JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS 2014, 47, 1–6 NUMBER 3 (FALL)

THE USE OF LINKED ACTIVITY SCHEDULES TO TEACH CHILDREN

WITH AUTISM TO PLAY HIDE-AND-SEEK
MATTHEW T. BRODHEAD, THOMAS S. HIGBEE, JOY S. POLLARD,
JESSICA S. AKERS, AND KRISTINA R. GERENCSER
UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY

Linked activity schedules were used to establish appropriate game play in children with autism
during a game of hide-and-seek. All 6 participants demonstrated acquisition of appropriate play
skills in the presence of the activity schedules and maintained responding during subsequent phases.
When the schedules were removed, responding decreased to baseline levels, demonstrating that the
schedules controlled responding. Implications for future research on the use of activity schedules to
teach social behavior are discussed.
Key words: activity schedules, autism, social interactions

Activity schedules, which contain visual or
auditory cues that serve as discriminative stimuli
to engage in a sequence of activities (McClanna-
han & Krantz, 1999), are often useful in
promoting independent responding and on-task
behavior in individuals with autism and other
disabilities across a range of skills and contexts (see
Koyama & Wang, 2011, for a review). Although
multiple studies have demonstrated the effective-
ness of activity schedules on maintaining an
individual’s on-task behavior (e.g., MacDuff,
Krantz, & McClannahan, 1993), researchers
have only recently begun to investigate the
potential for activity schedules to promote social
interactions between peers. For example, Betz,
Higbee, and Reagon (2008) used a joint activity
schedule (i.e., one activity schedule used by two
peers) to improve social interactions between
children with autism during a series of board
games. Each page of the joint activity schedule
contained a picture of a participant, a picture of a
game, and a written script to prompt a social
interaction between the two children. Betz et al.
taught the participant depicted in the picture to
We thank Kylee Lewis for her help throughout this
project.
Address correspondence to Thomas S. Higbee, Utah
State University, 2865 Old Main Hill, Logan, Utah 84332
(e-mail: tom.higbee@usu.edu).
doi: 10.1002/jaba.145
find the corresponding game and repeat the script,
“Let’s play [name of game]” to initiate the
interaction with his or her peer. The joint activity
schedule increased appropriate interactive peer
play, and this behavior was maintained at high
levels during maintenance and novel location
phases for all three pairs of participants.
Based on the success of Betz et al. (2008), we
sought to investigate whether photographic
activity schedules could be used to promote
appropriate play between children with autism
during an activity that was less structured (e.g.,
involved greater movement around the environ-
ment with fewer specific visual cues for playing
the game) and required more social interaction
than the games used in Betz et al. Specifically, we
extended Betz et al. by using activity schedules to
promote appropriate peer play during a game of
hide-and-seek between pairs of preschool-aged
children with autism. Because hide-and-seek
requires children to play different roles (i.e., the
hider and the seeker), we created individual
linked activity schedules with pages sequenced so
that one child played the role of the hider while
the other played the role of the seeker.
METHOD
Participants and Setting
We recruited six participants, Arlo (5 years
old), Isis (5 years old), Brad (5 years old),

