Effects of task size on work-related and aberrant behaviors of youths with autism and mental retardation.
Slice big tasks into small sets to keep kids with autism working without extra rewards.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Five youths with autism and intellectual disability strung beads for pay.
Some days they got 36 beads per tray. Other days they got 250 beads per tray.
The team switched the tray sizes back and forth and timed how long the kids stayed on task.
What they found
Small trays won. Every kid stayed on task more with 36 beads.
Four of the five kids also worked faster.
Off-task behavior dropped without any extra rewards.
How this fits with other research
Knutson et al. (2019) later asked a new question: should you mix easy and hard tasks? They found skipping easy tasks and teaching only new skills was fastest.
Mavropoulou et al. (2011) used TEACCH bins instead of bead trays. Their two preschoolers had up-and-down results, but the goal was the same: break work into smaller parts.
Fiene et al. (2015) gave kids a vibrating watch so they could cue themselves. The watch also raised on-task behavior, showing structure can come from tech instead of tray size.
Why it matters
You can boost work time right now by cutting big jobs into mini sets. Put only a few items in each bowl, worksheet folder, or app screen. No extra prizes are needed. Try it during vocational tasks, morning work, or tooth-brushing routines.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Count out only 10 beads, blocks, or pegs per cup before the session starts.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
The effects of task size on rate of responding and on-task behavior as well as on nontask-related behaviors of students with autism and mental retardation on a repetitive task under conditions of no reinforcement for responding was analyzed. Task size, defined as the presence of either 36 or 250 beads in a container at the onset of the session, was compared in an alternating treatment design. The small-task condition resulted in higher on-task behavior for all participants and in higher work rate for four of the five participants. For the four participants who engaged in inappropriate use of task materials, higher levels of this behavior occurred in the large-task conditions. Other nontask-related behaviors were higher in the large-task condition for all participants with the exception of stereotypy, which was higher in the small-task condition for one participant. Better work-related behavior occurred for these participants in small- than in large-task conditions even though no tangible reinforcement was provided for task responding. Implications of these results are discussed in the context of arranging workplace environments to maximize productivity of persons with developmental disabilities.
Research in developmental disabilities, 1995 · doi:10.1016/0891-4222(95)00001-1