Zones of Regulation

Approach type: Branded curriculum / regulation framework.
Primary purpose: Teach ways to notice and discuss emotional states and explore regulation strategies.
Secondary purposes: Emotional vocabulary, body-state awareness, check-ins and reflecting on useful support.
Tier fit: Used in universal and targeted educational work; tier describes delivery, not demonstrated effectiveness.
Delivery scope: Class, small-group or adapted individual teaching; clinical occupational therapy using Zones of Regulation concepts (OT-ZOR) packages are distinct interventions.
Intervention mode: Psychoeducational / social-emotional learning.
Disciplinary roots: Occupational therapy and cognitive-behavioural/social-emotional-learning ideas; this background does not establish clinical efficacy.
Version boundary: Original 2011 print curriculum; 2024 digital curriculum and later updates; study-specific adaptations. Identify which is actually being used.¹²

The Zones of Regulation groups feelings and energy states into four colour categories and provides a structure for noticing experiences and exploring tools. The framework can be offered as shared language; whether it is understandable, acceptable or useful to a particular learner remains a question to check with that learner.

The current digital curriculum includes body signals, perspectives, check-ins and decisions about tools. It is an expanded revision of the original book. A familiar colour poster, a few selected activities, a full curriculum and a therapist-delivered OT-ZOR programme should not be treated as equivalent delivery.¹²

Popularity is not evidence of efficacy. The evidence includes null controlled school studies, favourable preliminary reports, teacher implementation accounts and a small direct child-experience study. These answer different questions.

The adult introduces a shared framework, models uncertainty about their own experience, offers ways to communicate a need and helps the learner examine which supports fit. They make time for teaching and reflection when participation is possible. They also change conditions contributing to difficulty; the work is not exhausted by asking the child to name a colour.

A useful adult response accepts a personal description, an uncertain answer or a decision not to discuss feelings. A request for quieter space, water, help or a pause remains meaningful without an emotion label. These are editorial access safeguards consistent with the paired Encyclopaedia texts, not claims that a particular modified curriculum has been validated.

The discriminator is whether the framework helps the person understand or communicate their experience and influence support. Public colour judgements, compulsory check-ins or demands to “get to green” turn it into a compliance test. The developer's current guidance expressly rejects treating green as inherently better and has moved away from stop-sign imagery for red.²

The original print curriculum appeared in 2011. The digital curriculum launched in 2024 with reorganised concepts and new or expanded content. Its map identifies emotional categories, body signals, reflection on tools and decisions about goals and options.¹² The public map supports a content description; complete licensed lesson materials and every current update were not inspected.

The studies below must therefore retain their delivery identity. Twelve selected 2011 lessons over six weeks, 24 co-taught lessons drawn from the original book, a brief introduction for teachers and ten weeks of adapted occupational therapy are different exposures. None is automatically a test of the current digital platform.³⁴⁶⁸

Teaching, practice and reflection should be offered at a time and in a form the person can access. During distress, attending to an immediate need takes priority over completing the curriculum task. For individual clinical treatment, specialist assessment and competence remain separate from familiarity with Zones materials.

Research sources: ³⁴⁶⁸

The research concerns different editions, settings and adapted packages. The following account keeps those distinctions visible rather than assigning one evidence grade to every use of Zones.

School comparisons

Ochocki and colleagues randomised 63 pupils to an abbreviated 2011-curriculum application or control. After six weeks, adjusted comparisons on teacher-rated disruptive behaviour and self-control were not significant. Fidelity was not assessed and only selected lessons were delivered. The result warrants caution about that application; it does not prove every version ineffective.³

Conklin and Jairam analysed 56 second-grade pupils in a co-teaching study. Although the abstract says random assignment, the methods describe a quasi-experiment and class selection. Both groups received Kelso's Choice teaching; controls also had morning meetings. Social, Academic, and Emotional Behavior Risk Screener, a teacher rating of risk (SAEBRS) comparisons were not significant. The academic subscale is a teacher-rated risk measure, not demonstrated improvement in attainment.⁴

