JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS 2018, 51, 553–570 NUMBER 3 (SUMMER)

AN EVALUATION OF GROUP ACTIVITY SCHEDULES TO PROMOTE

SOCIAL PLAY IN CHILDREN WITH AUTISM
JESSICA S. AKERS, THOMAS S. HIGBEE, KRISTINA R. GERENCSER AND
AZURE J. PELLEGRINO
UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY

Children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) often have deficits in social skills and may avoid
engaging in play activities with typically developing peers. The purpose of this study was to
identify the utility of activity schedules, with embedded scripts, to teach three children with
ASD to play a complex social game. Specifically, children with ASD were taught to play hide-
and-seek with typically developing peers. Once the activity schedules were introduced, partici-
pants began engaging in independent hide-and-seek behaviors. A secondary purpose of this
study was to systematically fade the activity schedules to the least intrusive version. We faded all
of the scripts and the majority of activity schedule components for the three participants. Partic-
ipants continued to play hide-and-seek with the faded versions of the schedules in a novel envi-
ronment and 2 weeks after treatment concluded.
Key words: activity schedules, fading, peer play

Children with autism spectrum disorder Morrison, Sainato, Benchaaban, &

(ASD) frequently play in an atypical manner
(Williams, 2003), engage with a limited num-
ber of activities (Bancroft, Thompson, Peters,
Dozier, & Harper, 2016), and have fewer inter-
actions with peers (McGee, Feldman, & Mor-
rier, 1997). Peer play is an important aspect of
child development (Burriss & Tsao, 2002; Jor-
dan, 2003); therefore, teaching peer play is
important for interventionists working with
young children with ASD. Behavior analysts
have developed a variety of effective technolo-
gies for teaching appropriate play skills to chil-
dren with ASD (e.g., Dupere, MacDonald, &
Ahearn, 2013; Lang et al., 2014), including
activity schedules (e.g., Bryan & Gast, 2000;
Jessica S. Akers, Utah State University; Thomas
S. Higbee, Utah State University; Kristina R. Gerencser,
Utah State University; Azure J. Pellegrino, Utah State
University.
Jessica S. Akers is now at Baylor University; Kristina
R. Gerencser is now at Marcus Autism Center.
Address correspondence to: Jessica S. Akers, One
Bear Place #97301, Waco, TX, 76798, E-mail:
jessica_akers@baylor.edu
doi: 10.1002/jaba.474
© 2018 Society for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
553
Endo, 2002).
Activity schedules are chained schedules
paired with visual stimuli. One of the primary
benefits of using activity schedules as a teaching
tool is that children learn to independently
engage in the chain of activities without signifi-
cant adult assistance (MacDuff, Krantz, &
McClannahan, 1993). Initially, adults physi-
cally guide the child to follow the schedule and
then systematically fade their guidance until the
child can complete the schedule independently.
Script fading is an intervention designed to
promote verbal interactions and is commonly
used in conjunction with activity schedules
(Krantz & McClannahan, 1998). Scripts pro-
vide children with ASD with appropriate
phrases for a particular context (e.g., playtime).
Once the child reliably emits the scripted state-
ments without additional response prompts,
the scripts are systematically faded from the
end of the statement to the beginning
(e.g., “Let’s play,” “Let’s ____,” etc.). Scripts
can be included in activity schedules to serve as
a cue for children with ASD to initiate social
interactions.
554 JESSICA S. AKERS et al.
Researchers have used individual activity
schedules (e.g., Morrison et al., 2002) and peer
activity schedules (e.g., Betz, Higbee, & Rea-
gon, 2008; Brodhead, Higbee, Pollard,
Akers, & Gerencser, 2014) to promote appro-
priate play for children with ASD. Betz
et al. (2008) first examined the use of activity
schedules to increase peer engagement with
three dyads of preschoolers with ASD. The
researchers defined peer engagement as both
children appropriately playing the same game.
During baseline, peer engagement remained
below 50% for the three dyads. Once the
schedules, which included scripted initiations
(e.g., “Let’s play _____”), and prompting were
introduced, peer engagement immediately
increased and eventually maintained at levels of
80% or higher for all dyads. When the
researchers removed the schedule for one dyad
and returned to baseline, peer engagement
returned to baseline levels. However, when the
schedule was reintroduced, peer engagement
increased to treatment levels. The researchers
demonstrated that activity schedules could be
used to increase engagement between play part-
ners. Based on the encouraging results of this
study, researchers have evaluated the effective-
ness of activity schedules for teaching peers to
engage in other interactive games.
A common interactive game played by
young children is hide-and-seek. Brodhead
et al. (2014) examined the use of activity
schedules to teach three dyads of preschool
children with ASD to play hide-and-seek. Dur-
ing baseline, the dyads were instructed to play
hide-and-seek and provided with 10 min of
unrestricted play. The dyads did not engage in
any hide-and-seek behaviors during these ses-
sions. Once the researchers introduced the
schedules, which included scripted play state-
ments (e.g., “I found you” and “oh no”), and
prompting, all three dyads engaged in hide-
and-seek behaviors, and responding remained
elevated when response prompts were faded.
However, when the researchers returned to
baseline conditions, the participants’ respond-
ing returned to baseline levels, which was simi-
lar to Betz et al.’s (2008) finding, in that
participants did not correctly play hide-and-
seek without the schedules. Once the schedules
were reintroduced, the participants’ responding
immediately increased. Overall, the researchers
demonstrated that using activity schedules with
embedded scripts effectively increased partici-
pant interactive game play. Although these
findings are positive, the schedules presented in
this study included only a few hiding locations
and scripted statements, which may negatively
impact the child’s ability to play hide-and-seek
in novel environments with novel peers. Thus,
increasing the complexity of peer activity sched-
ules may be an important extension to promote
variability and generalization of target play
skills.
The studies described above provide prelimi-
nary evidence for using activity schedules to
promote peer play between children with ASD.
However, if the goal of an intervention is to
teach more typical play skills, the intervention
should include typically developing peers as
play partners, particularly if the least restrictive
environment for the child could be a general
education classroom. Research is needed to
identify the utility of activity schedules for
incorporating children with ASD in the play of
typically developing peers.
