A006 · Evidence and sources
Visual and anticipatory supports
Evidence and sources
What belongs to this evidence question
| Use within or beside A006 | Unit to evaluate | Outcome that must remain distinct |
|---|---|---|
| Activity schedule | A taught sequence of activities, with its prompts and reinforcement recorded | Independent schedule use or engagement, not mastery of every underlying task |
| Task/step display | Persistent instructions within an activity | Correct step use, help needed and information access, not reading or motor-skill remediation |
| Advance notice | A comprehensible signal about an upcoming change | Transition behaviour, timing and the person’s experience; these are not interchangeable |
| Written/picture/object information | A meaningful accessible account of what is known, changing or possible | Understanding and ability to return to information; no pooled effect for all formats |
| augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) | Communication components that may coexist with a schedule | Authored expression and partner response, not simply following adult-selected steps |
The distinction is by function rather than material. A photograph can cue a next step, illustrate a narrative or form part of an expressive vocabulary. That does not make the evidence for the three uses interchangeable. A006 therefore keeps direct Encyclopaedia domains 02 and 03 and conditional 01 and 06. These remain topic proposals, not measured effects.
What the findings mean in practice
Claims of independence and reduced prompting need to remain attached to taught schedules and their recorded outcomes. The proposed mechanism list—working memory, language processing, sequencing, time perception and uncertainty—is replaced by an information-access rationale. No reviewed source establishes a general improvement in all those underlying abilities.
“Practical” and “inexpensive” are no longer unconditional research conclusions. The costs of preparing, checking, teaching and updating material are separate from the price of a piece of paper. This is an implementation judgement: a resource can be simple while its use still requires substantial adult support. The trial should record that support rather than assuming it disappeared because a schedule was present.
The article preserves the transport illustration as explicitly constructed. It tests the actual information barrier: a pupil loses part of several spoken directions and also finds the written words difficult to decode. A different accessible sequence can be explored without claiming that it teaches decoding. No case outcome, diagnosis or expected treatment response is manufactured.
Activity and task schedules
The positive schedule literature is best read as evidence for supported acquisition and use of particular routines. The original MacDuff study’s abstract describes graduated guidance, maintenance and generalisation phases, rather than an unassisted display intervention.6 Duttlinger’s abstract describes teaching students with intellectual disability to create and use a picture reminder after verbal directions.7 These are useful examples of mechanisms to test, but unavailable full-text details limit independent appraisal of dose, fidelity and recipient burden.
Knight’s review places schedules within an evidence-based-practice framework, especially alongside systematic instruction.2 The newer academic review reaches a similarly conditional conclusion. Its varied formats and co-components are a reason to name the actual procedure, not to combine their results into one format-independent effect.3
An appropriate reading is that some learners can learn to use persistent sequences with less immediate adult prompting. It does not follow that any child given a timetable acquires task skills, that a photo outperforms accessible words, or that a displayed sequence is a substitute for teaching. The evidence also does not require withdrawing an aid that a person finds useful. Independent access can include continuing to use a support.
Advance notice and transition distress
Waters is pivotal because it actually separates the visual addition from other treatment components.4 It prevents a favourable result from a larger package being attributed wholly to the visual schedule. It should also prevent a failed visual cue being interpreted as proof that the person ignored clear information. The difficulty may concern the activity or destination rather than uncertainty about it.
The contrasting Flannery study selected students whose difficulties were reported around novel or unsignalled events and examined predictability features.8 That is a narrower question than whether all transitions improve with warnings. McCord provides an additional negative advance-notice finding, although only its primary abstract was retrievable and the vocal modality is documented in Brewer’s secondary description.910
Brewer’s review is valuable for identifying alternative explanations, including choice embedded in a supposedly predictive package. Its uncertainty account is a hypothesis with limited applied tests, not a verified universal mechanism.10 Similarly, laboratory observations about signals for less favourable situations should not be presented as a demonstrated classroom harm rate. This profile does not recommend concealing accurate plans or withholding communication.