Mason and colleagues' review concluded that the original-era evidence failed the standards they applied. Its publisher abstract and indexed methods were available, but the complete appraisal was restricted. Its search period precedes the digital curriculum, so its conclusion cannot substitute for an appraisal of later work.⁵

Later findings and their boundaries

Northern Ireland teachers reported greater self-efficacy after a 2.5-hour introduction to selected principles. The study had no control group and substantial incomplete follow-up; it did not directly measure pupil benefit.⁶ Aspect teachers described perceived improvements in emotional language, while also reporting complex adaptation and some pupils' negative reactions. This was an implementation study, not a controlled child-outcome evaluation.⁷

The developer's digital-pilot brief describes 665 pupils with paired teacher ratings across five schools and reports favourable Devereux Student Strengths Assessment–Mini, a brief teacher rating of social-emotional competence (DESSA-Mini) changes. The university project record confirms funding from The Zones of Regulation, Inc. The accessible summary does not supply sufficient allocation, missing-data or analysis information to independently assess a causal effect; even teacher/classroom counts differ between public summaries.⁹

The clinic OT-ZOR paper reports a small uncontrolled feasibility study. A companion equine paper concerns the same clinic-then-equine sequence, not a second independent clinic replication. These packages combine Zones concepts with therapist support, play and other procedures; their findings cannot be transferred to a classroom poster or standard curriculum.⁸¹¹

The anxiety-comparison paper is a protocol. Planned outcomes, samples and fidelity procedures must remain future or unreported data until results are available.¹⁰

All states are acceptable; this does not remove the need to keep people safe. Colour should describe a possible experience, not rank a person or decide whether they deserve support. Looking calm is not the same as feeling safe, understanding an emotion or having a strategy available.

Offer speech, gesture, pictures, writing or the person's established communication method where useful. Accept “I don't know”, mixed feelings and personal meanings. Check whether the symbols themselves make sense. A body-signal activity is not a diagnostic test, and a physical complaint should not be explained away as a zone.

Body noticing, emotion discussion and sensory tools need individual fit. Love and colleagues report teacher accounts of disengagement, agitation and distress associated with some materials or colour associations.⁷ In a later study, six autistic children described both valued experiences and unwanted or boring elements of an equine OT package; enjoyment of riding did not imply enjoyment of the Zones work.¹²

Adaptation may be necessary, but necessity is not proof that a particular adaptation preserves effectiveness. Record what changed and why. If the language or task repeatedly creates pressure, offer another way to express needs rather than making completion the condition for help.

Constructed illustration — not a reported case or an observed outcome.

During a class check-in, a young person points to a colour but says they chose it because “that's the one we're supposed to be”. Later they describe a noisy lunchroom and an uncomfortable stomach. The adult accepts that the colour may not describe their experience, offers a private way to communicate and checks what practical help is needed. They do not require a different label before responding.

At a later, agreed time, the adult offers the existing visual alongside the person's own words or symbols, including an uncertain or mixed-state option. They ask whether the framework helps and review the lunchroom conditions. A teaching record would track whether the learner can express a need and influence support, their view of the check-in, and any pressure or distress. No improvement is assumed in this illustration.

For A011, name the edition and exact lessons or adapted package, record how feelings and support requests can be communicated, and specify whose experience is being assessed. The following definitions are shared with the preceding Atlas batch; they do not fill gaps in study reporting.

• Identity and version: Name the component or programme, its edition or protocol where relevant, and the purpose being evaluated.
• Source role: Separate direct comparative evidence, descriptive implementation findings, guidance, theoretical support and firsthand experience.
• Population and setting: Retain the studied age, communication/access characteristics and setting. State when an intended application lies outside them.
• Intended and actual delivery: Record the planned components and dose separately from what was received, by whom, and with what support or interruptions.
• Comparison and other support: Name the actual comparison and concurrent changes. If there is no comparison group or it is unreported, say so rather than supply an assumed usual-care condition.
• Outcome and reporter: Record the outcome, time point and reporter. Keep the young person’s account separate from proxy judgement, and access or participation separate from task performance.
• Fidelity and adaptation: Record whether the core components were delivered and describe adaptations; distinguish an adapted application from the protocol tested.
• Burden and unwanted effects: Record time, effort, practical access, cost or workload where known, alongside refusal, fatigue, distress, restriction and other unwanted consequences. Unreported burden is not evidence of no burden.