When the activity schedules were removed
in Betz et al. (2008) and Brodhead
et al. (2014), the participants’ responding
returned to baseline levels. This suggests that
the activity schedules served as a permanent
visual cue to promote peer play, rather than a
temporary teaching tool. This is a common
finding in the activity schedule literature
because the purpose of some activity schedules
is to serve as a more permanent visual cue
(e.g., a to-do list; Bryan & Gast, 2000; Mac-
Duff et al., 1993). However, there are instances
in which it would be preferable for the child to
engage in the target behavior without the
 AN EVALUATION OF GROUP ACTIVITY
schedule. In these cases, systematically fading
schedule components may be successful in
transferring stimulus control to features of the
relevant environment. There is some evidence
to support the fading of activity schedules. Bir-
kan, McClannahan, and Krantz (2007) success-
fully faded a photographic activity schedule to
a textual schedule for a child with ASD. Fur-
ther, Blum-Dimaya, Reeve, Reeve, and Hoch
(2010) completely faded activity schedules used
to promote video game set up by systematically
removing entire pages of the schedule. How-
ever, it is likely these researchers were able to
fade the activity schedules because the chain of
behaviors remained constant, as the steps
required to set up a video game do not change.
If the order of an activity schedule is varied it
may be necessary to further break down the
fading steps. Therefore, additional research is
needed to determine whether activity schedules
that are dynamic (i.e., do not require a
sequence of fixed steps) and incorporate multi-
ple children can be successfully faded. To our
knowledge, there are no studies which have
evaluated the use of activity schedules to pro-
mote play between more than two children,
and those which have included two peers have
included peers with ASD as opposed to typi-
cally developing peers.
The primary purpose of this study was to
investigate whether children with ASD can
learn to engage in complex group play using
activity schedules with embedded scripts. We
sought to extend the research on peer activity
schedules by teaching children with ASD to
play with a group of typically developing peers.
A secondary purpose was to examine the effects
of systematically fading the activity schedules
including scripted statements.
METHOD
Participants and Setting
Three preschool aged children attending a
university-based preschool for individuals with
555
ASD were recruited for this study. The partici-
pants with ASD (hereafter called “target chil-
dren”) were taught to play hide-and-seek with a
group of three preschool-aged typically develop-
ing children (hereafter called “peer partici-
pants”). The three target children were Penny
(3 years, 2 months), Dexter (4 years,
11 months) and Sadie (5 years, 1 month).
Penny had attended the university-based pre-
school for 1 month, Dexter for 8 months, and
Sadie for 1 year and 8 months, prior to the ini-
tiation of the study. Target children were fluent
activity schedule followers before participating
in the study. We defined this as independently
following individual activity schedules with
90% accuracy or better in the clinical setting
for three consecutive sessions. Although Sadie
had a history with auditory script fading, none
of the target children had previous experience
following textual scripts. The target children
were selected to participate in this study
because they (a) had the prerequisite skills
(i.e., vocal behavior, activity schedule follow-
ing), (b) had demonstrated some interest in
peers, and (c) did not engage in high levels of
problem behavior. Penny demonstrated most of
the skills from Levels 1 and 2 (e.g., makes eye
contact with peers, imitates peer actions) on
the VB-MAPP, and Sadie and Dexter both
demonstrated all of the skills from Level 1 and
the majority of skills from Levels 2 and 3 (e.-
g., mands to peers, responds to mands from
peers) on the VB-MAPP (Sundberg, 2008).
Based on parental report, none of the target
children had played hide-and-seek before the
initiation of the study.
Twelve typically developing peer participants
(eight females and four males) ages 4-5 and
attending a university-based early childhood
center were recruited for this study. We
selected the peer participants based on their
availability for participation. We did not have
any additional criteria for peer participants.
Peer participants were not trained to facilitate
teaching; rather, they served the role of
556 JESSICA S. AKERS et al.
confederates. Initially, each target child played
hide-and-seek with a predetermined group of
peers. However, this became impractical due to
uncontrollable circumstances (e.g., peer ill-
nesses and absences); thus, peer groups were
selected for each session based on availability.
Sadie and Dexter spent a portion of their ther-
apy time at the university-based early childhood
center where they had the opportunity to inter-
act with the peer participants outside of
research sessions.
We conducted sessions in a common area at
the university-based early childhood center,
which consisted of cubbies, tables, chairs,
benches, and observation rooms. Because the
sessions were conducted in the common area,
there were often other adults and children mov-
ing through the area that were not a part of the
research. Generalization sessions were con-
ducted in the outside play area of the
university-based early childhood center, which
consisted of a slide, playhouses, a sandbox,
trees, and bike trails. We conducted one to
three sessions per day, 3-5 days per week.
Materials
Two small, three-ring binders were used for
the teaching phase of the study. One binder
was designated as the “seeker” schedule and the
other as the “hider” schedule (see Figure 1).
These binders were shared among the target
child and three peer participants playing hide-
and-seek. Each binder contained construction
paper inside page protectors with laminated
pictures of the players, hiding locations and
scripts which were attached on the pages with
Velcro®. Target children and peer participants
were taught nine scripts: “my turn,” “Go hide,”
“Ready or not here I come,” “found you,” “see
you,” “got you,” “oh no,” “ahh man,” and
“dang it.” The three hider scripts (i.e., “oh no,”
“ahh man,” and “dang it”) were typed on a
blue background and the three seeker scripts
(i.e., “found you,” “see you,” and “got you”)
were typed on a green background. We devel-
oped these scripts based on informal observa-
tions of children playing hide-and-seek and a
general consensus that the target children and
peer participants would be likely to learn the
scripted phrases without extensive training. The
informal observations were conducted in an
outdoor play area, and the observed children
were approximately 6-8 years old.
Measurement
Trained research assistants collected data via
recorded video, which required each target
child and peer participant to be individually
recorded to obtain all the necessary data. We
recorded schedule behaviors and game play
behaviors using a per-opportunity measure
(Brodhead et al., 2014). Schedule behaviors
were defined as responses that were necessary
for completing the activity schedules, and game
play behaviors were defined as responses neces-
sary for completing the game (see Table 1).
Schedule behaviors were recorded for sessions
in which the activity schedules were present,
whereas game play behaviors were recorded
during all sessions. An example of a schedule
behavior was touching the picture of hiding
location, and an example of a game play behav-
ior was locating a hider. The number of oppor-
tunities for game play behaviors depended on
the number of times a target child or peer par-
ticipant played the role of the hider and seeker.
There were 10 game play behaviors per round
for playing the role of the seeker (includes mul-
tiple opportunities for searching responses such
as locating hiders) and four game play behav-
iors per round for playing the role of the hider.
There were 21 schedule behaviors for playing
the role of the seeker (includes multiple oppor-
tunities for searching responses such as using
an appropriate phrase) and four schedule
behaviors for playing the role of the hider;
however, as the activity schedules were faded,
the number of schedule behaviors also
 AN EVALUATION OF GROUP ACTIVITY 557

Figure 1. The top pictures depict an example of the front and back page of the seeker schedule. The bottom left
picture depicts an example of a page from the hider schedule. The bottom right picture depicts an example of the visual
cue displaying the seeker order.

