In the current study, investigators examined the effects of an instructional reading package consisting of shared reading and systematic instruction (e.g., task analysis, system of least prompts, visual supports, and native language support) in a small group setting on percentage of correct consonant-vowel-consonant (CVC) words for three elementary participants with extensive support needs who also were multilingual learners. A multiple probe design across word sets with replication across participants resulted in a functional relation between the percentage of correct CVC words acquired and the instructional package. In addition, there were positive changes in exploratory (secondary) dependent variables that included components of reading (i.e., phonemic awareness, fluency, vocabulary, comprehension, and generalization) as demonstrated through pre-posttest assessments. Social validity measures for parents, students, and paraprofessionals also revealed positive pre-post changes. Limitations and future research are discussed.
Ahlgrim-DelzellL.BrowderD. M.WoodL.StangerC.PrestonA. I.Kemp-InmanA. (2016). Systematic instruction of phonics skills using an iPad for students with developmental disabilities who are AAC Users. The Journal of Special Education, 50(2), 86–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466915622140
2.
AinsworthM. K.EvmenovaA. S.BehrmannM.JeromeM. (2016). Teaching phonics to groups of middle school students with autism, intellectual disabilities and complex communication needs. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 56, 165–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2016.06.001
3.
AlisonC.RootJ. R.BrowderD. M.WoodL. (2017). Technology-based shared story reading for students with autism who are English-language learners. Journal of Special Education Technology, 32(2), 91–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162643417690606
4.
AllorJ. H.MathesP. G.RobertsJ. K.CheathamJ. P.OtaibaS. A. (2014). Is scientifically based reading instruction effective for students with below-average IQs?Exceptional Children, 80(3), 287–306. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402914522208
BrowderD. M.Ahlgrim-DelzellL.FlowersC.BakerJ. (2012). An evaluation of a multicomponent early literacy program for students with severe developmental disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 33(4), 237–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932510387305
7.
BrowderD. M.GibbsS.Ahlgrim-DelzellL.CourtadeG.LeeA. (2007). Early literacy skills builder (ELSB). Attainment.
8.
BrowderD. M.MimsP. J.SpoonerF.Ahlgrim-DelzellL.LeeA. (2008). Teaching elementary students with multiple disabilities to participate in shared stories. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 33(1–2), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.2511/rpsd.33.1-2.3
9.
ChoY.KimD. (2020). A meta-analysis of a single-subject intervention study related to reading for students with intellectual disabilities. Intellectual Disability Research, 22(3), 243–276. https://doi.org/10:35361/KJID.22.3.10
10.
ChristensenL. L.GholsonM. L.ShyyanV. V. (2018). Establishing a definition of English learners with significant cognitive disabilities. Wisconsin Center for Education Research, University of Wisconsin–Madison. http://altella.wceruw.org/resources.html
11.
CollinsB. C. (2018). Eight paths to leadership: A Guide for special educators. Brookes Publishing.
12.
CollinsB. C. (2021). Systematic instruction for students with moderate and severe disabilities (2nd ed.). Brookes Publishing.
DessemontetR.MartinetC.de ChambrierA.Martini-WilleminB.AudrinC. (2019). A meta-analysis on the effectiveness of phonics instruction for teaching decoding skills to students with intellectual disability. Educational Research Review, 26, 52–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2019.01.001
15.
EhrlerD. J.McGheeR. L. (2008). PTONI: Primary test of nonverbal intelligence. Pro-Ed.
FallonK. A.LightJ.McNaughtonD.DragerK.HammerC. (2004). The effects of direct instruction on the single-word reading skills of children who require augmentative and alternative communication. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47(6), 1424–1439. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388
18.
FratesA.SpoonerF.CollinsB. C.Running BearC. (2022). Vocabulary acquisition by multilingual students with extensive support needs during shared reading. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 47(3), 137–154. https://doi.org/10.1177/15407969221113590
19.
GastD. L.LloydB. P.LedfordJ. R. (2018). Multiple baseline and multiple probe designs. In LedfordJ. R.GastD. L. (Eds.), Single case research methodology: Applications in special education and behavioral sciences (3rd ed., pp. 238–281). Routledge.
20.
HammillD. D.PearsonN. A.WiederholtJ. L. (2009). Comprehensive test of nonverbal intelligence: Second edition (CTONI-2). Pearson.
HornerR. D.BaerD. M. (1978). Multiple-probe technique: A variation of the multiple baseline. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11(1), 189–196. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1978.11-189
23.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, PL 108–446, 20 U.S.C. §1400, H. R. 1350.
24.
JacksonS. (2006a). I like to hop. Lakeshore Learning Materials.
25.
JacksonS. (2006b). Snug as a bug. Lakeshore Learning Materials.
26.
JacksonS. (2006c). The split sweater. Lakeshore Learning Materials.
27.
JacksonS. (2006d). What will Sam eat. Lakeshore Learning Materials.
28.
JohnstonJ. M.PennypackerH. S.GreenG. (2020). Strategies and tactics of behavioral research and practice (4th ed.). Routledge.
29.