The central caution is: a shared framework may be worth exploring with a willing learner, while broad clinical or educational benefit should not be assumed. Newer evidence adds preliminary findings and recipient perspectives, alongside null comparisons and access concerns. The four-colour scheme has not been established here as superior to other ways of supporting emotional understanding.

Before adoption, reconcile the intended edition and local materials, obtain the missing digital-pilot analysis and relevant restricted methods where material, and review actual delivery and outcomes. Specialist and recipient review, adoption and publication decisions remain pending. This is a targeted evidence reconstruction, not an exhaustive systematic review, Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) assessment or recovery of the missing canonical master.

1. The Zones of Regulation, Inc. (2024). The Zones of Regulation Digital Curriculum Map. A011-S01.

2. The Zones of Regulation, Inc. (2025). Why Switch to the New Zones Digital Curriculum? FAQs to Help You Decide. A011-S02.

3. Ochocki S, Frey AJ, Patterson DA, Herron F, Beck N, Dupper DR. (2020). Evaluating the Zones of Regulation intervention to improve the self-control of elementary students. International Journal of School Social Work, 5(2), article 2. doi:10.4148/2161-4148.1046. A011-S03.

4. Conklin M, Jairam D. (2021). The Effects of Co-Teaching Zones of Regulation on Elementary Students’ Social, Emotional, and Academic Risk Behaviors. Advanced Journal of Social Science, 8(1),171–192. doi:10.21467/ajss.8.1.171-192. A011-S04.

5. Mason BK, Leaf JB, Gerhardt PF. (2024; online2023). A Research Review of the Zones of Regulation Program. The Journal of Special Education,57(4),219–229. doi:10.1177/00224669231170202. A011-S05.

6. Öhlböck E, Stinson M, McClintock K, Turtle B. (2024; online2023). Evaluating the effectiveness of key components of Zones of Regulation curriculum training on teachers’ self-efficacy at managing self-regulation needs in autistic pupils. British Journal of Special Education,51(1),111–122. doi:10.1111/1467-8578.12501. A011-S06.

7. Love AMA, Gibbs V, Roxburgh DG, Dorn EA, Cai RY. (2024). Implementing The Zones of Regulation for Autistic Students: Teacher Perceptions and Practices. Australasian Journal of Special and Inclusive Education,48,79–89. doi:10.1017/jsi.2024.5. A011-S07.

8. Peters BC, Gabriels R, Schmid AA, Lassell RKF, Pan Z, Hoffman A, Hepburn S. (2024). Occupational Therapy Using Zones of Regulation Concepts: A Feasibility Study. OTJR,44(4),597–609. doi:10.1177/15394492241246549. A011-S08.

9. The Zones of Regulation, Inc. (2024). Evidence of Effectiveness Brief, digital pilot section; with University of Minnesota project funding record. A011-S09.

10. Pickard K, Maddox B, Boles R, Reaven J. (2024). A cluster randomized controlled trial comparing the effectiveness of two school-based interventions for autistic youth with anxiety. BMC Psychiatry,24,6. doi:10.1186/s12888-023-05441-0. A011-S10.

11. Peters BC, Gabriels RL, Schmid AA, Pan Z, Merritt T, Hoffman A, Hepburn S. (2024). The feasibility of occupational therapy using Zones of Regulation Concepts in an equine environment. Frontiers in Psychiatry,15,1401222. doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2024.1401222. A011-S11.

