engagement by dividing the number
of intervals with agreements by agreements plus
disagreements and converting the result to a
percentage. Mean agreement was above 90%
(range, 78% to 100%) for all participants. We
calculated treatment fidelity by dividing the
number of correctly completed components by
the total number of components and convert-
ing the result to a percentage. Mean fidelity
was 100% for Miles and Alvin and 97%
(range, 83% to 100%) for Dexter.
We used a nonconcurrent multiple baseline
design across participants to evaluate the effects
of the photographic activity schedule on com-
peletion of playground activities.
Procedure
Before beginning baseline sessions, we taught
picture-location correspondence to ensure all the
participants could proceed to the correct loca-
tions after being shown a picture of the activity.
We showed the picture to the participant, said,
“go here,” and provided an opportunity to pro-
gress to the correct location. The mastery criterion
for picture–location correspondence for each
activity was 100% independent correct respond-
ing for the initial teaching session or 100% inde-
pendent correct responses for three sessions if
instruction was required.
3
Sessions began when the experimenter said,
“go play.” Sessions ended when the activity
schedule was completed for treatment sessions
or 10 min had elapsed without the activity
schedule present. The mean session duration
for each participant when the activity schedules
were present was 6 min (range, 4 to 9 min) for
Miles, 13 min (range, 10 to 16 min) for Alvin,
and 6 min (range, 5 to 7 min) for Dexter.
Baseline. The experimenter gave the instruc-
tion “go play” and did not provide any other
verbal or physical prompts, with the exception
of physically prompting the participant to
return to the playground area if he attempted
to leave. Inappropriate behavior and requests
were ignored, and self-injurious behavior was
manually blocked across all phases. These ses-
sions lasted 10 min.
Schedule probe. The procedures were identi-
cal to baseline except that the activity schedule
was present. The experimenter did not prompt
the participants to engage with the schedule.
Teaching. The experimenter prompted the
completion of activity-schedule components
using graduated guidance (Bryan & Gast, 2000).
Training began with full physical prompts and
prompt fading in the first teaching session
because all participants had prior histories with
activity schedules and graduated guidance. We
faded prompts based on the participant’s
responding in the current and previous sessions.
For example, if the participant had independently
moved to the correct activity for the majority of
scheduled activities in the prior session, the
experimenter positioned herself where she could
monitor the participant and prompt if necessary
but far enough away so as not to interfere with
independent activities. Participants had 3 s to
complete each component or the experimenter
provided a physical prompt from behind. If a
participant engaged in an inappropriate response,
the experimenter immediately provided a physi-
cal prompt to engage in the appropriate response.
We did not provide any verbal prompts at any
point.
4 JESSICA S. AKERS et al.
We also increased the distance between the
experimenter and participants as quickly as pos-
sible. Initially, the experimenter followed the
participant on the play structure to remain
nearby if he engaged in errors; however, we
faded the distance between the experimenter
and participant within and across sessions.
Participants were required to complete all
components of the activity schedule: (a) open
the binder, (b) point to the picture, (c) go to
the activity, (d) complete the activity, (e) return
to the schedule, (f ) turn the page, (g) repeat
these steps until all the activities were com-
pleted, (h) consume the edible item indicated
on the last page, and (i) close the binder.
Novel activities. This phase followed the same
procedures as teaching, with the exception of
novel activities included in the schedule.
Follow-up. We assessed skills 2 weeks after
completion of the study. The procedures matched
those of training. The participants did not have
access to the activity schedules during the 2-week
period between treatment sessions and the
follow-up session. The schedule included both
randomly selected and sequenced activities from
the treatment phase and novel-activities phase.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The number of appropriate play activities
during baseline and the schedule probe ranged
from zero to four (Figure 1). Participants
immediately completed more activities with the
introduction of activity schedules and training.
When we removed the activity schedules for
the return to baseline, responding returned to
baseline levels. After reintroduction of the
activity schedules, participants again completed
an increased number of playground activities.
Responding remained high when novel activ-
ities were introduced and during follow-up.
The percentage of engagement during base-
line was variable and low for Alvin (5% to
58%; data not shown) and Dexter (0% to
49%). Miles had a higher level of engagement
in baseline (65% to 97%). Although only small
changes in engagement occurred with the intro-
duction and removal of the schedule for Miles,
he completed only one activity during baseline.
In comparison, Alvin and Dexter completed
more activities during baseline but spent less
time engaged. Training increased engagement
(80% to 100%) and the number of activities
completed for all participants.
This study extends the literature on activity
schedules by demonstrating that schedules can
increase independent and appropriate play on
the playground even when adult support is
withdrawn. We designed this study to provide
a measure of generalization of activity schedules
across settings, because schedule following in
the classroom was a skill in the participants’
repertoires. The results show that participants
did not follow the schedule during the baseline
probe despite this prior training. It is likely that
the stimulus control exerted by the schedules
did not transfer to the new environment with-
out the participants first contacting the relevant
contingencies. However, after we introduced
manual guidance along with the schedule, the
participants rapidly began to follow the activity
schedule in the novel setting, and graduated
guidance was quickly faded. The fact that parti-
cipants did not continue to engage in different
activities when the schedule was removed dur-
ing the return to baseline suggests that the
schedule was, in fact, exerting control over their
behavior on the playground and that this con-
trol did not automatically transfer to the play-
ground equipment. Although this response
pattern is consistent with prior research on
activity schedules, strategies for fading the
schedule warrant further investigation.
Because participants independently followed
activity schedules in their classroom prior to
the study, it remains unclear whether our train-
ing procedures would produce similar results
for individuals without this history. In addi-
tion, we did not specifically arrange training of
activity schedules in the classroom to promote
 AN EVALUATION OF PHOTOGRAPHIC ACTIVITY SCHEDULES 5