The current synthesis by Kim and colleagues does not settle the question in favour of removing schedules. It combines broad, different treatments, has a restricted search frame and reports statistically inconclusive overall results.11 Its 16 articles, 19 experiments and expanded 24 comparisons must not be reported as 24 independent studies. The quantitative model’s participant/comparison count is retained as the authors label it, rather than asserted as 59 independent people in an A006 trial.
Additive components and the meaning of an outcome
Lory’s comparison usefully tests adding within-activity options.5 However, choice of material or location within a required task does not by itself establish the opportunity to decline participation. That distinction matters for the article’s agency safeguards. A genuine option is an editorial requirement to make explicit, not an effect inferred from a low rate of the study’s “challenging behaviour”.
The outcome itself requires care. A category that includes saying no or turning away combines expressions of refusal with other acts. A fall in that category cannot be renamed reduced anxiety, improved wellbeing, better comprehension or consent. The profile reports the study outcome while keeping those additional judgements separate.
For local review, record what the person can understand or find, whether adults keep the display accurate, what help is actually used, and the person’s experience. Record task completion separately. An apparently successful transition can still be unwanted, confusing or exhausting. This is a measurement and editorial boundary, not a claim that a particular harm occurred in every study.
Communication access and guidance
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA)’s inclusion of visual schedules among aided AAC supports a functional overlap while also requiring ongoing communication access.12 It does not make every timetable an adequate expressive system. A person still needs usable ways to ask, disagree, clarify, change a plan and communicate beyond the displayed options.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommends visual material meaningful to the individual within environmental adjustments.13 That recommendation supports checking meaning and context. It is not a trial of the entire Atlas approach. In the same way, the broad National Clearinghouse on Autism Evidence and Practice (NCAEP) category provides an evidence map, not a numerical effect for every example in A006.1
The original NCAEP table verifies 65 articles in its Visual Supports category. The accessible Autism Focused Intervention Resources and Modules (AFIRM) 2024 packet gives a conflicting count while attributing it to the same report.114 The historical profile’s 62-single-case/3-group breakdown remains unresolved. No arithmetic correction or new study-count interpretation is silently supplied. These summaries should not be presented as independent, additive evidence sets.
Source profiles
Each record identifies what was actually accessible. “Unavailable in abstract” means the detail was not verified, not that the study omitted it. “Not established” likewise does not mean a null finding. Reviews overlap in their underlying studies, and guidance is not counted as an efficacy experiment.
A006-S01 — Evidence-Based Practices for Children, Youth, and Young Adults with Autism1
Identity/version: Steinbrenner et al.; University of North Carolina (UNC) NCAEP, 2020 report; updated Ayres Sensory Integration® (ASI) terminology in available version.
Design: Systematic evidence classification, publications 1990–2017.
Sample/population/setting: 65 Visual Supports articles: 34 in 1990–2011; 31 in 2012–17; no pooled participant n used here.
Dose/delivery: Heterogeneous formats and delivery; no common dose.
Comparator/co-supports: Often prompting/reinforcement or embedded packages; categories overlap.
Verified outcomes/reporter/timepoints: Meets report evidence-based practice (EBP) criteria for broad Visual Supports (VS) category; no common effect size or A006-wide distress estimate.
Fidelity/adaptation: Report quality-screening criteria; individual components not isolated by category membership.
Burden/harms: No category-level harms estimate established here.
Role: Evidence map and scope boundary.
Access: Official full PDF; methods, Table 3.1 and VS appendix inspected.
Limits: Scripts, work systems and graphic organisers are broader than A006 schedules; do not count overlap as independent replications. Recovered 62/3 design split not verified.
Locators: Printed pp. 15–24, 29–30, 139–143; Table 3.1; VS appendix.
A006-S02 — Evaluating Visual Activity Schedules as Evidence-Based Practice for Individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorders2
Identity/version: Knight, Sartini & Spriggs; online 1 August 2014; JADD 45:157–178 (2015).
Design: Review of 1993–2013 studies using Horner quality criteria.
Sample/population/setting: 31 studies included; 16 acceptable; autistic participants preschool to adulthood.
Dose/delivery: Varied schedules and systematic instruction; dose unavailable in abstract.