Table 1 decreased. During baseline sessions, it was pos-

Seeker and Hider Behaviors
Seeker
Open schedule*
Say “My turn”
Say “Go hide”
Counts from 1 to 20
Say “Ready or not here I come”
Turn page*
Remove seekers strip*
Point to hiding location*
Search hiding location
At location
• Say appropriate phrase
(e.g., “see you”)
• Move appropriate picture*
Return seeker strip*
Turn page*
Close schedule*
Note. *Denotes schedule behavior only.
Hider
Open schedule*
Remove picture of hiding
location*
Move to location
Remain in the location until
found
Say appropriate phrase
(e.g., “Dang it”)
Return to home base
Turn page*
Close schedule*
sible for the accuracy of one of the participant’s
responding to affect the number of opportuni-
ties to respond for other participants; however,
because there were multiple peers rather than
one peer this did not occur. During treatment
sessions, research assistants prompted correct
responses; therefore, it was not possible for a
participant’s accuracy of game play to affect the
opportunities for responding for the other
peers. We recorded responses as correct if they
occurred within 5 s of the specific cue. For
example, we recorded the response as correct if
the hider moved to a hiding location within 5 s
of the seeker saying “Go hide” and as incorrect
if the hider did not move within 5 s or if s/he
hid before the seeker said “Go hide”. We calcu-
lated the percentage of independent hide-and-
seek behaviors by dividing the sum of
558 JESSICA S. AKERS et al.
independently completed schedule behaviors
and game play behaviors by the total number
of possible responses and converting the result
to a percentage. Peer participant data were col-
lapsed into one data path by averaging the
scores across the three peers.
It is important to note, we defined accurately
playing the role of the seeker and hider as indi-
vidually engaging in the target behaviors
(e.g., counting, hiding); therefore, the compo-
nents of seeker and hider behavior were
recorded as incorrect for both the target child
and peer participants if they played the role of
the seeker or hider in pairs. This occurred only
during sessions without teaching procedures in
place, but during these sessions, peer partici-
pants and Sadie frequently played the role of
the seeker in pairs. We also established a
requirement for each target child and peer par-
ticipant to play the role of the seeker during
the game for at least one round. Because of
this, if the target child or peer participants did
not play the role of the seeker during sessions
without the schedules, the components of
seeker behavior were recorded as incorrect.
We also recorded data on the different play
statements used by the target children and peer
participants once the scripts were introduced.
Research assistants transcribed each play state-
ment (e.g., “see you,” “found you”) made by
the target children and peer participants. We
taught multiple scripts to determine whether
this would lead to varied commenting once the
scripts were faded as a measure of response gen-
eralization (Stokes & Baer, 1977).
An independent coder collected data on at
least 33% of the sessions, across all phases, for
both target children and peer participants, to
assess interobserver agreement (IOA) and treat-
ment fidelity. IOA was calculated by dividing
components in which the data collectors agreed
by the total number of components scored and
converting the result to a percentage. An agree-
ment was recorded if both coders recorded the
same component as correct or incorrect. Mean
agreement was 97% (range, 92%-100%) for
Penny, 97% (range, 91%-100%) for Dexter,
95% (range, 90%-100%) for Sadie and above
90% for all of the peer participants.
Treatment fidelity was calculated by dividing
the number of correctly implemented compo-
nents by the total number of components and
converting the result to a percentage. The com-
ponents analyzed were: (a) activity schedules
were present (or not present during baseline);
(b) the schedules were arranged in the correct
sequence (i.e., the location strip and correct
scripts were present, the target child played the
seeker for the correct turn, and materials were
at the correct fading step); (c) sessions were
recorded; (d) the researcher began the session
with the instruction, “It’s time to play hide-
and-seek, go play”; (e) praise was not provided;
(f ) physical prompts were provided from
behind the target child or peer participant; and
(g) research assistants followed the prompting
procedure for scripts (described below). Mean
fidelity was 95% (range, 75%-100%) for
Penny, 100% for Dexter, 98% (range, 81%-
100%) for Sadie, and 93% (range, 87%-100%)
for the peer participants.
A nonconcurrent multiple baseline design
across play groups was used to evaluate the
effects of using activity schedules to teach chil-
dren with ASD to play hide-and-seek with typi-
cally developing peers.
Procedure
The same procedures were used for target
children and peer participants across all phases
of the study. Decisions for fading and mastery
were based on the target child’s responding;
however, the procedures were consistent for the
target children and peer participants.
Pretraining. Before beginning the experimen-
tal sessions, target children and peer partici-
pants went through pretraining procedures to
ensure they could respond to the scripts, pic-
tures, and numbered dots to be included in the
 AN EVALUATION OF GROUP ACTIVITY
activity schedules. Target children and peer
participants were taught to respond appropri-
ately to scripts by reading each script aloud.
The research assistant placed the script in front
of the target child or peer participant and said
“read.” If s/he engaged in the correct response
within 5 s, the research assistant provided brief
praise. If s/he did not read the script correctly,
or did not respond within 5 s, the research
assistant said, “try again,” and it was marked as
incorrect. The research assistant then presented
the script again and provided an immediate
prompt (i.e., vocal). If the target child or peer
participant made another error, this sequence
was repeated. If the target child or peer partici-
pant responded correctly, the research assistant
provided her/him with an additional opportu-
nity to respond independently. The research
assistant presented at least five trials, but con-
tinued to present trials until the target child or
peer participant independently responded cor-
rectly. The mastery criterion for each script was
100% accuracy for one session.
We then taught target children and peer par-
ticipants to move to the correct hiding loca-
tions when provided the picture of the
location. The research assistant presented the
picture and gave the direction “go here.” Target
children and peer participants were also taught
to count aloud to 20 while touching numbered
dots on a laminated card. The research assistant
placed the card in front of the target child or
peer participant and instructed him/her to
count. For both of these skills, the same teach-
ing procedures and mastery criterion described
above were implemented.
Unstructured play probes. Two unstructured
play probes were conducted for each target
child before and after treatment to assess for
any collateral effects of the intervention on gen-
eral play behavior. The target child and three
peer participants were given 10 min of unrest-
ricted play in the university-based early child-
hood center classroom. We used 10-s whole-
interval recording to measure the percentage of
559
intervals in which the target child was in the
same play area as a peer and the percentage of
intervals in which the target child engaged in
the same activity as a peer. The classroom was
divided into six different play areas (e.g., blocks
area, pretend play area) by the classroom
teacher, and we defined being in the same area
based on these predetermined areas. We also
recorded the number of vocal interactions the
target child directed to peers and the number
of vocal interactions that were directed to the
target child. Vocal interactions were defined as
a statement of two words or more, related to
the play activity, that were directed towards a
specific individual (i.e., the speaker used the
individual’s name or was facing the individual
while making the statement).