Baseline Probe Teaching BL Teaching Novel Activities Follow up

10 100
9 90
8 80
Schedule
7 70
Components
6 60
5 50
4 40
3 Activities 30
2 20
1 Miles 10
0 0

10 100

9 90

Percentage of Independently Completed

8 80
Number of Activities Completed

7 70

Schedule Components
6 60

5 50

4 40

3 30

2 20

1 10
Alvin
0 0

10 100
9 90
8 80
7 70
6 60
5 50
4 40
3 30
2 20
1 10
Dexter
0 0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31
Sessions

Figure 1. The total number of activities completed (left axis) and percentage of independently completed schedule
components (right axis) for Miles (top), Alvin (middle), and Dexter (bottom).
6 JESSICA S. AKERS et al.
generalization across settings. Future research
might evaluate strategies for rapid training and
generalization of independence with following
activity schedules across settings.
Another limitation is the duration of Alvin’s
treatment sessions. Because his treatment ses-
sions, on average, were longer than baseline ses-
sions, it is unclear if he would have engaged in
more activities if we had provided additional time
during baseline. However, during baseline Alvin
spent an average of only 35% of the session
engaged in appropriate play. Therefore, it seems
unlikely that additional time in baseline would
have led to completion of more activities.
REFERENCES
Bryan, L. C., & Gast, D. L. (2000). Teaching on-task
and on-schedule behaviors to high-functioning
children with autism via picture activity schedules.
Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 30,
553–567. doi:10.1023/A:1005687310346
Machalicek, W., Shogren, K., Lang, R., Rispoli, M.,
O’Reilly, M. F., Franco, J. H., & Sigafoos, J. (2009).
Increasing play and decreasing the challenging behav-
ior of children with autism during recess with activity
schedules and task correspondence training. Research
in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 3, 547–555.
doi:10.1016/j.rasd.2008.11.003
McClannahan, L. E., & Krantz, P. J. (2010). Activity sche-
dules for children with autism: Teaching independent
behavior (2nd ed.). Bethesda, MD: Woodbine
House.
Morrison, R. S., Sainato, D. M., Benchaaban, D., &
Endo, S. (2002). Increasing play skills of children
with autism using activity schedules and correspond-
ence training. Journal of Early Intervention, 25,
58–72. doi:10.1177/105381510202500106
Received July 2, 2015
Final acceptance January 13, 2016
Action Editor, Tiffany Kodak