Research Paper The impact of an in-class sensory activity schedule on task performance of children with autism and intellectual disability: A pilot study Caroline Mills 1 , Christine Chapparo 2 and Joanne Hinitt 3 Abstract Introduction: There is limited evidence to support use of sensory interventions by teachers in the classroom. The purpose of this pilot study is to determine the effectiveness of sensory activity schedule intervention in supporting participation and increasing classroom task performance in students with autism. Method: A non-concurrent, AB single system research design across multiple baselines was used with four students with autism who attended an autism-specific school. Students demonstrated atypical sensory processing, which negatively affected their school performance. Repeated baseline and intervention data were collected by school staff using video recording during classroom tasks. Tasks performed were designated by the child’s teacher. Stage one of the Perceive, Recall, Plan, Perform System of Task Analysis was used as a repeated measure of student performance. Ratings were carried out by independent raters who were blinded to the condition of performance. Results: Results revealed three out of four students achieved significant improvements in classroom task performance following the use of sensory activity schedule intervention developed in consultation with an occupational therapist as measured by the task analysis. Conclusion: This study provides emerging evidence for the use of sensory activity schedule intervention in the classroom for students with autism. Keywords Autism spectrum disorders, intellectual disability, sensory processing Received: 29 September 2015; accepted: 25 February 2016 Introduction Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is characterised by impairment in social relating and repetitive and restricted interests (American Psychiatric Association, 2014). Following consistent documentation of atypical sensory processing experienced by people with ASD (Ben-Sasson et al., 2009), sensory processing is a more clearly defined core diagnostic feature of ASD in the current Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V) than previous DSM schedules (Schaaf et al., 2013). Many children with ASD have co-occurring intellectual disability (ID) (Matson and Shoemaker, 2009), and both disorders are thought to contribute to reduced classroom performance. Despite this, evidence of the most effective way to teach children with ASD and ID how to manage and utilise their sensory processing capacity during task performance is piecemeal and limited, with a large propor- tion of outcome studies focusing on children with mild impairment (Miller et al., 2007). The current study aimed to evaluate the use of a pur- posefully planned set of sensory activities, termed the sen- sory activity schedule (SAS) on task mastery in the classroom for four children with ASD and ID. The key research question addressed in this study was: ‘What is the impact of a classroom based SAS on classroom task mas- tery in children with ASD and ID?’. Literature review Children with ASD and atypical sensory processing may exhibit reduced task performance in the classroom. Sub- optimal performance has been linked to difficulties inter- preting and using sensory information in a functional way, with children over-responding or under-responding to everyday sensations (Anzalone and Lane, 2011). Such chil- dren have their own unique response style, which is 1 PhD Candidate, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; Occupational Therapist, Autism Spectrum Australia (Aspect), Sydney, Australia 2 Senior Lecturer, Discipline of Occupational Therapy, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia 3 Lecturer, Discipline of Occupational Therapy, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia Corresponding author: Caroline Mills, Aspect Vern Barnett School, Occupational Therapy, PO Box 359, Forestville, New South Wales 2087, Australia. Email: cmills@autismspectrum.org.au British Journal of Occupational Therapy 2016, Vol. 79(9) 530–539 ! The Author(s) 2016 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0308022616639989 bjo.sagepub.com