Baseline. During baseline, the target child
and peer participants were given 10 min of
unrestricted play, and the schedules were not
present. Target children and peer participants
were given the direction, “Play hide-and-seek.
One of you will be the seeker, and the others
will be the hiders.” Research assistants did not
provide any prompts unless the target child or
one of the peer participants attempted to leave
the area or was engaging in inappropriate
behavior (e.g., climbing on the furniture), in
which case they either physically blocked the
response or stated a rule (e.g., “feet on the
ground”).
Generalization probe. Generalization of hid-
ing and seeking behavior was assessed in a
novel setting (i.e., the outside play area). We
conducted one pretreatment generalization
probe using procedures from baseline and one
posttreatment generalization probe using proce-
dures from the end of treatment. The posttreat-
ment generalization probe involved prompting
and presenting the schedule at the last success-
ful fading step, which varied across target
children.
Activity schedule probe. Activity schedule
probes followed the same procedures as base-
line, except that activity schedules were present.
560 JESSICA S. AKERS et al.
We did not physically guide the target children
or peer participants to follow the schedules, nor
did we provide any other prompts. The pur-
pose of this phase was to assess whether simply
introducing the activity schedules without
prompting would lead to an increase in appro-
priate game play (Brodhead et al., 2014).
Teaching activity schedule. Following baseline
and probe sessions, we used physical guidance to
teach target children and peer participants to fol-
low the activity schedules (McClannahan &
Krantz, 2010). Research assistants provided
physical guidance by placing their hands on the
shoulders of the target child or peer participant
to guide him/her to a new location and hand-
over-hand guidance when necessary
(e.g., pointing to a picture). We provided
prompts if the target child or peer participant
engaged in an incorrect game play or schedule
behavior or did not initiate a response within
5 s. We also provided a prompt if the target
child or peer participant engaged in the correct
game play behavior prior to engaging in the nec-
essary corresponding schedule behavior
(e.g., searching a hiding location prior to remov-
ing the seeker strip). The prompting procedure
used for following scripts is described below.
Two separate binders were present; one con-
tained the seeker schedule, and the other con-
tained the hider schedule. In the seeker
schedule, at the top of each page was a picture
of the target child or peer participant who
would play the role of the seeker for that
round. Below the picture was the script, “my
turn,” which the seeker said to distinguish her/-
himself from the hiders. The next script was
“Go hide,” which the seeker said to signal for
the hiders to hide. Below the “Go hide” script
was a written cue, “Count to 20,” and 20 small
dots with numerals 1-20. This signaled for the
seeker to count, giving the hiders a chance to
hide. The last script read, “Ready or not here I
come,” which was the phrase the seeker used to
alert the hiders that s/he was going to search
for them.
The back of the page included a removable
cardboard strip (i.e., seeker strip) with pictures
of the hiders on one side and pictures of the
hiding locations on the other side. As the seeker
located the hiders, s/he moved the hider’s pic-
ture from the Velcro® strip on the left to the
picture of the location where the hider was
found on the right. Once a hider was found,
the seeker was required to emit a contextually
appropriate phrase (e.g., “found you”). If the
seeker searched a location but no one was hid-
ing there, s/he put a picture of a sad face on
the location to designate that s/he searched
there but none of the hiders were found. Once
the seeker located the three hiders, s/he
returned the seeker strip and the next round
began. The game ended once each target child
and peer participant had a turn to be the
seeker. Mean session length was 8 min 50 s
(range, 3 min 26 s-15 min) for Penny, 11 min
45 s (range, 7 min 16 s-17 min) for Dexter,
11 min 4 s (range, 5 min 29 s-18 min 10 s)
for Sadie.
We created four different sequences of seven
hiding locations. These sequences were created
by first separating the hiding locations into two
groups based on proximity (three from one side
of the common area and four from the other
side of the common area). This was to ensure
we taught practical searching behavior
(i.e., searching all the locations on one side of
the room before moving to the other side of
the room). We then assigned a number to each
hiding location in a group and randomized the
numbers. Two of the sequences started with
hiding locations on the left side of the common
area, and the other two started with hiding
locations on the right side of the common area.
We used randomization without replacement
to determine which sequence of hiding loca-
tions to use for each session. We also randomly
selected which hider and seeker scripts
(e.g., “see you,” “oh no”) to use for each ses-
sion and the position in which the target child
played the role of the seeker (i.e., first, second,
 AN EVALUATION OF GROUP ACTIVITY
third, or last). Although we taught these spe-
cific hiding locations, once the location pictures
were faded (described below) target children
and peer participants were free to hide in any
location within the play area.
The pages in the hider schedule contained a
pool of seven pictures of potential hiding loca-
tions. Each hider took a picture and hid in the
corresponding location. Taking the picture
rather than pointing to it ensured multiple
hiders did not hide in the same location. Once
a hider was found, s/he was required to emit a
contextually appropriate phrase (e.g., “oh no”).
There were four hider pages in the schedule,
one for each round of the game.
Research assistants transcribed the different
hider and seeker phrases each target child and
peer participant emitted. We specifically taught
three seeker scripts (e.g., “found you”) and
three hider scripts (e.g., “oh no”). Target chil-
dren and peer participants could use any con-
textually appropriate phrase when s/he found
hiders or when s/he was found by the seeker.
However, if the target child or peer participant
did not make a response within 5 s of locating
a hider or being found by the seeker we
prompted the scripted phrase. We first physi-
cally guided the target child or peer participant
to point to the script, and if this prompt level
was unsuccessful we provided a vocal model
(e.g., “found you”; Krantz & McClannahan,
1998). Script fading was initiated after one ses-
sion in which the target child independently
engaged in the appropriate hider and seeker
phrases with at least 85% accuracy. We contin-
ued to fade scripts based on this criterion. We
faded scripts one word or portion of the script
at a time, from the last word to the first, across
all scripts. The final fading step was removing
the blank colored strip that was paired with the
scripts. Script fading was based on the target
child’s performance but was independent of the
schedule fading. Scripts were completely faded
for the target children and peer participants
prior to the introduction of schedule fading.
561
Schedule fading. The terminal goal of the
intervention was for the target children to play
hide-and-seek with peers with the least intru-
sive version of the schedules. The criteria for
initiating schedule fading were for the target
child to independently engage in both hider
and seeker behaviors for three consecutive ses-
sions at 90% or better accuracy. Before intro-
ducing the systematic fading steps, target
children and peer participants were exposed to
baseline conditions to identify whether the fad-
ing steps were necessary. If a target child’s
responding during this session was below 80%,
the fading procedure was initiated. The activity
schedules were faded using the six arbitrarily
developed steps presented in Table 2. During
these sessions, we provided physical guidance
when necessary. The criteria for moving from
one fading step to the next required that the
target child independently engage in the hider
and seeker behaviors for one session with at
least 90% accuracy. If at any point the target
child made multiple errors, we reinstated the
previous fading step. After reinstating the previ-
ous fading step, we required the target child to
meet the previously stated fading criteria again
before fading further. Target children and peer
participants engaged with the same activity
schedules; therefore, based upon the target
child’s responding, schedules were faded for all
participants.
