This study evaluated the effects of a peer-delivered least prompts intervention and adapted read-alouds of a grade-level novel on correct listening comprehension responses for participants with moderate intellectual disability. Before the study began, participants were taught concepts for wh- words (i.e., who, what, why, when, and where), to request help, and to self-monitor correct responses in the special education classroom. Then, fifth-grade peer tutors without disabilities (peer tutors) provided opportunities for participants to apply these skills during literacy class using a system of least prompts intervention and read-alouds of an adapted novel being read by students without disabilities in the class. The least prompts intervention included wh- word rules and opportunities to hear text again. After the intervention, all participants increased the number of unmodeled prompted correct responses and one participant learned to make independent unprompted correct responses after the text was read initially. In addition, two participants learned to respond correctly when questions were asked by the general education teacher during literacy class.
BillingsleyF.WhiteO. R.MunsonR. (1980). Procedural reliability: A rationale and example. Behavioral Assessment, 2, 229-241.
2.
BrowderD.GibbsS.Ahlgrim-DelzellL.CourtadeG. R.MrazM.FlowersC. (2009). Literacy for students with severe developmental disabilities: What should we teach and what should we hope to achieve?Remedial and Special Education, 30, 269-282.
3.
BrowderD. M.HudsonM. E.WoodL. (2014). Using principles of high quality instruction in the general education classroom to provide access to the general education curriculum. In McLeskeyJ.WaldronN. L.SpoonerF.AlgozzineB. (Eds.), Handbook of research and practice for effective inclusive schools (pp. 339-351). New York, NY: Routledge.
4.
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, 206-219.
5.
CopelandS. R.CosbeyJ. (2008-2009). Making progress in the general curriculum: Rethinking effective instructional practices. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 33-34, 214-227.
6.
CurtisC. P. (1995). The Watsons go to Birmingham—1963. New York, NY: Bantam Doubleday Dell.
7.
FletcherJ.ClaytonI. (1994). Measuring listening comprehension in adolescents with intellectual disability. Australia and New Zealand Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 19, 53-59.
8.
GastD. L. (2010). Single subject research methodology in behavioral sciences. New York, NY: Routledge.
9.
HaringT. G.BreenC.Pitts-ConwayV.WilsonR.Gaylord-RossR. (1983). A social distance questionnaire for the attitudes of high school students toward handicapped peers. In Gaylord-RossR.HaringT.BreenC.Pitts-ConwayV. (Eds.), The social integration of autistic and severely handicapped students (Monograph from the U.S. Department of Education Grant No. G008104154) (pp. 1-12). San Francisco, CA: San Francisco State University, Special Education Department.
10.
HudsonM. E.BrowderD. M.JimenezB. A. (2014). Effects of a peer-delivered system of least prompts intervention with adapted science read-alouds on listening comprehension for students with moderate intellectual disability. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 49, 60-77.
11.
HudsonM. E.BrowderD. M.WakemanS. Y. (2013). Helping students with moderate and severe intellectual disability access grade-level text. Teaching Exceptional Children, 45(3), 14-23.
12.
HudsonM. E.BrowderD. M.WoodL. (2013). Review of experimental research on academic learning by students with moderate and severe intellectual disability in general education. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 38, 17-29.
13.
HudsonM. E.TestD. W. (2011). Evaluating the evidence base for using shared story reading to promote literacy for students with extensive support needs. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 36, 34-45.
14.
JamesonJ. M.McDonnellJ.PolychronisS.RiesenT. (2008). Embedded, constant time delay instruction by peers without disabilities in general education classrooms. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 46, 346-363.
15.
JimenezB. A.BrowderD. M.SpoonerF.DiBiaseW. (2012). Inclusive inquiry science using peer-mediated embedded instruction for students with a moderate intellectual disability. Exceptional Children, 78, 301-317.
16.
Mayer-JohnsonL. L. C. (2000). Writing with symbols. Solana Beach, CA: Author.
17.
MimsP. J.BrowderD. M.BakerJ. N.LeeA.SpoonerF. (2009). Increasing comprehension of students with significant intellectual disabilities and visual impairments during shared stories. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 44, 409-420.
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, 65-78.
19.
MorganM. F.MoniK. B.JoblingA. (2009). Who? Where? What? When? Why? How? Question words—What do they mean?British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 178-185.
20.
RasinskiT. V. (2003). The fluent reader. New York, NY: Scholastic.
21.
ReisE. M. (1986). Advance organizers and listening comprehension in retarded and nonretarded individuals. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 21, 245-251.
22.
SpoonerF.RiveraC. J.BrowderD. M.BakerJ. N.SalasS. (2009). Teaching emergent literacy skills using cultural contextual story-based lessons. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 34, 102-112.
23.
SwansonE.VaughnS.WanzekJ.PetscherY.HeckertJ.CavanaughC.. . . TackettK. (2011). A synthesis of read-aloud interventions on early reading outcomes among preschool through third graders at risk for reading difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44, 258-275.
24.
Towles-ReevesE.KearnsJ.KleinertH.KleinertJ. (2009). An analysis of the learning characteristics of students taking alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards. The Journal of Special Education, 42, 241-254.
25.
ViorstJ. (1972). Alexander and the terrible, horrible, no good very bad day. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
