The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of an intervention package that included constant time delay (CTD) and sentence frames on correct word selection for sentences constructed using technology-aided instruction (TAI) during a story-based lesson (SBL) for participants ages 6 to 8 years who have intellectual and/or developmental disabilities (IDD). A single-case multiple-probe across participants design was used to evaluate the efficacy of the intervention. Probes were conducted during baseline, intervention, generalization, and maintenance phases to determine the effectiveness of the intervention on correct word selection for sentence construction. Results indicate a functional relation between the intervention package and correct word selection for sentence construction during a shared story. In addition, the Percent of Nonoverlapping Data (PND) indicates overall strong effects. Finally, students were able to demonstrate both generalization and maintenance of skills.
BrowderD. M.TrelaK.JimenezB. (2007). Training teachers to follow a task analysis to engage middle school students with moderate and severe developmental disabilities in grade-appropriate literature. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 22(4), 206–219. https://doi.org/10.1177/10883576070220040301
2.
CoddingR. S.LaneK. L. (2015). A spotlight on treatment intensity: An important and often overlooked component of intervention inquiry. Journal of Behavior Education, 24, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-014-9210-z
EllemK.SmithL.BaidawiS.McGheeA.DowseL. (2020). Transcending the professional–client divide: Supporting young people with complex support needs through transitions. Child & Adolescent Social Work Journal, 37(2), 109–122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10560-020-00651-x
5.
ErbasD.TuranY.OzenA.HalleJ. W. (2006). Effect of an adapted “cover write” method to word-naming and spelling to students with developmental disabilities in Turkey. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 41(4), 357–364. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23879662
6.
GibsonA. N.SchusterJ. W. (1992). The use of simultaneous prompting for teaching expressive word recognition to preschool children. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 12(2), 247–267. https://doi.org/10.1177/027112149201200208
7.
GrahamS.HarrisK. R. (2016). A path to better writing: Evidence-based practices in the classroom. The Reading Teacher, 69(4), 359–365. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1432
8.
GrahamS.LiuX.BartlettB.NgC.HarrisK. R.AitkenA.BarkelA.KavanaughC.TalukdarJ. (2018). Reading for writing: A meta-analysis of the impact of reading interventions on writing. Review of Educational Research, 88(2), 243–284. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465431774692
9.
GremmenM.van den BergY. H. M.SegersP. C.CillessenA. H. (2016). Considerations for classroom seating arrangements and the role of teacher characteristics and beliefs. Social Psychology of Education, 19(4), 749–774. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-016-9353-y
10.
HaydonT.MacSuga-GageA. S.SimonsenB.HawkinsR. (2012). Opportunities to respond: A key component of effective instruction. Beyond Behavior, 22(1), 23–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/107429561202200105
11.
HornerR. D.BaerD. M. (1978). Multiple-probe technique: A variation on the multiple baseline. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11(1), 189–196. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1978.11-189
12.
HornerR. H.CarrE. G.HalleJ.McGeeG.OdomS.WoleryM. (2005). The use of single-subject research to identify evidence-based practice in special education. Exceptional Children, 71(2), 165–179. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290507100203
13.
JimenezB. A.CroftG.TwineJ.GoreyJ. (2021). Development of engineering habits of mind for students with intellectual disability. The Journal of Special Education, 55(3), 174–185. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224669211009960
14.
LedfordJ. R.GastD. L. (Eds.). (2018). Single case research methodology: Applications in special education and behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Routledge.
15.
LedfordJ. R.LambertJ. M.PustejovskyJ. E.ZimmermanK. N.HollinsN.BartonE. E. (2023). Single-case-design research in special education: Next-generation guidelines and considerations. Exceptional Children, 89(4), 379–396. https://doi.org/10.1177/00144029221137656
16.
McClureE. B.PenningtonR. C.BewleyS. C. (2024). Evaluating the evidence-base supporting writing instruction strategies for students with autism spectrum disorder: A systematic review of experimental research. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 39(3), 139–149. https://doi.org/10.1177/10883576231221980
17.