Follow up. Maintenance of playing hide-and-
seek was assessed 2 weeks after the final
research session. During follow-up sessions, the
schedule was present at the last successful fad-
ing step; however, we did not prompt any
responses.
RESULTS
We taught the target children and peer par-
ticipants to read the nine scripts used in the
study, to count to 20, and to identify seven
hiding locations before we initiated sessions
(data not depicted). Penny required an average
562
Schedule fading steps
1. Seeker binder, numerals removed
2. Seeker binder, visual cue for counting
removed
3. Hider binder removed; seeker binder,
seeking location pictures removed
3a. Hider binder removed; seeker binder,
seeking location pictures and instruction to
count removed (Dexter only)
3b. Hider binder removed; seeker binder,
seeking location pictures removed but
visual cue for counting reintroduced (Sadie
only)
4. Seeker binder, seeker strip removed and
instruction to count removed
4a. Seeker binder, seeker strip removed and
instruction to count removed but visual cue
for counting reintroduced (Sadie only)
5. Seeker binder removed, visual cue
displaying seeker order remains
6. No visual cues and no prompts provided
(i.e., baseline conditions)
of three teaching sessions to master the scripted
statements and nine sessions to master count-
ing, and she did not require training for
picture–location correspondence. Dexter
required an average of six teaching sessions to
master the scripted statements, two sessions to
master counting, and two sessions to master
picture–location correspondence. Sadie required
an average of eight teaching sessions to master
the scripted statements, 21 sessions to master
counting, and two sessions to master picture–
location correspondence.
Penny’s data are presented in the upper
panel of Figure 2. During baseline, Penny did
not engage in any hide-and-seek behaviors. She
attempted to initiate toy play with the peers,
but did not make any attempts to hide or
search for them. Penny’s responding remained
at baseline levels during the generalization
probe. Next, we conducted a schedule probe,
and despite the presence of the schedule Pen-
ny’s responding remained at baseline levels.
After introducing teaching, Penny quickly
JESSICA S. AKERS et al.
Table 2
Fading Steps
Schedule requirements faded
Seeker Hider
3. Point to hiding location 3. Open hider schedule
3. Move picture of hiding location 3. Remove picture of hiding location
3. Turn page
3. Close schedule
4. Remove seeker strip
4. Return seeker strip
5. Open seeker schedule
5. Turn page
5. Close seeker schedule
acquired the skills and engaged in the majority
of the hide-and-seek behaviors independently
(M = 82.22%, range, 44%-100%). We initi-
ated schedule fading after nine sessions.
Penny was reexposed to baseline conditions
to assess whether intermediate fading steps
were necessary, and her responding decreased
to approximately 20% accuracy. When sched-
ules were reintroduced at the first schedule
fading step, her responding immediately
increased and remained high throughout the
fading process (M = 91.16%, range, 52%-
100%). She progressed through the systematic
fading steps and met the criteria for returning
to baseline conditions. However, when she
proceeded to this final fading step her appro-
priate responding began to decrease, as she
continually played the role of the seeker. The
visual cue displaying the order of the seekers
was reintroduced and her responding returned
to treatment levels. At this fading step, she
followed the schedule at 100% accuracy for
three consecutive sessions.
 AN EVALUATION OF GROUP ACTIVITY 563

Figure 2. The percentage of independent hide-and-seek behaviors for target children Penny, Dexter, and Sadie and
peer participants. Data collected in the common area are depicted by squares and data collected in the outside play area
are depicted by triangles. The numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 depict schedule fading sessions. Numbers correspond to the
fading steps (see Table 2). The * denotes when groups were randomized. The + denotes script fading sessions. Sch.
Probe = schedule probe. The ** denotes the practice session for Dexter.

We conducted another generalization probe
with Penny. This session included the visual
cue displaying the order of the seekers. Penny
independently completed all of the seeker
behaviors without any assistance, which
included identifying novel hiding locations. A
follow-up session was conducted 2 weeks after
treatment sessions concluded. During this ses-
sion, the visual cue displaying the order of the
seekers was present; however, prompts were not
provided. Penny independently completed all
the hide-and-seek behaviors, except she did not
emit a contextually appropriate phrase when
found (e.g., “oh no”) for one turn.
Dexter’s data are presented in the middle
panel of Figure 2. During baseline, Dexter
rarely engaged in any hide-and-seek behaviors
(M = 2.29%, range, 0%-10%) and engaged in
high levels of stereotypy (stereotypy data not
depicted). Dexter did not engage in any hide-
and-seek behaviors during the generalization
probe or the two schedule probes. Two sched-
ule probes were conducted with Dexter because
after the first schedule probe, the decision was
made to use random groups of peers rather
than a predetermined group. Rather than
implement teaching and this procedural alter-
ation concurrently, a second schedule probe
564 JESSICA S. AKERS et al.
was conducted to assess the effects, if any, this
would have on responding.
We introduced physical guidance to teach
Dexter to follow the activity schedules. His
responding rapidly increased and remained high
throughout teaching (M = 80.46%, range,
52%-94%). Initially, he independently engaged
in the majority of the seeker behaviors, but he
consistently responded incorrectly when playing
the role of the hider, preventing him from
meeting the fading criteria. We conducted a
brief practice session with Dexter prior to ses-
sion 16 (denoted by the double asterisk on the
graph) during which he was provided multiple
opportunities to practice the hider sequence
(i.e., select a picture, proceed to the location,
etc.) with the researcher. Immediately following
this brief practice, a teaching session was con-
ducted and his independent responding
increased to above 85% accuracy. Dexter met
the criteria to begin schedule fading after
12 teaching sessions.
Dexter was again exposed to baseline condi-
tions to identify whether the systematic sched-
ule fading procedure was necessary, and his
responding decreased to approximately 20%
accuracy. We reintroduced the schedules and
initiated schedule fading, and his responding
increased to teaching levels and remained high
throughout fading (M = 92.31%, range, 83%-
100%). The additional cues for counting, the
hider binder, and the location pictures on the
seeker strip were successfully faded. However,
when we removed the seeker strip and instruc-
tion to count, Dexter’s responding decreased.
He failed to locate all three hiders while playing
the role of the seeker. The seeker strip with the
pictures of the three hiders was reintroduced.
