Zones of Regulation

• 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.

This common key applies to the retained source summaries below. Shorter headings such as design, dose or findings are read in that context. The key supplies no missing source data, converts no proxy report into recipient testimony and assigns no new certainty grade.

Zones is a branded framework with materially different versions and applications. This profile distinguishes original-book school applications, current digital content, teacher training, clinical occupational-therapy packages and direct accounts of participation. It evaluates the claims available from twelve source records, some of which group related identity or study-status documents. Twelve records do not mean twelve independent efficacy studies.

The source article is a complete captured conversation section with a historical WAL-009 heading, mapped to the fixed A011 identity. The later conversation evidence profile supplied leads, not verified findings. Both are retained separately. Their differing “Limited” and “Emerging” grades are not merged into a new score. This is a targeted reconstruction rather than an exhaustive, preregistered systematic review or Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) assessment.

The 2011 book and the 2024 digital curriculum share a four-zone framework, but the current official comparison identifies expanded or new concepts, activities and implementation content. The digital map explicitly teaches body signals and reflection on tools. It provides the basis for the working direct 01/05 tags, with conditional 02/03 applications. The tags classify content, not outcome evidence.¹²

Public content maps and comparison pages were inspected; the complete paid platform/manuals were not. No claim is made that a school using a historic poster, a teacher using four resources, an occupational therapy (OT) using adapted activities and a current digital subscriber are delivering the same intervention. Specific version and fidelity checks remain necessary before applying research to a local programme.

The strongest directly inspected original-era school comparisons do not demonstrate a significant benefit on their selected outcomes. Ochocki's individual randomised controlled trial (RCT) tested an abbreviated intervention; Conklin's methods describe a quasi-experiment despite the abstract's randomisation wording. Neither establishes universal ineffectiveness, and neither tests the updated digital curriculum.³⁴

Their outcomes also require precision. Teacher-rated disruptive behaviour, self-control and Social, Academic, and Emotional Behavior Risk Screener, a teacher rating of risk (SAEBRS) risk are not interchangeable with subjective distress, understanding one's internal state, academic attainment or access to support. A small change without statistical support is not a demonstrated clinically meaningful effect. Broad descriptive improvement within an intervention arm cannot replace its comparison with the control arm.

Mason's historical research review was cautious under the standards it applied. Access to the whole appraisal was unavailable; the original publisher abstract and indexed method excerpts were checked. Its scope predates the digital revision. It supplies a historical appraisal, not a reproduced 2026 grading exercise.⁵

The developer's full public brief contains more detail than its earlier promotional blog: it reports 665 paired pupil ratings, while describing 35 teachers across five schools. The earlier blog says 34 classrooms. These may represent different denominators, but the public materials do not resolve that distinction. The profile retains both and does not infer attrition from their difference.⁹

The brief reports three intervention sites and two comparison sites, with different baseline proportions needing instruction. It does not provide a sufficiently complete account of allocation, baseline adjustment, clustering, missing data, fidelity or uncertainty to independently appraise the causal comparison. A favourable teacher-rated social-emotional learning (SEL) pattern is therefore preliminary. Funding by the developer is confirmed by the university project record; university participation alone does not imply independent funding.

An official current article cites a Miller and colleagues manuscript as in press. A 2025 university CV identifies the title as under review at that earlier date. The original manuscript and complete analysis were not located in this bounded search. Neither publication wording nor marketing claims are substituted for its actual methods/results. The accessible summary cannot validate academic attainment, exclusion reduction or all current digital versions.

The 14-person clinic report is accessible at abstract level. It describes ten weeks of occupational therapy using Zones of Regulation concepts (OT-ZOR) and favourable pre/post results. A full companion paper explicitly identifies those clinic participants within a non-randomised clinic-then-equine sequence. It also describes direct teaching alongside play, prompting, reinforcement, therapist support and individual goals. The clinic findings are therefore preliminary package evidence, not isolated evidence for colour categorisation.⁸¹¹

The equine phase's fixed order makes time, prior learning and added components difficult to distinguish. It does not show additional improvement in every regulation outcome. In the full table, clinic-to-equine comparisons for irritability, hyperactivity, emotional reactivity and dysphoria were not significant. Some social outcomes improved; that pattern still cannot identify horses or Zones as the cause. The two papers must not be counted as separate replications of a clinic effect.¹¹

