Task sequencing for students with emotional and behavioral disorders: a systematic review.

Knowles et al. (2015) hunted for every classroom study that used task sequencing with students who have emotional and behavioral disorders. They found 11 papers that used high-probability requests, high-preference tasks, or interspersal. The team described how each study set up the sequence, but they did not pool scores or pick a winner.

All 11 studies showed teachers mixing quick, easy tasks with harder ones to keep kids engaged. The review says the tactics are "available and evidence-based," yet it gives no overall effect size. In short, the toolbox exists, but we still need the measuring tape.

Rosales et al. (2021) and Sarokoff et al. (2026) later showed high-probability sequences work for children with autism, giving the same tactic a broader reach. Rapp et al. (2016) agrees task interspersal helps, but warns most studies are small and short, matching the 2015 call for tougher designs.

Reid et al. (2003) seems to clash at first: contingent interspersal beat non-contingent for only three of five preschoolers. The difference is age and contingency. Christen’s older students with EBD rarely used token systems, while H’s preschoolers needed clear if-then rules. Same tool, different settings.

Singh et al. (1991) reviewed social-skills studies for emotionally disturbed students and found weak maintenance. Christen’s pool, focused on academic task order, does not contradict that; it simply targets a different lever—work engagement instead of peer interaction.

If you run a classroom for students with EBD, you now have a menu: start with two or three easy, high-success tasks before the hard one, or drop a fun quick task between tough problems. The review says teachers already do this, so you can borrow their scripts instead of building from scratch. Track engagement for a week and see if the warm-up sequence cuts refusal time.