McDonnellJ.ThorsonN.AllenC.Mathot-BucknerC. (2000). The effects of partner learning during spelling for students with severe disabilities and their peers. Journal of Behavioral Education, 10(2–3), 107–121. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1016684029389
18.
MimsP. J.HudsonM. E.BrowderD. M. (2012). Using read-alouds of grade-level biographies and systematic prompting to promote comprehension for students with moderate and severe developmental disabilities. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 27(2), 67–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088357612446859
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2021, November 9). Intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDDs). Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. https://www.nichd.nih.gov/health/topics/idds
22.
PenningtonR. C.CollinsB. C.StenhoffD. M.TurnerK.GunselmanK. (2014). Using simultaneous prompting and computer-assisted instruction to teach narrative writing skills to students with autism. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 49(3), 396–414. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23881260
23.
PenningtonR. C.DelanoM. D. (2012). Writing instruction for students with autism spectrum disorders: A review of literature. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 27(3), 158–167. https://doi.org/10.1177/10883576124513
24.
PenningtonR. C.FlickA.Smith-WehrK. (2018). The use of response prompting and frames for teaching sentence writing to students with moderate intellectual disability. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 33(3), 142–149. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088357616673568
25.
PenningtonR. C.ForemanL. H.GurneyB. N. (2018). An evaluation of procedures for teaching students with moderate to severe disabilities to write sentences. Remedial and Special Education, 39(1), 27–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932517708428
26.
PenningtonR. C.KoehlerM. (2017). Effects of modeling, story templates, and self-graphing in the use of story elements by students with moderate intellectual disability. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 52(3), 280–290. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26420400
27.
PenningtonR. C.MohammadM.MimsP. J.MuharibR. (2020). Use of a technology-based instructional package to teach opinion writing to students with intellectual disability. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 55(4), 398–408. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27077932
28.
PenningtonR. C.RockholdJ. (2018). Brief report: An evaluation of an instructional package for teaching sentence construction to students with ASD. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 4, 1301–1306. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-017-3309-8
29.
PenningtonR. C.StrangerC.MimsP. J.KirkmanC.AldridgeS.StanleyM.ChapmanS. (2021). A pilot investigation of an autonomous technology-based instructional program for teaching sentences to students with extensive support needs. Journal of Special Education, 36(1), 18–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/016264341987976
30.
RootJ. R.CoxS. K.GonzalezS. (2019). Using modified schema-based instruction with technology-based supports to teach data analysis. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 44(1), 53–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796919833915
31.
SpoonerF.BrownF. (2017). Educating students with significant cognitive disabilities: Historical overview and future projections. In KauffmanJ. M.HallahanD. P.PullenP. C. (Eds.), Handbook of special education (2nd ed.; pp. 617–631). Routledge.
32.
SpoonerF.RootJ. R.SaundersA. F.BrowderD. M. (2019). An updated evidence-based practice review on teaching mathematics to students with moderate and severe developmental disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 40(3), 150–165. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932517751055
33.
TotsikaV.KouroupaA.TimmermanA.AllardA.GrayK. M.HastingsR. P.HeyneD.MelvinG. A.TongeB. (2023). School attendance problems among children with neurodevelopmental conditions one year following the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 27(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-023-06025-3
34.
VannestK. J.ParkerR. I.GonenO.AdiguzelT. (2016). Single case research: Web-based calculators for SCR analysis (Version 2.0) [Web-based Application]. Texas A&M University. http://singlecaseresearch.org/calculators/tau-u
35.
WoleryM.HolcombeA.CybriwskyC.DoyleP. M.SchusterJ. W.AultM. J.GastD. L. (1992). Constant time delay with discrete responses: A review of effectiveness and demographic, procedural, and methodological parameters. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 13(3), 239–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/0891-4222(92)90028-5
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