The later six-child interview study comes from a different, ongoing equine trial cohort. It supplies a direct account of acceptability, not the parent trial's comparative results. Its verbal-fluency and other selection criteria matter when considering whose experiences remain absent.¹²

Teachers' views are useful for understanding implementation. The Northern Ireland training study measured their self-efficacy, not pupil effectiveness. The Aspect study gives detailed accounts of adapting written tasks, language, lesson length and sensory activities, and of work needed to continue delivery. Its participants' favourable views coexist with accounts of agitation, disengagement and negative colour associations.⁶⁷

Recipient views cannot be assumed from adult satisfaction. In the later equine interviews, enjoyment of horses and therapist relationships coexisted with dislike of some Zones activities. Recall difficulty, abstract questioning and social desirability limit interpretation, but do not justify discarding negative accounts.¹²

Clinical-package reports also show why “no serious adverse event” is not equivalent to “no unwanted experience”. The earlier equine feasibility paper records a horse nip with bruising. The later child study records a fall without injury and subsequent nervousness in a separate cohort. Neither event should be portrayed as a risk of a classroom colour chart; both belong to the actual package being described.¹¹¹²

Voluntary, accessible check-ins; accepting uncertainty; preserving practical support without a label; and avoiding green compliance are editorial safeguards for A011. They are not presented as a newly validated adaptation. Current developer guidance rejects green-as-better and stop-sign imagery. Evidence does not establish that these refinements eliminate adverse experiences or make all learners suitable.²

The 2024 paper describes a planned comparison with Facing Your Fears-School Based, including masked clinician and caregiver/student anxiety measures. The current Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) page reports that work is in progress with enrollment complete and links the protocol. It uses somewhat different age/session descriptions from the original protocol. This review found no outcome publication; it does not infer that an estimated completion date means results exist. The registry's direct rendering was incomplete, so live registry status was not independently confirmed.¹⁰

The records below retain identity, design, population, delivery, comparison group, actual measured outcome, fidelity, burden, role, access and limits. Unreported means unreported, not absent.

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

Identity/version: 2024 digital curriculum; content map, not the complete licensed curriculum.

Design: Developer curriculum description.

Population/setting: No study sample; learning targets, not eligibility data.

Dose/delivery: Ten concepts: states, perspectives, body signals, check-in, triggers/sparks, tools and reflective decisions; no delivered dose.

Comparison/co-supports: Not applicable.

Outcomes/reporter/timepoints: Intended learning only; no measured outcomes.

Fidelity/adaptation: C4 body signals and C9–10 decisions support topic tagging; map does not verify local fidelity.

Burden/unwanted effects: No burden or harms evaluation.

Role: Programme identity and active-content source.

Access: Full one-page public map read.

Limits: No efficacy, optimal dose, edition-equivalence or validated adaptation inference.

Locators: C2–C4, C5, C7–C10.

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

Identity/version: Original print curriculum 2011 versus digital curriculum released 2024; companion print material is not a separate efficacy trial.

Design: Official edition comparison.

Population/setting: Current product audience is described by the developer; historical trial populations remain separate.

Dose/delivery: Reorganised concepts and expanded body-signal/check-in/pathway content; advertised delivery is not observed dose.

Comparison/co-supports: Not applicable.

Outcomes/reporter/timepoints: No independently evaluated outcome in this identity record.

Fidelity/adaptation: Developer explicitly discourages green-as-better and stop-sign imagery; private/local resources require checking.

Burden/unwanted effects: Changing familiar language and materials may require work; cost/time not quantified here.

Role: Identity and intended-use guidance, not independent validation.

Access: Full public comparison page and release/current overview read; paid manuals/platform not acquired.

Limits: Do not adopt marketing effectiveness claims or assume updated activities remedy earlier access barriers.

Locators: Edition comparison table; new content and old-visuals questions.

Related primary documents: document 1, document 2.

A011-S03 — 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:10.4148/2161-4148.1046.³

Identity/version: 12 selected lessons from Kuypers 2011; targeted Tier 2 application.

