This review synthesizes patterns across the 11 reviewed studies and summarizes areas in which multiperson activity schedules were effective, as well as limitations reported in the literature. Participants were primarily preschool-age children (3 to 5 years old) in preschool classrooms with ASD, and the tasks targeted for intervention were mostly play-based activities. Although these interventions are inherently social and most often applied to play-based contexts, the evidence indicates stronger and more consistent effects for play and vocational activities than for academic tasks, which have shown weaker and more variable outcomes. Results of the SCRVA and SCARF indicate that the quality and outcomes of the studies were strong, though with limited generalization and maintenance data. Multiperson activity schedules show promise as an intervention within the contexts examined in the reviewed studies, though the current evidence base remains limited.

This systematic review of multi-person activity schedules has highlighted both the variety of individuals for whom this intervention can be used as well as the limited information and utilization of this intervention. Race/ethnicity was the most underreported participant characteristic. Similarly, Kirkpatrick’s systematic review of video schedules (2023) found that the race or ethnicity of participants was not reported in more than half of the studies sampled. This is a limitation that should be corrected as new research is performed to increase the replicability and applicability of multiperson activity schedule research.

Despite this limitation, many of the other participant characteristics and contexts were reported. Even though multiperson activity schedules have been proven to be highly effective for individuals with ASD, they have also been under-applied to individuals with other disabilities. This finding aligns with systematic reviews of individual activity schedules, where the majority or all participants were individuals with ASD (Kirkpatrick et al., 2023; Koyama & Wang, 2011; Lequia et al., 2012). This limits the external validity of this line of research and highlights the need for future research with students with a wider range of disabilities, who may also benefit from these supports.

Most participants were reported to have experience with activity schedules. The seven studies reporting all target participants having experience with activity schedules received a visual analysis score of 5.00 (i.e., Akers et al., 2018; Brodhead et al., 2014; Campbell, 2023; Gold, 2004; Lindeman, 2016; Pellegrino, 2018; White et al., 2011). The remaining four studies reporting participants with no prior experience or with unreported prior experience (i.e., Betz et al., 2008; Gadaire et al., 2018; Kirkpatrick, 2021; Mahoney, 2019) received a visual analysis score less than 5.00 (4.78, 2.15, 1.44, and 2.11, respectively). This discrepancy in visual analysis score suggests that prior experience can impact the effectiveness of activity schedules. For instance, participants with a history of reinforcement using similar tools (e.g., video schedules, group work) may correctly engage with the tools more quickly, leading to faster acquisition of skills than their peers with no history of reinforcement. Prior experience with activity schedules also may indicate the presence of the prerequisite skills needed to engage with other activity schedules, leading to generalized response patterns. Prerequisite skills may support stimulus generalization because they allow learners to recognize the common functional features across different activity schedules, even when surface features change. When these underlying stimulus classes are already established through prior reinforcement histories, learners are more likely to transfer engagement and respond correctly across formats or contexts without direct teaching, whereas learners without these prerequisites may require explicit instruction to establish similar levels of responding across different stimulus modalities.

Almost half of the included studies involved preschool-age children; therefore, these studies demonstrated effectiveness with young children in early childhood settings. With the number of inclusive preschool settings continuing to grow, this intervention warrants broader dissemination among early childhood special educators. It offers a practical way to teach new skills to both peers and children with disabilities, while engaging multiple students simultaneously and reducing the need for intensive, hands-on support. Further, of the settings reported, only one evaluated generalization to home settings (Campbell, 2023), and no caregivers were trained as implementers. Considering the number of studies that have taught students to play cooperative games, future research should explore generalization to the home setting and to natural intervention agents (e.g., peers, siblings, caregivers).

The study interventions were relegated into three categories: joint, linked, and a combination of the two. Joint was the most common schedule variation. Joint activity schedules are antecedent interventions that set the occasion for peer interactions, leading to natural social reinforcement of those peer interactions. Joint activity schedules are particularly effective for building peer interaction, cooperative skills, and shared task completion compared to linked formats (Betz et al., 2008). As such, an important area of future research is examining the generalization and maintenance of skills taught using joint multiperson activity schedules.

Multiperson activity schedules containing pictures were the most common, with six out of 15 articles using pictures, and five out of the six studies demonstrated strong functional relations. Video schedules, written schedules, and fillable schedules were the least researched multiperson schedule formats. Only three studies included in this review have researched written formats, but this may be due to most of the participants being preschoolers. This is an area that could benefit from further research, since written schedules are used by adults without disabilities in everyday life at work and at home (e.g., checklists, calendars, and planners). Future research could also conduct a direct comparison of digital and paper methods, measuring a variety of variables, especially those relevant to acceptability (e.g., participant engagement, participant preference, implementer preference, ease of schedule creation).