1
2 MATTHEW T. BRODHEAD et al.
Michelle (5 years old), Gus (3 years old), and
Olivia (4 years old), all of whom had a diagnosis
of autism and came from Caucasian, English-
speaking households. Participants had received
intensive behavior-analytic instruction in a
university-based preschool program for 1 to
2 years and were fluent in following individual
activity schedules. We considered participants to
be fluent if they followed their independent
activity schedules with 80% or better accuracy,
without response prompts, in their preschool
program for three consecutive prestudy sessions.
Participants also were able to make choices
between two activities and had picture–location
correspondence skills (see McClannahan &
Krantz, 1999, for a list of additional prerequisite
skills for activity schedules). We grouped
participants into three dyads (Arlo and Isis,
Brad and Michelle, Gus and Olivia) and
conducted one to two sessions per day with
each dyad. Sessions occurred at least 30 min
apart, and each session took place in the
participants’ classroom (that included tables
and chairs), hallways, and two offices.
Measurement
During every session, we videotaped partic-
ipants from at least 2 m away. After the session,
the first author scored each participant’s engage-
Table 1
Hider and Seeker Response Chain
Condition Hider
a a
Beginning Open schedule
Middle Attend to hiding placea
Put “oh, no!” script on wrist
Arrive at hiding place
Wait at hiding place
Say, “oh, no!”
Return to schedulea
Place “oh, no!” script on schedulea
Turn pagea
End Say, “Thanks for playing!”
Note. Each participant played each role twice.
a
Denotes schedule behavior only.
ment in discrete game-play behaviors using a
per-opportunity measure (Cooper, Heron, &
Heward, 2007). Table 1 displays a sequential
list of target responses. For the baseline and no-
schedule probe phases, we scored only hide-and-
seek behaviors because the activity schedule was
not available during these phases; if a participant
hid or searched in any of the eight correct
locations (see teaching and novel location phase
descriptions), it was counted as a correct response
(defined as any instance when the participant
independently engaged in the specified response
in the appropriate order at the appropriate time).
An independent observer coded at least 30% of
sessions for each condition for all participants.
Interobserver agreement was calculated by
dividing agreements by disagreements plus agree-
ments and converting the result to a percentage.
Interobserver agreement was 96% for Arlo
(range, 88% to 100%), 96% for Isis (range,
91% to 100%), 97% for Brad (range, 89% to
100%), 99% for Michelle (range, 97% to 100%),
97% for Gus (range, 86% to 100%), and 96% for
Olivia (range, 91% to 100%).
Materials
Each participant had his or her own linked
activity schedule that consisted of a small three-
ring binder that contained four laminated pages.
Seeker
Open schedule
Say, “go hide!”
Look at peer
Count from 1 to 20
Put “I found you!” script on wrista
Grab searching cuea
Search for peer
Say, “I found you!”
Return to schedulea
Place “I found you!” script on schedulea
Return searching cuesa
Turn pagea
Say, “Thanks for playing!”
 LINKED ACTIVITY SCHEDULES
Figure 1. The pages for the hider (left) and seeker (right).
Two pages contained discriminative stimuli for
hider behavior, and two pages contained stimuli
for seeker behavior (see Figure 1). Therefore, each
participant had the opportunity to play the hider
and seeker roles twice each, for a total of four
independent games per session. The hider pages
had a green background, and the seeker pages had
a blue background. We alternated the pages in
each binder so that one participant had a hider
role and one participant had a seeker role each
time the game was played. The first hider page
contained a picture of a hiding place and the
script “oh, no!” to promote a reciprocal social
interaction between participants when the hider
was found. The second hider page contained two
pictures of possible hiding places with the word
“choice” along with the script “oh, no!” Both
seeker pages contained the script “go hide!” They
also contained a script with the numbers 1
through 20, the script “I found you,” and a
cardboard strip that contained two picture
locations to cue searching behavior. The pictures
and scripts were affixed to each page with Velcro.
3
During all sessions, participants wore small
plastic watches with Velcro attached. The watches
allowed them to place the “oh, no!” and “I found
you!” scripts on their wrists while they engaged in
hider or seeker roles, respectively.
Procedure
Before baseline, we taught picture–location
correspondence to each participant by placing
each location picture in front of the participant
