Visual Schedules and Autism
Ranking:
Status Research
There are a number of limitations to all of the research studies published to date. For example
- The overwhelming majority of studies consisted of single-case designs with 6 or fewer participants.
- The single group design study was a randomised controlled trial but it had only 14 participants.
- Some of the single-case design studies used relatively weak methodologies (such as an ABAB design or convenience samples).
- Some of the studies did not provide enough details about the participants, such as whether they had a formal diagnosis of autism, intellectual ability etc.
- Some of the studies did not independently verify the diagnosis of autism using established diagnostic tools like the ADOS or ADI-R.
- Some of the studies did not examine key aspects of the intervention (such as the role of instruction and reinforcement alongside the use of visual schedules).
- Some of the studies did not examine the effectiveness of visual schedules when transitioning from play or free time to more demanding conditions (such as compliance with teacher instructions).
- Most of the studies did not identify if visual schedules had any beneficial effects in the medium to long term.
- Some of the studies did not identify if visual schedule had any benefits in real world settings.
- There are no studies which involved autistic people in the design, development and evaluation of those studies.
For a comprehensive list of potential flaws in research studies, please see ‘Why some autism research studies are flawed’
- Updated
- 17 Jun 2022
- Last Review
- 01 Nov 2017
- Next Review
- 01 Feb 2024