This was a slight modification to the original
third schedule fading step because the instruc-
tion to count to 20 was not present as it was
unnecessary, as he consistently counted inde-
pendently when fading step 4 was in place.
This was the final fading step for Dexter. It is
unknown whether further exposure could have
resulted in additional fading. We were unable
to continue to modify the fading procedure for
practical reasons because peer participants were
leaving the early childhood center for the sum-
mer. Dexter independently engaged in all of
the hide-and-seek behaviors during two treat-
ment sessions. We conducted a generalization
probe, and Dexter continued to engage in high
levels of hide-and-seek behaviors. During the
follow-up session, which included the schedule
but no prompts, Dexter’s percentage of correct
hide-and-seek behaviors remained high.
Sadie’s data are presented in the lower panel
of Figure 2. During baseline, Sadie did not
engage in more than 25% of the behaviors dur-
ing sessions (M = 16.12%, range, 6%-23%).
She often hid at inappropriate times (e.g., no
one was counting) and simply followed another
peer participant who was playing the role of the
seeker, rather than doing so independently.
During the outside generalization probe, she
engaged in some of the hide-and-seek behav-
iors, but her responding was not considerably
higher than that of other baseline sessions.
Next, we conducted a schedule probe, and her
responding remained at baseline levels. We
introduced teaching, and the percentage of
independent hide-and-seek behaviors rapidly
increased and remained elevated throughout
this phase (M = 81.92%, range, 36%-95%).
She met the criteria to begin schedule fading
after 13 teaching sessions.
Sadie was reexposed to baseline conditions to
assess the necessity of the systematic schedule
fading procedure. During this session, her
responding decreased to 65% accuracy. The
schedules were reintroduced at the first sched-
ule fading step, and her responding returned to
teaching levels (M = 91.77%, range, 83%-
100%). Sadie quickly progressed through the
first two fading steps; however, when we faded
the hider binder and location strip, Sadie’s
responding decreased to less than 90% accuracy
for two sessions. We reintroduced the hider
binder and locations strip and within two
 AN EVALUATION OF GROUP ACTIVITY
Table 3
Unstructured Play Probes
Penny
Before After
treatment treatment
Time in the same area (%) 58 98
Time engaged in the same 20 98
activity (%)
Initiations made by TC 3 13
Initiations made by PP to TC 5 13
Note. TC = target child, PP = peer participants
sessions her responding was at 90% accuracy.
The hider binder and location strip were again
faded; however, we made a slight modification
by including the circles for counting in the
schedule. This modification was deemed neces-
sary because of Sadie’s consistent need for assis-
tance with counting. The circles remained in
the schedule until only the visual cue displaying
seeker order was present.
We conducted one generalization probe with
the visual cue displaying the seeker order. Dur-
ing this session, Sadie engaged in high levels of
hide-and-seek behaviors. Finally, Sadie contin-
ued to engage in the hide-and-seek behaviors
during the follow-up session. The only error
she made was hiding in a location already occu-
pied by another child.
The peer participants’ data are also presented
in Figure 2. The group data are included in the
figure with the target children’s data to high-
light the correspondence between the two data
paths. Overall, the peer participants and target
children played hide-and-seek more accurately
when the activity schedules were present.
Unstructured Play Probes
We conducted the unstructured play probes
to assess for any possible collateral effects of the
treatment (see Table 3). The amount of time
Penny and Dexter spent in the same play area
and engaged in the same activity as peer partici-
pants increased after treatment. In addition,
peer participants engaged in more vocal
565
Dexter Sadie
Before After Before After
treatment treatment treatment treatment
0 32 100 77
0 13 77 63
0 4 24 33
3 10 36 31
interactions directed towards Penny and Dexter
after treatment. We did not observe the same
results with Sadie. The amount of time Sadie
engaged in peer play actually decreased after
treatment; however, it could be argued that the
overall quality of play increased because during
the initial unstructured play probe, she played
blocks with one peer for the entire session,
whereas during the second unstructured play
probe, she played a variety of imaginative
games (e.g., firefighters) with all three peers.
Script Fading
We taught three seeker scripts paired with
green backgrounds and three hider scripts
paired with blue backgrounds. We hypothe-
sized that teaching multiple scripts paired with
specific stimuli (i.e., colored backgrounds)
would promote varied responding from the tar-
get children and better facilitate script fading.
Although the scripts were completely faded for
all of the target children, the degree of varied
responding differed across the target children
(see Table 4). Overall, the target children con-
sistently used the same phrase when locating
the hiders, but two of the three target children
did use multiple phrases when they were
found.
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to investigate
whether activity schedules could be used to
566 JESSICA S. AKERS et al.

Table 4 The two primary goals for this study were:

Frequency of Sessions in which Target Children Used (a) to demonstrate that activity schedules could
Varied Statements be used to teach children with ASD to play
Phrase PennyPenny Dexter Sadie
hide-and-seek with a group of typically devel-
oping peers and (b) to demonstrate that
Got you 1 1 --
See you 3 3 -- children with ASD could continue to play
Found you 18 27 23 hide-and-seek when the activity schedules were
Dang it
Ahh man
21
--
4
19
4
2
systematically faded. To meet our first goal, we
Oh no -- 2 5 sought to replicate and extend the findings of
Oh man* -- 3 2 Brodhead et al. (2014), which showed that six
Ugh oh* -- 1 --
You found me* -- 1 -- children with ASD were able to play hide-and-
Oh rats* -- -- 6 seek in pairs using activity schedules following
Oh well* -- -- 15
You got me* -- -- 1 intervention. We also found that intervention
That was scary* -- -- 1 with activity schedules was effective for teach-
Surprise* -- -- 3
Oh gosh* -- -- 1 ing children with ASD to play hide-and-seek.
The schedules used in the current study were
Note. *Novel phrases. Dashes indicate that the phrase was more complex than those used in Brodhead
never emitted.
et al. In that study, the seeker would search, at
most, two locations and locate one peer. In the
current study, the seeker could search as many
teach children with ASD to play an interactive as seven locations and locate three peers. Also,
social game with typically developing peers. We once the hiding location pictures were faded,
extended previous research on peer activity the target children and peer participants could
schedules, joint schedules (Betz et al., 2008) hide in any location in the common area, thus
and linked schedules (Brodhead et al., 2014), increasing the number of possible locations in
by including typically developing peers as play which the seeker must search. Learning to
partners and systematically fading the activity search and hide in multiple locations not only
schedules to provide the least intrusive prompts increased the complexity of the schedule, but
necessary to produce successful responding for also influenced the development of generalized
young children with ASD. This was the first play repertoires for the target children.
study to use an activity schedule to promote We also taught nine different scripts and
group play. This was facilitated by including faded all nine of the scripts, whereas in the
both versions of the previous peer activity Brodhead et al. (2014) study, four scripts were
schedules; the hider binder served as a joint taught but only two of the four were faded.