and saying, “go here.” The participant was
physically prompted to engage in a correct
response if he or she did not respond within 3 s
or responded incorrectly. We established appro-
priate vocal responding to each script by teaching
the responses “I found you!,” “oh, no!,” “go
hide!,” and “thanks for playing” with a 3-s
constant delay vocal prompt. We also taught each
participant to touch or count out loud from 1 to
20, in order, using physical or vocal prompting,
respectively. Baseline data collection began when
participants responded correctly to each of these
target skills with 80% accuracy or better, without
4 MATTHEW T. BRODHEAD et al.
response prompts, for three consecutive training
sessions.
The baseline, no-schedule probe, and schedule
probe phases lasted 10 min each. All other
sessions lasted 3 to 7 min (session duration
decreased as participants learned to respond
correctly and thus required less prompting). All
sessions began with the instruction, “It is time to
play hide and seek.” Instruction for the baseline
and no-schedule probe conditions also included
the instructions, “[Child’s name], you are the
hider; [child’s name], you are the seeker. Go!”
These additional instructions were necessary
because the schedules were not available to
determine hider and seeker roles during these
conditions. We used a nonconcurrent multiple
baseline design across dyads to assess the effects of
the linked activity schedules. For teaching,
resequencing, and the novel location phases,
stability was defined as at least three sessions at
80% accuracy or better for both participants. For
all conditions, one teacher was assigned to each
participant for prompting purposes. After com-
pletion of each session, reinforcement was
provided in the form of praise and a small edible
item (e.g., candy, chips).
Baseline. Each session began with the instruc-
tion to play the game (as described above).
Linked activity schedules were not available, and
experimenters ignored problem behavior (e.g.,
lying on the ground, throwing toys) and attempts
to interact with adults.
Schedule probe. Linked activity schedules were
available, but no prompts were provided. Given
that participants were fluent followers of inde-
pendent activity schedules, the purpose of this
phase was to measure whether they would follow
the linked activity schedules without additional
instruction.
Teaching. Graduated guidance (MacDuff et al.,
1993) was used to teach the appropriate sequence
of behaviors and vocal prompting to occasion
scripted responding. After the session started and
the participants had opened their schedules, the
seeker was vocally prompted to say “go hide!”
Then, the hider was physically prompted to go to
his or her hiding location. Next, the seeker was
vocally prompted to count from 1 to 20 (Arlo, Isis,
Michelle, Gus, and Olivia) or physically prompted
to touch each number (Brad). Next, the seeker was
physically prompted to put the script “I found
you!” on his or her watch and to take the cardboard
strip with the searching cues. The seeker was
physically prompted to arrive at each location on
the searching cue, starting with the left picture
first. If the hider was not in that location, the
seeker was physically prompted to touch the next
picture and arrive at that location. When the
seeker located the hider, the seeker was vocally
prompted to say “I found you!” and the hider was
vocally prompted to say “oh, no!” (in that order).
Then, both participants were physically prompted
to return to their schedules, return their scripts
and searching cues to the binder, and turn the
page. At this point, the previous hider now had
the seeker role, and the previous seeker now had
the hider role. This sequence continued until each
participant engaged in each role twice. The session
ended when each participant turned to the final
page and engaged in the vocal scripted response
“Thanks for playing!”
During teaching sessions, instructors faded
physical prompting as participant responding
improved. They also began fading the “I found
you!” and “oh, no!” scripts, beginning with the
last word, after a participant independently read
the scripts for two consecutive sessions. A word
was faded from the script after each session in
which the participant independently read the
script. The next phase did not begin until all
scripts were faded (i.e., scripts no longer appeared
in the binder). If at any time the participant
responded incorrectly or out of order, prompts
were provided until the correct response
occurred.
Resequencing. This phase was identical to the
teaching phase, except that a random-number
generator was used to designate hider and seeker
locations. Which participant started as the hider
or seeker was also alternated. If a participant
 LINKED ACTIVITY SCHEDULES 5