Comparator/co-supports: Schedules commonly combined with instruction.
Verified outcomes/reporter/timepoints: Authors conclude evidence-based practice for varied skills; no extracted pooled effect.
Fidelity/adaptation: Quality threshold stated; study-specific fidelity unavailable.
Burden/harms: Unavailable in abstract.
Role: Historical review corroboration.
Access: Publisher abstract and metadata only; subscription full text not accessed.
Limits: Do not treat 31 studies as 31 schedule-only trials; no independent reappraisal of all 16 acceptable studies.
Locators: Abstract and bibliographic header.
A006-S03 — The use of visual schedules to increase academic-related on-task behaviors of individuals with autism: a literature review3
Identity/version: Liang, Lee, Zuo & Liang; online 12 September 2024; current issue 72(6):1326–1339.
Design: Review searched 14 June 2024; all 10 included studies single-case.
Sample/population/setting: 31 autistic participants aged 4–19; 9 school studies, 1 clinic.
Dose/delivery: Photos/pictures/text/video; predominantly prompted/reinforced packages; no shared dose.
Comparator/co-supports: Different baseline and package comparisons; Waters is the isolated visual-only comparison.
Verified outcomes/reporter/timepoints: Positive package-level engagement/task outcomes; maintenance supported in only 3 studies; participant acceptability mixed.
Fidelity/adaptation: Review reports six strong and one acceptable study under its framework.
Burden/harms: Professionals positive; some autistic participants less enthusiastic; no comprehensive adverse-event synthesis.
Role: Recent academic outcome synthesis.
Access: Publisher indexed full-text methods/results/discussion available; direct reopen/PDF failed; embedded tables not inspected.
Limits: Own discussion overgeneralises settings as all classrooms despite reporting one clinic. Use the explicit results; no independent table transcription or pooled estimate.
Locators: Methods; Results: participants/settings/design/outcomes; Discussion; publisher metadata.
A006-S04 — Separate and combined effects of visual schedules and extinction plus differential reinforcement on problem behavior occasioned by transitions4
Identity/version: Waters, Lerman & Hovanetz; JABA 42(2):309–313 (2009); DOI 10.1901/jaba.2009.42-309.
Design: Brief functional analysis and within-person component comparisons.
Sample/population/setting: Two autistic boys aged 6; classrooms emptied of peers/staff.
Dose/delivery: 2–3 sessions/day, 3–4 days/week; treatment mean 17 minutes.
Comparator/co-supports: Baseline; pictures; extinction+differential reinforcement of other behaviour (DRO); combined. Prompting and food/praise were co-components.
Verified outcomes/reporter/timepoints: Observers: pictures alone ineffective; behaviour fell with extinction+DRO, with modest further differences when pictures added; short-term sessions.
Fidelity/adaptation: Prior picture experience; actual correct schedule use unmeasured; observer agreement collected.
Burden/harms: Physical guidance/restrictive contingencies; systematic wellbeing/adverse-event assessment not established.
Role: Direct null/component evidence.
Access: Complete original article PDF via ERIC.
Limits: n=2; short evaluation, possible interference, binary transition measure; no distress self-report or long-term proof. Not a recommendation for extinction.
Locators: Printed pp. 309–313; Methods; Results/Discussion; Figure 1.
A006-S05 — Reducing Escape-Maintained Challenging Behavior in Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder through Visual Activity Schedule and Instructional Choice5
Identity/version: Lory, Rispoli, Gregori, Kim & David; Education and Treatment of Children 43:201–217 (2020).
Design: Withdrawal with embedded alternating treatments.
Sample/population/setting: Two autistic boys, 4y2m and 6y3m; one US autism centre; choice-making eligibility.
Dose/delivery: Doctoral interventionist; 5-minute sessions; symbol/task correspondence training beforehand.
Comparator/co-supports: Baseline; schedule; schedule+material/location choices; no choice-only condition.
Verified outcomes/reporter/timepoints: Observed behaviour reductions more consistently replicated with choices; 10-second partial intervals include refusal. Post-study child/therapist views positive. Task accuracy/engagement not directly measured.