12. Browne JM, Reega SJ, Rankins EM, Schmid AA, Peters BC. (2025). The Acceptability of Occupational Therapy Using Zones of Regulation Concepts in an Equine Environment to Autistic Children. Behavioral Sciences,15(4),495. doi:10.3390/bs15040495. A011-S12.

1. 1.

   Source 1. C2–C4, C5, C7–C10. Access: Full one-page public map read.

   ↩1 ↩2 ↩3 ↩4
2. 2.

   Source 2. Edition comparison table; new content and old-visuals questions. Access: Full public comparison page and release/current overview read; paid manuals/platform not acquired.

   ↩1 ↩2 ↩3 ↩4
3. 3.

   Source 3. Methods pp.2–4; Table 2 p.7; limitations pp.8–9. Access: Full original 15-page PDF read via public mirror.

   ↩1 ↩2 ↩3 ↩4
4. 4.

   Source 4. Sections 2–4; pp.180–189, especially 2.1, 2.3, Tables 1–3, 4.2. Access: Full original 22-page PDF read for methods/results/limitations.

   ↩1 ↩2 ↩3 ↩4
5. 5.

   Source 5. Abstract; indexed Search Procedure; publication metadata. Access: Publisher abstract/references plus indexed original-method excerpts; PDF/full-text routes redirected to restricted abstract.

   ↩1
6. 6.

   Source 6. Methods, participant flow, quantitative findings, qualitative findings and limitations. Access: Full original publisher text read.

   ↩1 ↩2 ↩3 ↩4
7. 7.

   Source 7. Methods pp.81–82; results/themes pp.83–85; limitations pp.86–87. Access: Full 11-page original PDF read.

   ↩1 ↩2 ↩3
8. 8.

   Source 8. Original abstract; S11 Methods 2.1/2.4 for explicitly separate companion description. Access: Original PubMed/publisher abstracts; full paper restricted, not obtained.

   ↩1 ↩2 ↩3 ↩4
9. 9.

   Source 9. Brief pp.3–4; blog pilot/sample/results; university Funding. Access: Full five-page brief, blog and university funding record; full trial report inaccessible/unlocated.

   ↩1 ↩2
10. 10.

    Source 10. Abstract, interventions, Table 1, training; PCORI Project Summary/status. Access: Full original protocol; current PCORI page read. Registry direct page incomplete, API unavailable; indexed record not treated as live confirmation.

    ↩1 ↩2
11. 11.

    Source 11. Methods 2.1–2.4; Table 2; Results 3.1–3.4, Table 5. Access: Full publisher Methods/Results/limitations and original abstract inspected.

    ↩1 ↩2
12. 12.

    Source 12. Sections 2.1–2.5, 3.1–3.4, 4.4; Tables 1, 3–5. Access: Full original PMC Methods/Results/limitations inspected.

    ↩1 ↩2

Direct — 01 Emotional life & regulation; 05 Sensory, body & environment. Emotional states, regulation tools and body signals are active curriculum content. Direct05 is justified by the explicit body-signal target in the 2024 map; it does not imply that Zones treats broad sensory or interoceptive difficulties.¹

Conditional — 02 Thinking, attention & action; 03 Communication & connection. These apply when delivery actually teaches and uses the pause/options/reflection sequence or accessible check-ins and communication of support needs. A poster alone does not establish those components. For an older/local adaptation, verify its content before applying these tags.

These are working focus tags after text review, not efficacy claims or adopted classification changes.

• E008 — Difficulties identifying emotions: helps distinguish learning a colour or emotion word from understanding one's experience. Keep uncertainty and communicating need without a correct label central.
• E056 — Difficulty recognising internal body signals: clarifies the limits of Zones body-signal content. Basic self-care access and appropriate assessment cannot depend on successful introspection.
• E001 — Difficulty regulating emotions: places curriculum teaching alongside adult response, environment and recovery. It prevents emotion vocabulary or fewer visible incidents being mistaken for independently available regulation.

These are specific reading relationships, not prescriptions for the presentations. The linked Encyclopaedia release candidates retain their own approval status.