engaged in an incorrect response, physical Baseline Probe Teaching Resequence N.S. Novel Location Assessment

100
prompts were provided until the correct response Arlo

occurred. The purpose of this phase was to 80

demonstrate that the pictures had discriminative

60
control over responding.
No-schedule probe. This phase was identical to 40
baseline. The purpose of this phase was to Isis

measure responding in the absence of the activity 20

schedules and to act as a brief reversal within the 0

Arlo and Isis

multiple baseline design. 1 6 11 16 21 26 31

Percentage of Correct Responses

Michelle
Novel location assessment. This phase was 100

identical to the resequencing phase, except that 80

a random-number generator was used to desig-
nate pictures with up to four novel hider and 60

seeker locations. No pictures from previous Brad

40
phases were used.
20

Brad and Michelle

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 0
1 6 11 16 21 26 31
Olivia

For all participants, appropriate game play did 100

not occur during baseline or schedule probe
sessions (see Figure 2). Instead, participants 80

engaged in off-task behaviors (e.g., crawling on 60

the floor, taking toys from other students) that Gus

did not resemble appropriate hide-and-seek 40

interactions. When graduated guidance and vocal

prompting were introduced during the teaching
phase, Arlo and Isis met the 80% stability criteria
in eight sessions, Brad and Michelle in 10
sessions, and Gus and Olivia in seven sessions.
During the resequencing phase, responding was
maintained above 80% for all participants except
Brad, whose responding dropped to 79% for the
second and fourth sessions. During the no-
schedule probe phase, responding resembled that
of baseline conditions for all participants (e.g.,
crawling on the floor, refusing to play with the
other participant, etc.). Target responding was
maintained above 80% for the novel location
assessment for all participants.
Our study extends the research on activity
schedules by demonstrating that two indepen-
dent activity schedules may be linked to promote
appropriate play between children with autism
during a social game. In addition, we demon-
20
Gus and Olivia
0
1 6 11 16 21 26 31
Sessions
Figure 2. The results for Arlo and Isis (top), Brad and
Michelle (middle), and Gus and Olivia (bottom). N.S. ¼ the
no-schedule probe phase.
strated that linked activity schedules can control
social interactions during a less structured play
activity. The fact that responding was not
maintained when the schedule was removed
could be problematic if the primary goal of the
intervention is for participants to play the game in
the absence of the schedule. On the other hand,
for many individuals with autism and related
disabilities, activity schedules could be considered
a type of permanent support, such as a planner,
that is not meant to be faded. Although no efforts
6 MATTHEW T. BRODHEAD et al.
were made to fade the activity schedules and
transfer stimulus control to the natural environ-
ment in the current study, this is an obvious
avenue for future research.
There are some limitations of our study that are
worth mentioning. First, we did not collect
fidelity data on the implementation and fading of
prompts, because this was a dynamic process.
Because we used various instructors over the
course of the study, it is possible that slight
procedural variations occurred. Second, response
measures during baseline might have been
artificially low due to the sequenced nature of
the behavior. Specifically, if the participant did not
engage in the first correct response in the response
chain, he or she did not have the opportunity to
engage in subsequent responses in the chain, even
if those skills were present in the repertoire. Third,
we tested the intervention in only one setting (a
classroom), so the extent to which behavior would
generalize to other play settings is unknown.
Anecdotally, a few participants occasionally
engaged in novel social interactions (e.g., “Ready
or not, here I come”), so future researchers may
wish to examine how to promote novel responses
when children are using activity schedules.
Researchers may also wish to examine the utility
of linked activity schedules to promote social
interactions among more than two peers as well as
whether schedules can be used to promote social
interaction over more extended time periods than
were examined in the current study. It also would
be useful to examine the effects of these
procedures on more complex social games and
activities that require back-and-forth interaction
between participants. Investigation of the under-
lying mechanisms that account for the effective-
ness of activity schedules also will be a useful line
of research. Finally, future researchers may
examine strategies to establish game play itself
as a reinforcing activity.
REFERENCES
Betz, A., Higbee, T. S., & Reagon, K. A. (2008). Using joint
activity schedules to promote peer engagement in
preschoolers with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 41, 237–241. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2008.41-237
Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2007).
Applied behavior analysis (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Pearson Education.
Koyama, T., & Wang, H. (2011). Use of activity schedule to
promote independent performance of individuals with
autism and other intellectual disabilities: A review.
Research in Developmental Disabilities, 32, 2235–2242.
doi: 10.1016/j.ridd.2011.05.003
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. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1993.26-89
McClannahan, L. E., & Krantz, P. J. (1999). Activity
schedules for children with autism: Teaching independent
behavior. Bethesda, MD: Woodbine House.
Received May 15, 2013
Final acceptance February 27, 2014
Action Editor, Jennifer Austin