Most approaches for teaching reading involve students reading aloud and receiving feedback. These approaches are not feasible for nonspeaking students, and teachers need alternative strategies that do not require speech. To provide guidance about effective strategies, we conducted a systematic review of 51 experimental studies within 36 journal articles that evaluated reading interventions for students with significant disabilities and complex communication needs. The most common intervention components included task analytic instruction, a gradual release model (i.e., model-lead-test), systematic prompting, and incremental rehearsal. Positive effects were most often reported for decoding outcomes (92%; n = 11), phoneme segmentation (87%, n = 2), and sight words (92%, n = 11). Reading comprehension was only targeted in one study, and fluency was not targeted at all. These findings provide insight into targeting some components of reading, but further research is needed that allows teachers to provide more comprehensive reading instruction for this population.
AfacanK.WilkersonK. L.RupparA. L. (2017). Multicomponent reading interventions for students with intellectual disability. Remedial and Special Education, 39(4), 229–242. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932517702444
2.
*Ahlgrim-DelzellL.BrowderD.WoodL. (2014). Effects of systematic instruction and an augmentative communication device on phonics skills acquisition for students with moderate intellectual disability who are nonverbal. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 49(4), 517–532. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24582348
3.
*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. Journal of Special Education, 50(2), 86–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466915622140
4.
*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
5.
*AkcinN. (2013). Comparison of two instructional strategies for students with autism to read sight words. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 51, 85–106.
6.
AlqurainiT. A.RaoS. M. (2020). Developing and sustaining readers with intellectual and multiple disabilities: A systematic review of literature. International Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 66(2), 91–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/20473869.2018.1489994
7.
*BaileyR. L.AngellM. E.StonerJ. B. (2011). Improving literacy skills in students with complex communication needs who use augmentative/alternative communication systems. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 46(3), 352–368. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23880591
8.
*Benedek-WoodE.McNaughtonD.LightJ. (2016). Instruction in letter-sound correspondences for children with autism and limited speech. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 36(1), 43–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0271121415593497
9.
BrowderD. M.WakemanS. Y.SpoonerF.Ahlgrim-DelzellL.AlgozzinexyaB. (2006). Research on reading instruction for individuals with significant cognitive disabilities. Exceptional Children, 72(4), 392–408. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290607200401
10.
*CaronJ.LightJ.HolyfieldC.McNaughtonD. (2018). Effects of dynamic text in an AAC app on sight word reading for individuals with autism spectrum disorder. AAC: Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 34(2), 143–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434618.2018.1457715
11.
*CaronJ.LightJ.McNaughtonD. (2020). Effects of an AAC app with transition to literacy features on single word reading of individuals with complex communication needs. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 45(2), 115–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796920911152
12.
*CaronJ.LightJ.McNaughtonD. (2021). Effects of a literacy feature in an augmentative and alternative communication app on single word reading of individuals with severe autism spectrum disorders. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 46(1), 18–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796921992123
13.
*CaronJ.LightJ.McNaughtonD. (2023). Effects of adapted letter-sound correspondence instruction with older learners with complex communication needs and autism spectrum disorder. AAC: Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 39(1), 45–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434618.2022.2121226
14.
Carrow-WoolfolkE.KleinA. M. (2017). Opus: Oral passage understanding scale. Pearson.
CookB. G.BuysseV.KlingnerJ.LandrumT.McWilliamA.TankersleyM.TestD. (2015). CEC’s standards for classifying the evidence base of practices in special education. Remedial & Special Education, 36(4), 220–234. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932514557271
17.
CoyneM. D.HarnB. A. (2006). Promoting beginning reading success through meaningful assessment of early literacy skills. Psychology in the Schools, 43(1), 33–43. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20127
18.
*CrowleyK.McLaughlinT.KahnR. (2013). Using direct instruction flashcards and reading racetracks to improve sight word recognition of two elementary students with autism. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 25, 297–311.
19.
*DeanJ. (2020). Teaching decoding through constant time delay to students with severe disabilities and verbal difficulties (Publication No. 3751) [Master of Education Thesis, East Tennessee State University]. Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
20.
*FallonK. A.LightJ.McNaughtonD. (2004). The effects of direct instruction on the single word reading skills of children who require augmentative and alternative communication. Journal of Speech, Language & Hearing Research, 47(6), 1424–1439. https://pubs.asha.org/doi/abs/10.1044/1092-4388%282004/106%29
21.
*FarmerJ. A.GastD. L.WoleryM.WinterlingV. (1991). Small group instruction for students with severe handicaps: A study of observational learning. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 26, 190–201. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23878588
22.
*FinnC. E.ArdoinS. P.AyresK. M. (2023). Effects of incremental rehearsal on sight word and letter acquisition among students with autism and cognitive impairment. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 39(2), 179–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377903.2022.2113946
23.
FinneganE. (2012). Two approaches to phonics instruction: Comparison of effects with children with significant cognitive disability. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 47(3), 269–279.
24.
*FiscusR. S.SchusterJ. W.MorseT. E.CollinsB. C. (2002). Teaching elementary students with cognitive disabilities food preparation skills while embedding instructive feedback in the prompt and consequent event. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 37, 55–69. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23879583
25.
*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
26.
GoodR. H.KaminskiR. A. (2018). Dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills (8th ed.). Institute for the Development of Education Achievement. http://dibels.uoregon.edu/
27.
*HansenB. D.WadsworthJ. P.RobertsM. R.PooleT. N. (2014). Effects of naturalistic instruction on phonological awareness skills of children with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 35(11), 2790–2801. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2014.07.011
28.