Fidelity/adaptation: Intervention fidelity sampled ≥30%; means 93–100% across intervention conditions.
Burden/harms: Choices within required tasks; measure counts saying no/turning away; no comprehensive harms assessment.
Role: Direct package comparison.
Access: Public author-posted full text inspected; publisher metadata/abstract; no login/paywall bypass.
Limits: n=2; one setting; package/context differences and no choice-only arm prevent isolating necessity of schedule. Follow-up/generalisation not established.
Locators: Printed pp. 203–215; Methods; Tables 2–3; Figure 5; Limitations.
A006-S06 — Teaching children with autism to use photographic activity schedules: maintenance and generalization of complex response chains6
Identity/version: MacDuff, Krantz & McClannahan; JABA 26(1):89–97 (1993).
Design: Multiple baseline across participants with teaching/maintenance/resequencing/generalisation phases.
Sample/population/setting: 4 autistic boys with severe developmental disabilities; after-school/group-home activities.
Dose/delivery: Graduated guidance to use photo albums; exact dose unavailable in accessed abstract.
Comparator/co-supports: Baseline versus teaching and later probes; training bundled with schedules.
Verified outcomes/reporter/timepoints: Abstract reports sustained engagement and independent activity changes, including new sequences/photos and group-home settings.
Fidelity/adaptation: Prompt reduction integral; fidelity detail unavailable.
Burden/harms: Guidance required; acceptability/harms unavailable in abstract.
Role: Foundational task-sequence evidence.
Access: Original publisher abstract; open PMC scans could not be accessed.
Limits: No extracted ages, numerical effects, duration or harms; does not show a displayed schedule alone teaches unknown task skills.
Locators: Abstract; bibliographic header.
A006-S07 — The Effects of a Picture Activity Schedule for Students With Intellectual Disability to Complete a Sequence of Tasks Following Verbal Directions7
Identity/version: Duttlinger, Ayres, Bevill-Davis & Douglas; online October 2012; 28(1):32–43 (2013).
Design: Withdrawal A-BC-B-A-B; community pre/post probes.
Sample/population/setting: 4 middle-school students with intellectual disability; community probe at mall food court.
Dose/delivery: Teaching participants to create/use their picture schedule; dose unavailable.
Comparator/co-supports: Schedule conditions versus no schedule after instruction.
Verified outcomes/reporter/timepoints: Abstract reports improved completion of 3- or 5-task sequences after verbal directions; community transfer reported.
Fidelity/adaptation: Training inseparable from use; detailed fidelity unavailable.
Burden/harms: Burden, preference, adverse effects unavailable.
Role: Relevant sequence-memory aid; population transfer boundary.
Access: Publisher abstract/metadata only; full-text retrieval unsuccessful.
Limits: No universal communication or reading claim; no verified long-term follow-up or study-level effect values.
Locators: Abstract and bibliographic header.
A006-S08 — The relationship between predictability and problem behavior for students with severe disabilities8
Identity/version: Flannery & Horner; Journal of Behavioral Education 4:157–176 (1994).
Design: Two single-case studies, multielement/reversal.
Sample/population/setting: Two autistic students with moderate-to-severe intellectual disability selected for reported difficulty with novel/unsignalled events.
Dose/delivery: Individually assessed signals; dose unavailable in abstract.
Comparator/co-supports: Predictable/signalled versus unpredictable events.
Verified outcomes/reporter/timepoints: Abstract supports assessed signals about future events; numerical effects and reporter specifics unavailable.
Fidelity/adaptation: Assessment of relevant predictability features; fidelity details unavailable.
Burden/harms: Harms and recipient experience unavailable.
Role: Positive conditional advance-information evidence.
Access: Publisher abstract/metadata only.
Limits: Signals not all visual; selected population; cannot independently verify each full-text contrast. Brewer offers secondary description, kept separate.
Locators: Abstract.
A006-S09 — Functional analysis and treatment of self-injury associated with transitions9
Identity/version: McCord, Thomson & Iwata; JABA 34(2):195–210 (2001); DOI 10.1901/jaba.2001.34-195.