Picture and video-based schedules make this intervention highly accessible to non-readers and early readers, making it age-appropriate for both peers without disabilities and students with disabilities. The video schedule had a weak effect in Kirkpatrick (2021), but it should be tested in more than one instance, considering that the systematic review by Kirkpatrick et al. of video-based activity schedules indicated strong outcomes for this format. Video schedules may be more effective than picture-based schedules for several reasons. First, videos provide dynamic, step-by-step demonstrations of tasks or behaviors, not just static representations. This helps learners understand how to complete an action, not just what the action is. Further, moving images and sound can be more engaging than static pictures, especially for learners who respond well to audiovisual stimuli. This can improve attention and motivation to follow the schedule.

Schedule fading was used in only three of the included studies. This represents a gap in the current literature surrounding multiperson activity schedules, and yet one of the key components to guiding participants toward more independent and varied responding. While part of the appeal of activity schedules lies in their not needing to be faded, more research needs to be done on fading the schedule and potentially transferring stimulus control to a similar tool used by peers when appropriate. Therefore, future research should explore how, when, and for whom fading is most effective while taking into account individual differences in learning pace, environment, and developmental readiness. For practice, this means that educators and interventionists should place greater emphasis on systematic fading strategies to reduce dependence on external prompts or visual schedules.

Graduated guidance was the most commonly used teaching method for multiperson activity schedules while some studies relied on least-to-most prompting. Educators and practitioners should thoughtfully choose prompting strategies based on learner needs, context, and instructional goals, as both graduated guidance and least-to-most prompting have strengths in teaching activity schedules. One direction for future research could be individualized assessments for skill acquisition, such as comparison of prompting procedures (e.g., see tutorial by Kodak & Halbur, 2021).

Multiperson activity schedules are inherently social interventions and have been studied primarily within play-based contexts, with far fewer applications to work, vocational, or academic tasks. Overall, SCRVA results suggest strong functional relations when these schedules are used to teach play and vocational activities, whereas applications to academic tasks have yielded consistently weak and variable effects, including the lowest visual analysis scores in the reviewed studies ( Gadaire et al., 2018; Kirkpatrick, 2021). This may be due to the immediacy of reinforcement found in play-based or vocational tasks as compared to the delayed reinforcement often found in academic tasks. This task area should be examined more thoroughly in future research. Considering that cooperative work is common in later grades, structured early exposure to cooperative academic activities could potentially be beneficial.

Similar to Kirkpatrick et al. (2023), many of the included studies are high-quality studies as indicated by SCRVA and SCARF scores. Of the 15 designs across studies included in this review, 10 demonstrated a strong functional relation. Of those, five studies were of very high quality. These studies can reasonably be used to guide implementation in clinical practice and replication for future research. This does not, however, indicate that the studies are perfect. The current literature has limited generalization and maintenance measures, with only five studies reporting data for each.

Campbell (2023) met almost all SCARF indicators. This is the most recent dissertation on the topic, which could be a promising indication of the direction study quality and rigor is heading in for future studies. Generally, dissertations performed better on the SCARF than published articles due to the extensive amount of detail and reporting involved. When studies are published, a page limit must be met that may result in the exclusion of many details. This may be an important area for future research concerning the quality of published studies and could have serious implications for the standards by which articles are accepted and edited for publication in peer-reviewed journals.

Findings from this review and others (e.g., Kirkpatrick et al., 2023) indicate that the social acceptability and desirability of activity schedules are limited. Specifically, only four of the studies included in this review reported social validity measures, and most were subject to bias, limiting our ability to draw firm conclusions from these data. Overall, the findings across studies indicate that the social validity of multiperson activity schedules for students with disabilities was generally positive but varied among stakeholders. Implementer acceptability, or buy-in, is key to the correct and consistent implementation of interventions. Participant acceptability can impact their continued willingness to participate and use this intervention beyond the time that an adult is prompting them. Participants with disabilities generally found the interventions beneficial, while teachers, caregivers, and peers expressed mixed but largely supportive views influenced by implementation demands, fidelity, and group dynamics. Together, these findings underscore the need for high-quality, multi-informant social validity assessments that go beyond choice measures to include participant affect and verbal feedback to evaluate the acceptability of goals, procedures, and outcomes.