JohnstonS. S.DavenportL.KanarowskiB.RhodehouseS.McDonnellA. P. (2009). Teaching sound letter correspondence and consonant–vowel–consonant combinations to young children who use augmentative and alternative communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 25(2), 123–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434610902921409
30.
KarvonenM.ClarkA. K. (2019). Students with the most significant cognitive disabilities who are also English learners. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 44(2), 71–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796919835169
31.
KarvonenM.ClarkA. K.CarlsonC.MoreauxS. W.BurnesJ. (2021). Approaches to identification and instruction for students with significant cognitive disabilities who are English learners. Research and Practices for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 46(4), 223–239. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F15407969211040256
32.
LemonsC. J.KingS. A.DavidsonK. A.PuranikC. S.FulmerD.MrachkoA. A.FidlerD. J. (2015). Adapting phonological awareness interventions for children with Down syndrome based on the behavioral phenotype: A promising approach?Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 53(4), 271–288. https://doi.org/10.1352/1934-9556-53.4.271
33.
LiuK. K.ThurlowM. L.LazarusS. S.DosedelM. (2020). A literature review of evidence-based literacy assessment and instruction practices for English learners with significant cognitive disabilities (NCEO Report 422). National Center on Educational Outcomes.
34.
LiuK. K.ThurlowM. L.QuenemoenR. F. (2015). Instructing and assessing English learners with significant cognitive disabilities. National Center on Educational Outcomes, University of Minnesota. https://nceo.umn.edu/docs/OnlinePubs/2015ELswSCDreport.pdf
35.
MoeyaertM.ZimmermanK. N.LedfordJ. R. (2018). Synthesis and meta-analysis of single case research. In LedfordJ. R.GastD. L. (Eds.), Single case research methodology: Applications in special education and behavioral sciences (3rd ed., pp. 393–416). Routledge.
36.
MuellerT.SingerG.CarranzaF. (2006). A national survey of the educational planning and language instruction practices for students with moderate to severe disabilities who are English language learners. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 31(3), 242–254. https://doi.org/10.1177/154079690603100304
37.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health.
38.
NopprapunM.HollowayJ. (2014). A comparison of fluency training and discrete trial instruction to teach letter sounds to children with ASD: Acquisition and learning outcomes. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 8(7), 788–802. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2014.03.015
39.
O’BrienM.Mc TiernanA.HollowayJ. (2018). Teaching phonics to preschool children with autism using frequency-building and computer-assisted instruction. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 30(2), 215–237. https://doi-org.libproxy.nau.edu/10.1007/s10882-017-9581-x
40.
OdomS. L.BartonE. E.ReichowB.SwaminathanH.PustejovskyJ. E. (2018). Between-case standardized effect size analysis of sing case designs: Examination of the two methods. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 79(1), 88–96.
41.
ParkerR. I.VannestK. J.DavisJ. L. (2011). Effect size in single-case research: A review of nine nonoverlap techniques. Behavior Modification, 35(4), 303–322. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445511399147
42.
ReidD. H.FavellJ. E. (1984). Group instruction with persons who have severe disabilities: A critical review. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 9(3), 167–177. https://doi.org/10.1177/154079698400900302
43.
RiveraC. J.BakerJ.TucktuckM. N.RüdenauerH.AtwellN. (2021). Research-based practices for emergent bilinguals with moderate intellectual disability: A review of literature. Journal of Latinos and Education, 20(4), 412–426. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348431.2019.1609478
44.
RiveraC. J.MasonL.MoserJ.Ahlgrim-DelzellL. (2014). The effects of an iPad® multimedia shared story intervention on vocabulary acquisition for an English language learner. Journal of Special Education Technology, 29(4), 31–48. https://doi-org.libproxy.nau.edu/10.1177%2F016264341402900403
SnodgrassM. R.ChungM. Y.Meadan-KaplanskyH.HalleJ. W. (2018). Social validity in single-case research: A systematic literature review of prevalence and application. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 74, 160–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2018.01.007
48.
SparrowS. S.CicchettiD. V.BallaD. A. (2005). Vineland-II adaptive behavior scales, second edition, survey forms manual. PsychCorp.
49.
SpoonerF.RiveraC.BrowderD. M.BakerJ.SalasS. (2009). Teaching emergent literacy skills using cultural contextual story-based lessons. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 34(3–4), 102–112. https://doi-org.libproxy.nau.edu/10.2511%2Frpsd.34.3-4.102
50.
ToewsS. G.McQuestonJ.KurthJ. A. (2021). Evaluation of the evidence base for shared reading to support literacy skill development for students with extensive support needs. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 46(2), 77–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/15407969211008531
51.
WaughR. E.FredrickL. D.AlbertoP. A. (2009). Using simultaneous prompting to teach sounds and blending skills to students with moderate intellectual disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 30(6), 1435–1447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2009.07.004
52.
YorkeA. M.LightJ. C.Gosnell CaronJ.McNaughtonD. B.DragerK. D. (2018). The effects of explicit instruction in academic vocabulary during shared book reading on the receptive vocabulary of children with complex communication needs. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 34(4), 288–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434618.2018.1506823
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.