Design: Functional analysis and individual treatment evaluation.
Sample/population/setting: 2 individuals; exact age/setting not extracted from abstract.
Dose/delivery: Advance notice; subsequent differential reinforcement/extinction/blocking; dose unavailable.
Comparator/co-supports: Different location/activity changes; notice and multi-component treatments.
Verified outcomes/reporter/timepoints: Abstract: notice ineffective; differential reinforcement of alternative behaviour (DRA) limited without extinction; decreases with combined extinction/blocking package.
Fidelity/adaptation: Function assessed; fidelity details unavailable in abstract.
Burden/harms: Restrictive components; no recipient wellbeing result available.
Role: Additional negative advance-notice evidence.
Access: Primary abstract indexed; PMC full PDF blocked/unavailable in retrieval.
Limits: Notice described as vocal in Brewer review, not a visual-only trial. Do not infer visual-aid ineffectiveness universally.
Locators: Primary abstract; Brewer Negative Findings for secondary modality description.
A006-S10 — Advance Notice for Transition-Related Problem Behavior: Practice Guidelines10
Identity/version: Brewer, Strickland-Cohen, Dotson & Williams; Behavior Analysis in Practice 7(2):117–125 (2014).
Design: Narrative/practice review; not a systematic pooled analysis.
Sample/population/setting: Mixed intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD)/autism studies; no new participant cohort.
Dose/delivery: Varied signals; suggests assessing information meaning and transition conditions.
Comparator/co-supports: Contrasts unpredictability with loss of preferred activity or aversive next activity.
Verified outcomes/reporter/timepoints: Mixed advance-notice findings; positive packages may include choice; empirical uncertainty mechanism described as limited.
Fidelity/adaptation: Recommends checking cue understanding; no common fidelity metric.
Burden/harms: Explicitly recognises removing escape may leave aversive environment; no harm rate.
Role: Mechanism hypothesis and contradictory-evidence map.
Access: Full PMC article text inspected.
Limits: Basic laboratory rich-to-lean findings are not proof that classroom warnings cause harm. Its restrictive recommendations are not adopted here.
Locators: Advance Notice; Positive/Negative Findings; Understanding Discrepant Findings; Practice Guidelines.
A006-S11 — Interventions for Transition-Related Challenging Behavior in Individuals with Disabilities: A Targeted Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis of Studies Published in Behavior Analytic Journals11
Identity/version: Kim, Ravichandran, Moeyaert, Ditzler, Ryan & Fienup; Behavior Modification 50(3):212–247 (2026).
Design: Targeted six-journal review; searches through July 2023; multilevel meta-analysis.
Sample/population/setting: 16 articles/19 experiments expanded to 24 comparisons; final quantitative data labelled 59 participants across 22 experiments.
Dose/delivery: Heterogeneous signalling/non-signalling interventions; no common dose.
Comparator/co-supports: Broad categories; group study and Waters data excluded; additional zero-variance exclusions.
Verified outcomes/reporter/timepoints: Overall standardised estimate −1.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) −3.01 to 0.86, p=.275; heterogeneous.
Fidelity/adaptation: No formal study quality/risk-of-bias appraisal.
Burden/harms: Maintenance/generalisation not quantitatively analysed; no comprehensive harm estimate.
Role: Current synthesis caution.
Access: Full publisher PDF; methods, results and limitations inspected.
Limits: Comparison counts are not unique independent trials; repeated-case independence unclear; broad package categories cannot establish superiority of schedule removal.
Locators: Printed pp. 216–223, 230–233, 239–241; Final Count; Inferential Statistics; Limitations.
A006-S12 — Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC)12
Identity/version: American Speech-Language-Hearing Association; current undated practice portal inspected 11 September 2026.
Design: Professional guidance.
Sample/population/setting: People with AAC needs across ages/settings; no trial n.
Dose/delivery: Flexible multimodal systems; individual symbol/access assessment.
Comparator/co-supports: No intervention comparator.
Verified outcomes/reporter/timepoints: Schedules included among aided AAC; continued access to communication tools recommended.
