Dinner PalsASK GOOD QUESTIONS
What does the study actually show?
Dinner Pals shows time passing through a changing character. Broader research gives reasons to explore visual cues, but it does not establish clinical benefits for this app.
Who took part? What was measured? Was it a timer, a schedule or several supports together? Follow each source below to see the findings and their limits.
Zheng et al. (2022)
Time Perception Deficits in Children and Adolescents with ADHD: A Meta-analysis ↗
27 studies; 1,620 ADHD participants and 1,249 controls. Group timing differences, not a treatment trial.
Wennberg et al. (2018)
Effectiveness of time-related interventions in children with ADHD aged 9–15 years ↗
46 randomised, 38 analysed. A combined programme included assistive devices and training. Timer-only effects cannot be separated.
Hallez & Vallier (2025)
44 children aged 7–9. Some anxiety/behaviour measures improved; maths scores did not significantly differ. Short school-task setting.
Dettmer et al. (2000)
The Use of Visual Supports to Facilitate Transitions of Students with Autism ↗
Two boys; visual-support package associated with quicker transitions. Very small sample; not a timer-app trial.
Waters et al. (2009)
Two boys; schedules alone did not improve the measured behaviour. Specialised procedures are not parent instructions here.
Kim et al. (2026)
Interventions for Transition-Related Challenging Behavior in Individuals with Disabilities ↗
16 papers; 59 participants in the quantitative analysis. Heterogeneous interventions and outcomes; overall effect not statistically significant.
National Autistic Society
Meltdowns – a guide for all audiences ↗
Practical guidance on individual needs and preparing for change; not an efficacy experiment.
CHADD (2016)
Behavioral Management Tips for Preschool Children ↗
Includes visible timers among practical routine suggestions; no measured app outcome.
How we use these sources
Our pages separate timing research, visual schedules, visual timers and combined interventions. We include findings that limit the claims as well as encouraging findings. Examples on this website illustrate ways to try a cue; they are not study protocols or testimonials.
This is a targeted reading list, not an exhaustive systematic review. The library links to original papers or abstracts and identifies guidance separately. If a claim or link needs correcting, contact lrbdraft@gmail.com.