Design: Individual randomised controlled trial.

Population/setting: 63 pupils in grades 2–3 at five Midwestern US schools, 33 intervention/30 control; screened disruptive-behaviour concerns.

Dose/delivery: School social workers delivered 12 approximately 30-minute sessions, twice weekly for six weeks.

Comparison/co-supports: No Zones control; other provision not comprehensively inventoried.

Outcomes/reporter/timepoints: Teacher Student Risk Screening Scale (SRSS) disruptive behaviour p=.384 and Self-Control Rating Scale (SCRS) self-control p=.609: no significant adjusted group difference; post-test within two weeks.

Fidelity/adaptation: No implementation-fidelity assessment; only 12 of the reported 18 lessons.

Burden/unwanted effects: Six hours of group time; student assent recorded. Systematic adverse-event outcomes not reported.

Role: Direct comparative evidence for this abbreviated application.

Access: Full original 15-page PDF read via public mirror.

Limits: Small selected sample, unmasked teachers, possible within-class diffusion; null does not establish equivalence or failure of every version.

Locators: Methods pp.2–4; Table 2 p.7; limitations pp.8–9.

Related primary documents: document 1.

A011-S04 — 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.8.1.171-192.⁴

Identity/version: Co-taught application drawn from original 2011 book; 24 delivered lessons, not a 2024 digital test.

Design: Methods explicitly quasi-experimental; abstract randomisation wording conflicts with class-selection account.

Population/setting: 56 grade-2 pupils, ages 7–8: 23 intervention/33 control in one rural US school; special-education pupils excluded.

Dose/delivery: 24 co-taught lessons, reteaching as needed, daily checks and two-week continuation; lesson minutes not verified.

Comparison/co-supports: Control morning meetings; both groups received weekly 30-minute Kelso’s Choice teaching.

Outcomes/reporter/timepoints: Teacher SAEBRS post-test comparisons non-significant: total p=.701, social .77, academic .12, emotional .07; no academic-achievement test.

Fidelity/adaptation: Co-teacher planning and implementation described; no independent numeric fidelity extracted.

Burden/unwanted effects: Co-teaching/worksheets/check-ins require time; systematic harms not measured.

Role: Direct quasi-experimental package comparison.

Access: Full original 22-page PDF read for methods/results/limitations.

Limits: Different pre/post teachers and school years, small selected classes, co-teaching confound; Table 1 and pre-test prose conflict. Preserve null rather than reconstruct corrected statistics.

Locators: Sections 2–4; pp.180–189, especially 2.1, 2.3, Tables 1–3, 4.2.

A011-S05 — 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:10.1177/00224669231170202.⁵

Identity/version: Review of original-era evidence, not 2024 digital curriculum.

Design: Research review applying named evidence-practice standards; indexed methods describe search January 2011–November 2021.

Population/setting: Study-level sample/selection not independently fully audited.

Dose/delivery: Varied historical applications; not an intervention dose.

Comparison/co-supports: Varied comparison groups; no new pooled treatment comparison performed here.

Outcomes/reporter/timepoints: Authors concluded available evidence failed the American Psychological Association, National Standards Project and National Clearinghouse on Autism Evidence and Practice standards they applied.

Fidelity/adaptation: Original full appraisal tables inaccessible; later implementation studies not covered by its search period.

Burden/unwanted effects: Opportunity cost discussed; no pooled harms surveillance.

Role: Original research synthesis, bounded historical conclusion.

Access: Publisher abstract/references plus indexed original-method excerpts; PDF/full-text routes redirected to restricted abstract.

Limits: Do not treat as an exhaustive 2026 verdict or independently reproduced grading exercise. Direct trials above checked separately.

Locators: Abstract; indexed Search Procedure; publication metadata.

A011-S06 — 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:10.1111/1467-8578.12501.⁶

Identity/version: Brief training in selected 2011 principles/resources, delivered 2022.

Design: Uncontrolled mixed-method pre/post teacher study.

Population/setting: 128 Northern Ireland primary 5–7 teachers attended; 87 immediate Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES), 89 acceptability, 37 matched all three timepoints.

Dose/delivery: One 2.5-hour online OT-led session; four resources, then classroom use over two months.