activity schedule as it was shared between the Target children in the current study continued
three hiders and the seeker binder served as a to emit contextually appropriate phrases after
linked schedule as it was only used by one child the scripts, including the colors paired with the
but it directly corresponded with the hider scripts, were faded. This is an important aspect
schedule. The three target children learned to of the current study, because researchers in
play hide-and-seek with the activity schedules some previous studies have been unable to fully
and continued playing appropriately when the fade discriminative stimuli used during script
majority of schedule components had been fading (Akers, Pyle, Higbee, Pyle & Gerencser,
faded. For two of the three target children the 2016). Teaching multiple scripts did not lead
only remaining schedule component was a to variability for all participants, as the target
visual cue displaying the order of seekers. children primarily used the same seeker phrase
 AN EVALUATION OF GROUP ACTIVITY
(i.e., “found you”). However, two of the three
target children emitted multiple hider phrases
(e.g., “oh no”), including novel phrases
(e.g., “oh rats”).
Despite the increased complexity, target chil-
dren successfully followed the activity sched-
ules. The peer participants also followed the
activity schedules despite never being exposed
to activity schedules prior to the study.
Although we did pretrain several of the
required responses (e.g., reading the scripted
statements), we did not specifically train the
majority of the schedule behaviors
(e.g., opening the schedule, turning the page).
However, after the activity schedules and
prompting were introduced, the peer partici-
pants’ independent responding rapidly
increased. An unexpected finding was that peer
participants’ independent hide-and-seek behav-
iors decreased when the activity schedules were
removed. It was hypothesized that after teach-
ing peer participants the rules for playing hide-
and-seek in the manner we outlined they would
then continue playing without the presence of
the schedule. However, the stimulus control
exerted by the schedule did not transfer to the
natural environment, and thus the schedules
were necessary for both target and peer partici-
pants to play the game. During this treatment
procedure, the target children and peer partici-
pants were exposed to the same treatment with
the same materials, which led to an increase in
independent hide-and-seek behaviors. Interven-
tions such as this could be useful in general
education for promoting inclusion of children
with ASD.
Table 5
Cumulative Number and Frequency of Novel Hiding and Seeking Locations
Hiding
Target Child Cumulative Frequency
Penny 2 16
Dexter 3 10
Sadie 1 4
567
Another goal of this study was to extend the
literature on activity schedules by examining
the effects of systematically fading the sched-
ules. Although there is a strong research base
for using activity schedules to increase appro-
priate play skills for children with ASD
(e.g., Bryan & Gast, 2000; Morrison et al.,
2002), activity schedules may be stigmatizing;
therefore, it is important to fade them if possi-
ble. We systematically faded the activity sched-
ules, to some degree, for all three target
children. Because the schedule fading steps
were arbitrarily developed, it may have been
possible to further fade the activity schedule
components with smaller fading steps. It is
important to note that the last successful fading
step across target children did not include
visual cues for possible hiding locations. With-
out any stimulus prompts, the target children
were able to search for peers in specifically
taught and novel locations and hide in both
taught and novel locations (see Table 5). Target
children and peer participants were required to
hide in locations where other participants were
not hiding; thus, when a target child hid in a
novel location s/he was not simply following a
peer participant to that hiding location. The
target children’s ability to engage in these hid-
ing and seeking behaviors is promising. It could
be the case that the target children were pro-
vided with enough exemplars of hiding loca-
tions to lead to the more generalized behaviors
of hiding and seeking (Stokes & Baer, 1977).
An interesting but unexpected finding was
that the majority of target children and peer
participants engaged in some form of pointing
Seeking
Cumulative Frequency
7 16
3 11
3 12
568 JESSICA S. AKERS et al.
behavior when emitting the faded scripted
phrases. For example, target children and peer
participants continued to point to the area
below their picture and say “my turn”, even
when the script was no longer present. It is
unknown why this transfer occurred; however,
it would be interesting for researchers to report
whether this is a common finding across script
fading studies. It is possible that our prompting
procedure led to this peculiar pattern of
responding. Although this type of stereotypical
responding is often attributed to ASD (DSM-
5; American Psychiatric Association, 2013), in
this study, typically developing children also
engaged in these responses. Further examina-
tion of this finding would be beneficial to iden-
tify prompting procedures that do not lead to
stigmatizing behavior.
To assess possible collateral effects of the
intervention, we arranged free-play situations
between the child with ASD and typically
developing peers. Although we cannot specifi-
cally attribute any of the changes in behavior to
our intervention, the findings suggest that this
structured and narrowly focused intervention
may have had a broader impact on the global
play interactions between the target children
and peer participants. Overall, we observed
increases in the frequency and duration of
interactions between two of the three target
children and the peer participants. After teach-
ing target children to initiate play in the con-
text of hide-and-seek, which resulted in peer
reciprocation, they were then able to engage in
appropriate initiations outside of this context.
Many social skills interventions involve teach-
ing children with ASD to appropriately initiate
play and provide artificial reinforcement for
engaging in these behaviors. Within the context
of this intervention, we arranged situations in
which target children made appropriate initia-
tions and peer reciprocation served as a natural
reinforcer. It is likely that this generalized play
repertoire developed based on the high rates of
reinforcement the target children contacted and
the fact that this reinforcement was provided
by multiple peers.
Future researchers should consider collecting
similar measures to assess collateral effects of
play interventions beyond the specific goals tar-
geted in their study. It is important to identify
interventions that improve generalized play
skills. Measures such as those used in this study
could provide some of this information.
Several limitations in the present study are
worth noting. A primary limitation was the use
of prompts throughout the teaching and fading
sessions. With the exception of Penny, who
independently engaged in all hide-and-seek
behaviors for three consecutive sessions, the tar-
get children required prompting in the final
fading sessions. Although we did not provide
prompts during the follow up sessions, future
researchers may investigate fading response
prompts prior to initiating stimulus fading
(i.e., fading activity schedule components).
A second limitation is the scripted manner
in which the game was outlined. Accurate data
collection required a precise game definition.
However, this restricted definition may have
affected the target children and peer partici-
pants’ scores and the extent to which schedules
could be faded. We attempted to mimic the
way in which most typically developing chil-
dren play hide-and-seek, but because the game
was scripted, it became necessary for the target
children and peer participants to follow the spe-
cific rules that were taught. For example, if a
target child or peer participant located a hider
s/he was required to use a contextually appro-
priate statement (e.g., “found you”), and if this
response was omitted it was scored as incorrect.
However, the omission of this response would
not have adversely affected the progression of
the game.
A third limitation is the manner in which
generalization probes were conducted.
