The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of using mobile technology applications to improve digital communication skills in four postsecondary students with intellectual disability. An alternating treatment design was used to compare the effectiveness of three mobile technological applications to improve digital communicative interactions. Digital communication skills included sending and receiving text, audio, and video messages. The results indicate that all students improved the quality and independence of digital communicative interactions. Findings are discussed in the context of teaching the use of technology to improve communication in adults with intellectual disabilities.
AdamsG. L.EngelmannS. (1996). Research on direct instruction: 25 years beyond DISTAR. Seattle, WA: Education Achievement Systems.
2.
AilorJ.MathesP.JonesF.ChamplinT.CheathamJ. (2010). Individualized research based reading instruction for students with intellectual disabilities: Success stories. Teaching Exceptional Children, 42, 6–12.
3.
AlbertoP.FredrickL.HughesM.McIntoshL.CihakD. (2007). Components of visual literacy: Teaching logos. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 22, 234–243.
4.
AultM. J.GriffenA. K. (2013). Teaching with the system of least prompts: An easy method for monitoring progress. Teaching Exceptional Children, 45, 46–53.
5.
AyresK. M.MechlingL.SansostiF. J. (2013). The use of mobile technologies to assist with life skills/independence of students with moderate/severe intellectual disability and/or autism spectrum disorders: Considerations for the future of school psychology. Psychology in the Schools, 50, 259–271.
6.
BillingsleyF. F.WhiteO. R.MunsonR. (1980). Procedural reliability: A rational and an example. Behavioral Assessment, 2, 2.
7.
BoatT. F.WuJ. T. (Eds.). (2015). Mental disorders and disabilities among low-income children. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
8.
BoydD. M.EllisonN. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 210–230.
9.
BrowderD. M.WakemanS.SpoonerEAhlgrimDelzellL.AlgozzineB. (2006). Research on reading instruction for individuals with significant cognitive disabilities. Exceptional Children, 72, 392–408.
10.
BruininksR. H.WoodcockR. W.WeathermanR. F.HillB. K. (1996). Scales of independent behavior-revised. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
11.
BurgstahlerS. (2002). Distance learning: The library’s role in ensuring access to everyone. Library Hi Tech, 20, 420–432.
12.
ButterlyA. (2015). WhatsApp: Record number of messages sent each day. The BBC. Retrieved fromhttp://www.bbc.co.uk
13.
CihakD.FahrenkrogC.AyresK.SmithC. (2010). The use of video modeling via a video iPod and a system of least prompts to improve transitional behaviors for students with ASD in the general education classroom. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 12, 103–115.
14.
CihakD.WrightR.McMahonD.SmithC.KraissK. (2015). Incorporating functional digital literacy skills as part of the curriculum for high school students with intellectual disability. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 50, 155–171.
DouglasK. H.AyresK. M.LangoneJ.BellV.MeadeC. (2009). Expanding literacy for learners with intellectual disabilities: The role of supported eText. Journal of Special Education Technology, 24, 35–44.
FieldS.MartinJ.MillerR.WardM.WehmeyerM. (1998). A practical guide for teaching self-determination. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
19.
GrigalM.HartD. (2010). Think College! Postsecondary education options for students with intellectual disabilities. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
20.
GrigalM.MiglioreA.HartD. (2014). A state comparison of vocational rehabilitation support of youth with intellectual disabilities’ participation in postsecondary education. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 40, 185–194.
21.
HammondD.GastD. (2010). Descriptive analysis of single subject research designs: 1983-2007. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 45, 187–202.
22.
HattonC. (1998). Pragmatic language skills in people with intellectual disabilities: A review. Journal of Intellectual and Development Disability, 23, 79–100.
23.
IzzoM. V.YurickA.McArrellB. (2009). Supported eText: Effects of text-to-speech on access and achievement for high school students with disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 24, 9–20.
24.
KagoharaD. M.SigafoosJ.AchmadiD.van der MeerL.O’ReillyM.LancioniG. (2011). Teaching students with developmental disabilities to operate an iPod Touch to listen to music. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 32, 2987–2992.
25.
KennedyC. H. (2005). Single-case designs for educational research. Boston, MA: Pearson. Retrieved from What Works Clearinghouse website:http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/wwc_scd.pdf
26.
KoolW.McGuireJ. T.RosenZ. B.BotvinickM. M. (2010). Decision making and the avoidance of cognitive demand. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 139, 665–682.
27.
McMahonD.CihakD. F.WrightR. (2015). Augmented reality as a navigation tool to employment opportunities for postsecondary education students with intellectual disabilities and autism. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 47, 157–172.
28.
McMahonD.SmithC. S. (2012). Universal design for learning: Implications and applications in UT Knoxville FUTURE Program. Think College Insight Brief, Issue No. 14. Boston: Institute for Community Inclusion, University of Massachusetts Boston.
29.
McMahonD.WalkerZ. (2014). Universal design for learning features and tools on iPads and iPhones. Journal of Special Education Technology, 29, 39–49.
30.
MechlingL.SeidN. (2011). Use of a hand-held personal digital assistant (PDA) to self-prompt pedestrian travel by young adults with moderate intellectual disabilities. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 46, 220–237.
31.
National Council on Disability. (2011). The power of digital inclusion: Technology’s impact on employment and opportunities for people with disabilities. Retrieved from https://ncd.gov/publications/2011/Oct042011.
PurrazzellaK.MechlingL. C. (2013). Evaluation of manual spelling, observational and incidental learning using computer-based instruction with a tablet PC, large screen projection, and a forward chaining procedure. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 48, 218–235.
RiffelL.WehmeyerM.TurnbullA.LattimoreJ.DaviesD.StockS.FisherS. (2005). Promoting independent performance of transition-related tasks using a palmtop PC-based self-directed visual and auditory prompting system. Journal of Special Education Technology, 20, 5–14.
RoseD. H. R.MeyerA.GordonD. (2014). Universal design for learning: Theory and practice. Wakefield, MA: CAST Professional.
38.
ScruggsT. E.MastropieriM. (2001). How to summarize single-participant research: Ideas and applications. Exceptionality, 9, 227–244.
39.
ScruggsT. E.MastropieriM. A.CastoG. (1987). The quantitative synthesis of single subject research methodology: Methodology and validation. Remedial and Special Education, 8, 24–33.
40.
SparrowS. S.BallaD.CicchettiD. V. (1984). Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales (2nd ed.). Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Software.
41.
WalserK.AyresK.FooteE. (2012). Effects of a video model to teach students with moderate intellectual disability to use key features of an iPhone. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 47, 319–331.
42.
WehmeyerM. L.PalmerS. B.SmithS. J.ParentW.DaviesD. K.StockS. (2006). Technology use by people with intellectual and developmental disabilities to support employment activities: A single-subject design meta analysis. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 24, 81–86.
43.
WehmeyerM.SchwartzM. (1997). Self-determination and positive adult outcomes: A follow-up study of youth with mental retardation or learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 63, 245–255.
44.
WehmeyerM.SmithS.DaviesD. (2005). Technology use and students with intellectual disabilities: Universal design for all students. In EdyburnD. L.HigginsK.BooneR. (Eds.), Handbook of special education technology research and practice (pp. 309–323). Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge by Design.
45.
WoodcockR. W.McGrewK. S.MatherN. M. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Cognitive Abilities. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