Comparison/co-supports: No concurrent comparison; classroom exposure varied.

Outcomes/reporter/timepoints: Immediate teacher self-efficacy increase .936, 95%confidence interval (CI)[.718, 1.153]; matched 37 improvement persisted at two months. No directly measured pupil outcome.

Fidelity/adaptation: Use of each resource varied; introduction to selected principles, not complete-programme fidelity.

Burden/unwanted effects: 46 qualitative respondents; 36 requested further training. High follow-up loss; time/access demands. No pupil harms surveillance.

Role: Teacher acceptability and implementation evidence.

Access: Full original publisher text read.

Limits: Volunteer self-report, no control, substantial incomplete data. Teacher confidence is not child regulation.

Locators: Methods, participant flow, quantitative findings, qualitative findings and limitations.

A011-S07 — 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.2024.5.⁷

Identity/version: Original 2011 manual, intended full implementation with substantial adaptations.

Design: Qualitative study plus descriptive acceptability survey.

Population/setting: Methods: 14 teachers, five Aspect schools, 96 autistic pupils ages 5–12; 12 teachers later interviewed. Abstract 26 conflicts with method counts.

Dose/delivery: Two school terms/20 weeks; weekly researcher calls and existing adapted resources.

Comparison/co-supports: No outcome comparison group.

Outcomes/reporter/timepoints: Teachers generally endorsed feasibility and perceived language growth; two did not recommend. No direct measured pupil efficacy endpoint.

Fidelity/adaptation: Writing/language/lesson length/sensory activities adapted; support substantial.

Burden/unwanted effects: Teacher reports include workload, disengagement, agitation and negative colour associations; not quantified incidence.

Role: Implementation and proxy experience evidence.

Access: Full 11-page original PDF read.

Limits: augmentative and alternative communication (AAC)/intellectual-disability access concerns; staff perceptions are not student self-report or diagnostic subgroup effects. Reporting-count inconsistencies remain explicit.

Locators: Methods pp.81–82; results/themes pp.83–85; limitations pp.86–87.

Related primary documents: document 1.

A011-S08 — 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:10.1177/15394492241246549.⁸

Identity/version: OT-ZOR Clinic, adapted 2011 concepts combined with occupational therapy; not standard classroom curriculum.

Design: Single-arm feasibility study.

Population/setting: 14 autistic youth ages 6–13 completed; same clinic phase reported within S11 sequence.

Dose/delivery: Ten weeks; abstract attendance 94%, fidelity 97%. More detailed clinic description available in S11, labelled as companion-report information.

Comparison/co-supports: No randomised comparison group for clinic phase.

Outcomes/reporter/timepoints: Abstract reports pre/post reductions in irritability, hyperactivity, emotional reactivity and dysphoria; exact primary-paper contrasts/reporters not fully extracted.

Fidelity/adaptation: Manualised OT adaptation; high fidelity applies to that protocol.

Burden/unwanted effects: Abstract says safety evaluated but lacks event details; do not infer no harm.

Role: Preliminary feasibility and within-person change.

Access: Original PubMed/publisher abstracts; full paper restricted, not obtained.

Limits: No causal programme effect; no full assessment of methods, uncertainty or adverse events. Do not count S11 as independent clinic replication.

Locators: Original abstract; S11 Methods 2.1/2.4 for explicitly separate companion description.

Related primary documents: document 1.

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

Identity/version: Spring 2024 pilot of new digital curriculum; current release equivalence not independently documented.

Design: Developer summary of school-site comparison; random allocation not established in accessible material; full analysis report not obtained.

Population/setting: Brief: five schools, 35 teachers 18/17; 665 paired child ratings 376/289. Earlier blog: 34 classrooms 18/16, 600+; denominators differ.

Dose/delivery: Basic Training plus four months delivery; actual lessons/fidelity unreported in summary.

Comparison/co-supports: Three intervention schools versus two comparison schools with no Zones; baseline instructional-need proportions differed.

Outcomes/reporter/timepoints: Developer reports favourable teacher Devereux Student Strengths Assessment–Mini, a brief teacher rating of social-emotional competence (DESSA-Mini) change; blog mean gains 8.84 versus 1.09. No accessible adjusted estimate/CI or clustering analysis.