Fidelity/adaptation: Individual fit, modes, symbols and access considered.
Burden/harms: Practical access needs; not an adverse-event estimate.
Role: Communication-access/function guidance.
Access: Full web text; AAC Systems/Forms/Symbols and visual schedules sections inspected.
Limits: Does not transfer expressive-AAC efficacy to an adult-authored timetable; no decoding treatment claim.
Locators: AAC Systems; Forms; Symbols; Visual Prompting; web lines 103–143, 184–209, 523–536.
A006-S13 — Autism spectrum disorder in under 19s: support and management, CG17013
Identity/version: NICE; published 28 August 2013, updated 14 June 2021.
Design: Official clinical guidance.
Sample/population/setting: Autistic children/young people under 19; health/social care environment.
Dose/delivery: Meaningful words/pictures/symbols among environmental adjustments.
Comparator/co-supports: No trial comparison in recommendation.
Verified outcomes/reporter/timepoints: Recommends meaningful visual supports; not a measured effect estimate.
Fidelity/adaptation: Meaningful to individual; environment/sensory adjustments considered.
Burden/harms: No support-specific adverse-event rate.
Role: Guidance for accessible information.
Access: Official recommendation text and metadata retrieved in indexed results; full current guideline/PDF not successfully opened.
Limits: Guidance is not proof of A006 efficacy or a universal school programme.
Locators: Making adjustments to social/physical environment and processes of care; recommendation 1.1.9.
A006-S14 — Visual Supports, Updated — Brief Packet14
Identity/version: Sam & AFIRM Team; UNC 2024 update.
Design: Implementation packet citing NCAEP 2020.
Sample/population/setting: Broad autism support category; numerical discrepancy retained as unresolved.
Dose/delivery: Multiple concrete-cue formats; planning/implementation materials.
Comparator/co-supports: No new trial comparator.
Verified outcomes/reporter/timepoints: Printed pp.4–5 claim 104 single-case+2 group studies; this conflicts with NCAEP Table 3.1 total65.
Fidelity/adaptation: Warns evidence varies across visual-support types.
Burden/harms: No pooled burden/harms estimate.
Role: Definition corroboration and source discrepancy audit.
Access: Official full PDF, relevant sections inspected.
Limits: Do not substitute this count for original report or claim independent updated 106-study synthesis; no resolution inferred.
Locators: Printed pp.4–5; What is VS; Evidence-base; source footers.
Overall interpretation and limits
There is a defensible basis for exploring a taught, comprehensible schedule for a defined information or sequence problem. Evidence is less direct for the broad family of persistent information, universal implementation, distress reduction and long-term person-valued outcomes. The general access rationale remains useful without pretending those uncertainties have been removed.
Before adoption, the editorial team should retain the boundaries between schedule use, task instruction, advance notice and expressive communication. Source access limits and the conflicting category counts should remain visible. The actual programme, adult support, recipient experience and outcomes need to be specified for a proposed application; no common dose or universal format is established here.
These conclusions concern access to information and the specific uses studied. Related Encyclopaedia reading offers context; it does not establish individual suitability or a treatment effect.
Source notes
- 1.
Evidence-Based Practices for Children, Youth, and Young Adults with Autism. Steinbrenner et al.; UNC NCAEP, 2020 report; updated ASI terminology in available version. Accessed 11–12 September 2026.
↩1 ↩2 ↩3 - 2.
Evaluating Visual Activity Schedules as Evidence-Based Practice for Individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorders. Knight, Sartini & Spriggs; online 1 August 2014; JADD 45:157–178 (2015). Accessed 11–12 September 2026.
↩1 ↩2 - 3.
The use of visual schedules to increase academic-related on-task behaviors of individuals with autism: a literature review. Liang, Lee, Zuo & Liang; online 12 September 2024; current issue 72(6):1326–1339. Accessed 11–12 September 2026.
↩1 ↩2 - 4.
Separate and combined effects of visual schedules and extinction plus differential reinforcement on problem behavior occasioned by transitions. Waters, Lerman & Hovanetz; JABA 42(2):309–313 (2009); DOI 10.1901/jaba.2009.42-309. Accessed 11–12 September 2026. Inspected alternative or identifier.