Although we did conduct probes before and
after treatment, the procedures for these ses-
sions were different. The schedule at the final
 AN EVALUATION OF GROUP ACTIVITY
fading step was included in the probe after
treatment. The schedule was not included dur-
ing baseline probes because it was unknown at
which fading step the target children would
successfully complete the game. However, this
difference does temper the degree to which we
can draw comparisons between the two
sessions.
A final limitation is the absence of social
validity or normative data. This information
may have been useful for determining how
children typically rotate turns for playing the
different roles, the types of phrases they use
while playing hide-and-seek, and identifying
whether the skills required for playing the game
are age appropriate for the population. Overall,
the peer participants, as well as the target chil-
dren, played hide-and-seek more accurately
when the schedules were present. Although this
could also be an artifact of our restricted defini-
tion of game play, it may be the case that hide-
and-seek is a more appropriate game for older
children.
Despite these limitations, the results of this
study support future research of the use of
activity schedules to teach complex, interactive
games. Hide-and-seek was selected for this
study because it seemed to lend itself well to
teaching the components within an activity
schedule. Future researchers may wish to inves-
tigate this tool for other social games. The use-
fulness of activity schedules beyond teaching
social games should also be investigated. Future
researchers should assess whether activity sched-
ules could facilitate group work with children
with ASD and their typically developing peers.
The potential for using activity schedules to
promote inclusion for children with ASD in
general education classrooms warrants further
investigation as this could be an important
development for the field.
In summary, not only is this the first study
to successfully fade the majority of components
in a dynamic activity schedule (distinct from a
schedule that requires a sequence of fixed steps,
569
e.g., Blum-Dimaya et al., 2010), it is also the
first study to use activity schedules to facilitate
complex game play between children with ASD
and typically developing peers. We were able to
teach children with ASD to play a structured
game using a relatively simple technology—
activity schedules with embedded scripts—and
this led to target children playing appropriately
with peers and engaging in varied responding
(e.g., using different phrases, hiding and seek-
ing in novel locations). Future researchers
should continue to investigate the applications
of activity schedules for promoting inclusion of
children with ASD in activities involving typi-
cally developing peers.
REFERENCES
Akers, J. S., Pyle, N., Higbee, T. S., Pyle, D., &
Gerencser, K. R. (2016). A synthesis of script fading
effects with individuals with autism spectrum disor-
der: A 20-year review. Review Journal of Autism and
Developmental Disorders, 3, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s40489-015-0062-9
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and
statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Arling-
ton, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing.
Bancroft, S. L., Thompson, R. H., Peters, L. C.,
Dozier, C. L., & Harper, A. M. (2016). Behavioral
variability in the play of children with autism and
their typically developing peers, Behavioral
Interventions, 31, 107-119. https://doi.org/10.1002/
bin.1438
Betz, A., Higbee, T. S., & Reagon, K. A. (2008). Using
joint activity schedules to promote peer engagement
in preschoolers with autism. Journal of Applied Behav-
ior Analysis, 41, 237- 241. https://doi.org/10.1901/
jaba.2008.41-237
Birkan, B., McClannahan, L. E., & Krantz, P. J. (2007).
Effects of superimposition and background fading on
the sight-word reading of a boy with autism. Research
in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 1, 117-125. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.rasd.2006.08.003
Blum-Dimaya, A., Reeve, S. A., Reeve, K. F., &
Hoch, H. (2010). Teaching children with autism
spectrum disorders to play a video game using activity
schedules and game embedded simultaneous video
modeling. Education and Treatment of Children, 33,
351-370. https://doi.org/10.1353/etc.0.0103
Brodhead, M. T., Higbee, T. S., Pollard, J. S.,
Akers, J. S., & Gerencser, K. R. (2014). The use of
linked activity schedules to teach children with
570 JESSICA S. AKERS et al.
autism to play hide and seek. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 47, 645-650. https://doi.org/10.
1002/jaba.145
Bryan, L. C., & Gast, D. L. (2000). Teaching on-task
and on-schedule behaviors to high functioning chil-
dren with autism via picture activity schedules. Jour-
nal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 30, 553-
567. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005687310346
Burriss, K. G., & Tsao, L. (2002). Review of research:
How much do we know about the importance of
play in child development? Childhood Education, 78,
230-233.https://doi.org/10.1080/00094056.2002.
10522188
Dupere, S., MacDonald, R. F., & Ahearn, W. H. (2013).
Using video modeling with substitutable loops to
teach varied play to children with autism. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 46, 662-668. https://doi.
org/10.1002/jaba.68
Jordan, R. (2003). Social play and autistic spectrum disor-
ders: A perspective on theory, implications and edu-
cational approaches. Autism, 7, 347-360. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1362361303007004002
Krantz, P. J., & McClannahan, L. E. (1998). Social inter-
action skills for children with autism: A script-fading
procedure for beginning readers. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 31, 191-202. https://doi.org/10.
1901/jaba.1998.31-191
Lang, R., Machalicek, W., Rispoli, M., O’Reilly, M.,
Sigafoos, J., Lancioni, G., . . . Didden, R. (2014).
Play skills taught via behavioral intervention general-
ize, maintain, and persist in the absence of socially
mediated reinforcement in children with autism.
Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 8, 860-872.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2014.04.007
MacDuff, G. S., Krantz, P. J., & McClannahan, L. E.
(1993). Teaching children with autism to use
photographic activity schedules: Maintenance and
generalization of complex response chains. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 26, 89-97. https://doi.
org/10.1901/jaba.1993.26-89
McClannahan, L. E., & Krantz, P. J. (2010). Activity
schedules for children with autism: Teaching indepen-
dent behavior (2nd ed.). Bethesda, MD: Woodbine
House.
McGee, G. G., Feldman, R. S., & Morrier, M. J. (1997).
Benchmarks of social treatment for children with
autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental
Disorders, 27, 353-364. https://doi.org/10.1023/
A:1025849220209
Morrison, R. S., Sainato, D. M., Benchaaban, D., &
Endo, S. (2002). Increasing play skills of children
with autism using activity schedules and correspon-
dence training. Journal of Early Intervention, 25, 58-
72. https://doi.org/10.1177/105381510202500106
Stokes, T. F., & Baer, D. M. (1977). An implicit technol-
ogy of generalization. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 10, 349-367. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.
1977.10-349
Sundberg, M. L. (2008). Verbal behavior milestones assess-
ment and placement program: The VB-MAPP. Con-
cord, CA: AVB Press.
Williams, E. (2003). A comparative review of early forms
of object-directed play and parent infant play in typi-
cal infants and young children with autism. Autism,
7, 361-377. https://doi.org/10.
1177/1362361303007004003
Received May 27, 2016
Final acceptance June 30, 2017
Action Editor, Sharon Reeve