Fidelity/adaptation: No auditable fidelity or adaptation data.

Burden/unwanted effects: No complete attrition, adverse-event or workload analysis available.

Role: Preliminary developer-reported comparison; university record verifies commercial funding.

Access: Full five-page brief, blog and university funding record; full trial report inaccessible/unlocated.

Limits: Do not call randomised/independent-funded or treat teacher SEL rating as academic achievement. Current developer page cites Miller etal.in press; original manuscript not located.

Locators: Brief pp.3–4; blog pilot/sample/results; university Funding.

Related primary documents: document 1, document 2, document 3, document 4.

A011-S10 — 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/s12888-023-05441-0.¹⁰

Identity/version: ZOR cited as Kuypers/Winner 2011 versus Facing Your Fears-School Based; 2024 digital equivalence not established.

Design: Prospective cluster-randomised hybrid effectiveness/implementation protocol; no trial results.

Population/setting: Planned 200 autistic pupils ages 8–14 across up to 100 schools; current sponsor describes 8–15. Actual analysed cohort unknown.

Dose/delivery: Protocol 12 weeks, groups 2–5; provider training about 12 h and consultation. Sponsor now lists 12–18 ZOR sessions.

Comparison/co-supports: Active Facing Your Fears–School Based (FYF-SB) comparison group; shared provider support.

Outcomes/reporter/timepoints: Planned anxiety outcomes: masked clinician plus caregiver/student reports at baseline, post, 6 months; no observed result.

Fidelity/adaptation: Planned fidelity assessment; actual delivery/adaptation unavailable.

Burden/unwanted effects: Planned interviews and monitoring; actual burden/harms unknown.

Role: Protocol and current sponsor-status source.

Access: Full original protocol; current PCORI page read. Registry direct page incomplete, API unavailable; indexed record not treated as live confirmation.

Limits: PCORI says in progress; enrollment complete. No efficacy results found 12 Sep 2026. Planned comparisons and revised descriptors remain separate.

Locators: Abstract, interventions, Table 1, training; PCORI Project Summary/status.

Related primary documents: document 1, document 2, document 3.

A011-S11 — 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.2024.1401222.¹¹

Identity/version: OT-ZOR Clinic then OT-ZOR Equine; adapted original 2011 activities embedded in OT.

Design: Non-randomised single-arm A-B sequence; same 14 as clinic report.

Population/setting: 14 selected verbally fluent autistic youth ages 6–13 from 20 enrolled; equine safety eligibility.

Dose/delivery: Ten weekly 60-minute clinic sessions then ten equine sessions; specialist therapists, play/horse activities, reinforcement and scaffolding.

Comparison/co-supports: Fixed clinic→equine sequence, no concurrent untreated group or randomised order.

Outcomes/reporter/timepoints: Caregiver Aberrant Behavior Checklist (ABC)/Emotion Dysregulation Inventory (EDI) improved from baseline; clinic→equine differences null for irritability p=.356 and reactivity p=.664. Some social ratings improved; not proof of additive causation.

Fidelity/adaptation: Equine fidelity 91%, attendance 95%; no discontinuations.

Burden/unwanted effects: One horse nip with bruising; no serious event reported. Only 62% caregivers endorsed logistics; commute/school-time burden.

Role: Feasibility of a complex clinical package; companion cohort relationship.

Access: Full publisher Methods/Results/limitations and original abstract inspected.

Limits: Small selected cohort, fixed order, proxy outcomes and co-components preclude attributing change to Zones or horses.

Locators: Methods 2.1–2.4; Table 2; Results 3.1–3.4, Table 5.

A011-S12 — 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/bs15040495.¹²

Identity/version: OT-ZOR Equine using original 2011 concepts; Summer 2024 subgroup from separate ongoing randomised controlled trial NCT05846932.

Design: Qualitative descriptive child interviews, not comparative efficacy analysis.

Population/setting: Six verbally fluent autistic children ages 7–9; trial eligibility non-verbal intelligence quotient (IQ) ≥65.

Dose/delivery: Ten weekly one-hour OT/equine sessions, then semistructured interviews; parent consent and child assent.