↩1 ↩2 - 5.
Reducing Escape-Maintained Challenging Behavior in Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder through Visual Activity Schedule and Instructional Choice. Lory, Rispoli, Gregori, Kim & David; Education and Treatment of Children 43:201–217 (2020). Accessed 11–12 September 2026. Inspected alternative or identifier.
↩1 ↩2 - 6.
Teaching children with autism to use photographic activity schedules: maintenance and generalization of complex response chains. MacDuff, Krantz & McClannahan; JABA 26(1):89–97 (1993). Accessed 11–12 September 2026.
↩1 ↩2 - 7.
The Effects of a Picture Activity Schedule for Students With Intellectual Disability to Complete a Sequence of Tasks Following Verbal Directions. Duttlinger, Ayres, Bevill-Davis & Douglas; online October 2012; 28(1):32–43 (2013). Accessed 11–12 September 2026.
↩1 ↩2 - 8.
The relationship between predictability and problem behavior for students with severe disabilities. Flannery & Horner; Journal of Behavioral Education 4:157–176 (1994). Accessed 11–12 September 2026.
↩1 ↩2 - 9.
Functional analysis and treatment of self-injury associated with transitions. McCord, Thomson & Iwata; JABA 34(2):195–210 (2001); DOI 10.1901/jaba.2001.34-195. Accessed 11–12 September 2026.
↩1 ↩2 - 10.
Advance Notice for Transition-Related Problem Behavior: Practice Guidelines. Brewer, Strickland-Cohen, Dotson & Williams; Behavior Analysis in Practice 7(2):117–125 (2014). Accessed 11–12 September 2026.
↩1 ↩2 ↩3 - 11.
Interventions for Transition-Related Challenging Behavior in Individuals with Disabilities: A Targeted Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis of Studies Published in Behavior Analytic Journals. Kim, Ravichandran, Moeyaert, Ditzler, Ryan & Fienup; Behavior Modification 50(3):212–247 (2026). Accessed 11–12 September 2026.
↩1 ↩2 - 12.
Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC). American Speech-Language-Hearing Association; current undated practice portal inspected 11 September 2026. Accessed 11–12 September 2026.
↩1 ↩2 - 13.
Autism spectrum disorder in under 19s: support and management, CG170. NICE; published 28 August 2013, updated 14 June 2021. Accessed 11–12 September 2026.
↩1 ↩2 - 14.
Visual Supports, Updated — Brief Packet. Sam & AFIRM Team; UNC 2024 update. Accessed 11–12 September 2026.
↩1 ↩2
Review and source history
Open Beta v0.2 · Editorial edition · 16 September 2026
The current edition is Open Beta. Directors will onboard after Beta launch; full specialist and youth reviews are planned for Alpha. Earlier records below describe the underlying source and retain its evidence limitations.
Review and source record
Version: recovered-source evidence-reviewed working draft v0.2
Review date: 11–12 September 2026; final checks: 12 September 2026
Review status: editorial adoption and publication pending
Scope: source-level reconstruction for the fixed A006 beta identity; no new Atlas admission
The useful evidence claim is narrower than “visual supports work”. Taught schedules can support specific activity sequences for some studied learners. A cue announcing a transition does not reliably reduce transition-related behaviour, and neither outcome demonstrates that someone feels safer or less distressed. A006 also covers persistent accessible information, which has a guidance and access rationale distinct from the efficacy of a particular teaching package.
This profile separates those uses, retains null findings, and records when only an abstract was available. It does not assign a family-wide rating, perform a new meta-analysis, or claim a recovered copy of the missing historical master. Its practice judgements are editorial interpretations for review, not clinical approval.
Bank consistency edition: v0.1 — 13 September 2026. The version and review-status lines in this record describe the underlying document. Evidence dates and source limitations are retained; this edition makes editorial and navigation changes without new evidence grading. Human specialist/recipient review, adoption and publication remain pending. Current working article. Editorial change record (internal editorial record).