Comparison/co-supports: No interview comparison group; mixed horse/curriculum/therapist components.

Outcomes/reporter/timepoints: All liked aspects of participation; horse riding particularly preferred, some Zones material boring/unwanted; perceived benefit varied.

Fidelity/adaptation: Adapted package; interviews assess experience, not fidelity or mechanism.

Burden/unwanted effects: Riding discomfort and a fall without injury, followed by nervousness, reported. Some curriculum activities less acceptable.

Role: Direct recipient experience, bounded to selected clinical participants.

Access: Full original PMC Methods/Results/limitations inspected.

Limits: Verbal recall/abstract questions, social desirability, small sample and developer-team involvement; not generalisable to nonspeaking children.

Locators: Sections 2.1–2.5, 3.1–3.4, 4.4; Tables 1, 3–5.

The revised article retains the source's shared-language explanation, distinction between popularity and efficacy, concern over insufficient direct evidence, and caution about colour-based behaviour judgements. It narrows general claims of usefulness and updates the evidence with verified design/outcome boundaries. Unverified supporting-evidence/practice scores and a proposed public demonstration role are removed. The exact article diff and claim-by-claim decisions are available in the change record (internal editorial record) and claim register (internal editorial record).

Access limits remain material: restricted original clinic/report details, restricted review appraisal, no complete digital-pilot analysis, no complete licensed curriculum comparison, and no retrieved anxiety-trial result. Further specialist/recipient review should address actual local materials, communication access, possible pressure during check-ins, clinically appropriate provision and outcomes meaningful to the learner. No professional or recipient has been represented as having approved this work.

1. The Zones of Regulation, Inc. (2024). The Zones of Regulation Digital Curriculum Map. Original source. Accessed 12 September 2026.

2. The Zones of Regulation, Inc. (2025). Why Switch to the New Zones Digital Curriculum? FAQs to Help You Decide. Original source. Accessed 12 September 2026.

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. Original source. Accessed 12 September 2026.

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. Original source. Accessed 12 September 2026.

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. Original source. Accessed 12 September 2026.

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. Original source. Accessed 12 September 2026.

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. Original source. Accessed 12 September 2026.

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. Original source. Accessed 12 September 2026.

9. The Zones of Regulation, Inc. (2024). Evidence of Effectiveness Brief, digital pilot section; with University of Minnesota project funding record. Original source. Accessed 12 September 2026.

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. Original source. Accessed 12 September 2026.

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. Original source. Accessed 12 September 2026.

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. Original source. Accessed 12 September 2026.

1. 1.

   Source 1. C2–C4, C5, C7–C10.

   ↩1 ↩2
2. 2.

   Source 2. Edition comparison table; new content and old-visuals questions.

   ↩1 ↩2 ↩3
3. 3.

   Source 3. Methods pp.2–4; Table 2 p.7; limitations pp.8–9.

   ↩1 ↩2
4. 4.

   Source 4. Sections 2–4; pp.180–189, especially 2.1, 2.3, Tables 1–3, 4.2.

   ↩1 ↩2
5. 5.

   Source 5. Abstract; indexed Search Procedure; publication metadata.

   ↩1 ↩2
6. 6.

   Source 6. Methods, participant flow, quantitative findings, qualitative findings and limitations.

   ↩1 ↩2
7. 7.

   Source 7. Methods pp.81–82; results/themes pp.83–85; limitations pp.86–87.

   ↩1 ↩2
8. 8.

   Source 8. Original abstract; S11 Methods 2.1/2.4 for explicitly separate companion description.

   ↩1 ↩2
9. 9.

   Source 9. Brief pp.3–4; blog pilot/sample/results; university Funding.

   ↩1 ↩2
10. 10.

    Source 10. Abstract, interventions, Table 1, training; PCORI Project Summary/status.

    ↩1 ↩2
11. 11.

    Source 11. Methods 2.1–2.4; Table 2; Results 3.1–3.4, Table 5.

    ↩1 ↩2 ↩3 ↩4
12. 12.

    Source 12. Sections 2.1–2.5, 3.1–3.4, 4.4; Tables 1, 3–5.

    ↩1 ↩2 ↩3 ↩4