*HanserG. A.EricksonK. A. (2007). Integrated word identification and communication instruction for students with complex communication needs: Preliminary results. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 22(4), 268–278. https://doi.org/10.1177/10883576070220040901
29.
HellerK. W.FredrickL. D.TumlinJ.BrinemanD. G. (2002). Teaching decoding for generalization using the nonverbal reading approach. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 14(1), 19–35. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013559612238
30.
*HetzroniO. E.ShalemU. (2005). From logos to orthographic symbols: A multilevel fading computer program for teaching nonverbal children with autism. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 20(4), 201–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/10883576050200040201
31.
*HolyfieldC. (2021). Comparative effects of picture symbol with paired text and text-only augmentative and alternative communication representations on communication from children with autism spectrum disorder. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 30(2), 584–597. https://doi.org/10.1044/2020_AJSLP-20-00099
32.
*HolyfieldC.CaronJ.LightJ.McNaughtonD. (2019). Effect of video embedded with hotspots with dynamic text on single-word recognition by children with multiple disabilities. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 31(6), 727–740. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-019-09673-5
33.
*HolyfieldC.LightJ.McNaughtonD.CaronJ.DragerK.PopeL. (2020). Effect of AAC technology with dynamic text on the single-word recognition of adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 22(2), 129–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/17549507.2019.1619836
34.
*HolyfieldC.PopeL.LightJ.JakobsE.LaubscherE.McNaughtonD.PfaffO. (2023). Effects of an augmentative and alternative communication technology decoding feature on single word reading by individuals with down syndrome and limited functional speech. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 32(3), 1195–1211. https://doi.org/10.1044/2023_AJSLP-22-00255
35.
HooverW. A. (2023). The simple view of reading and its broad types of reading difficulties. Reading and Writing, 37(9), 2277–2298. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-023-10471-x
36.
Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. (2020). Into reading (1st ed.).
37.
*HuntP.KozleskiE.LeeJ.MortierK.FlemingD.HicksT.BalasubramanianL.LeuG.BrossL. A.MunandarV. (2020). Implementing comprehensive literacy instruction for students with severe disabilities in general education classrooms. Exceptional Children, 86(3), 330–347. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402919880156
38.
*HyerG.Cooper-DuffyK. (2019). Preparing interns to use functional story-based instruction to teach students with a severe intellectual disability in rural schools. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 38(4), 217–230. https://doi.org/10.1177/8756870519826928
39.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004).
40.
JacksonL. B.RyndakD. L.WehmeyerM. L. (2008). The dynamic relationship between context, curriculum, and student learning: A case for inclusive education as a research-based practice. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 34(1), 175–195. https://doi.org/10.2511/rpsd.33.4.17
41.
*JamesonJ. M.McDonnellJ.JohnsonJ. W.RiesenT.PolychronisS. (2007). A comparison of one-to-one embedded instruction in the general education classroom and one-to-one massed practice instruction in the special education classroom. Education and Treatment of Children, 30(1), 23–44. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42899917
42.
KratochwillT. R.HitchcockJ. H.HornerR. H.LevinJ. R.OdomS. L.RindskopfD. M.ShadishW. R. (2010). Single-case design technical documentation Version 1.0 (Pilot). https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED510743.pdf
43.
LightJ. C.McNaughtonD. B. (2015). Accessible Literacy Learning (ALL). Tobii Dynavox.
44.
MachalicekW.SanfordA.LangR.RispoliM.MolfenterN.MbesehaM. K. (2010). Literacy interventions for students with physical and developmental disabilities who use aided AAC devices: A systematic review. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 22(3), 219–240. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-009-9175-3
45.
*MandakK.LightJ.McNaughtonD. (2020). Video visual scene displays with dynamic text: Effect on single word reading by an adolescent with cerebral palsy. Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups, 5(5), 1272–1281. https://doi.org/10.1044/2020_persp-20-00068
46.
*MechlingL. C.GastD. L. (2003). Multi-media instruction to teach grocery word associations and store location: A study of generalization. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 38(1), 62–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/016264340401900102
47.
*MillarD. C.LightJ. C.McNaughtonD. B. (2004). The effect of direct instruction and writer’s workshop on the early writing skills of children who use augmentative and alternative communication. AAC: Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 20(3), 164–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434610410001699690
48.
National Reading Panel, & National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (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. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. https://www.nichd.nih.gov/sites/default/files/publications/pubs/nrp/Documents/report.pdf
49.
*NaylorA. C. (2013). Towards text-based augmentative communication in individuals with intellectual disabilities and difficult-to-understand speech [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Kansas.
50.
*OliveiraC.Font-RouraJ.DalmauM.GinéC. (2018). Teaching a phonological awareness skill with the time-delay system in a mainstream setting: A single-subject research study. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 34(5), 396–408. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2018.1463188
51.
ReichowB.VolkmarF. R. (2010). Social skills interventions for individuals with autism: Evaluation for evidence-based practices within a best evidence synthesis framework. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 40(2), 149–166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-009-0842-0
52.
ReichowB.VolkmarF. R.CicchettiD. V. (2008). Development of the evaluative method for evaluating and determining evidence-based practices in autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 38(7), 1311–1319. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-007-0517-7
53.
*RiveraC.JabeenI.MasonL. (2016). The effects of a computer-based video intervention to teach literacy skills to a student with a moderate intellectual disability. Interaction Design and Architecture(s), 28, 85–102. https://doi.org/10.55612/s-5002-028-005
54.
RogersH.BrockM. B. (2025). What does reading instruction look like for students with complex communication needs? Survey of teacher practices.
ScarboroughH. S. (2001). Connecting early language and literacy to later reading (dis)abilities: Evidence, theory, and practice. In NeumanS.DickinsonD. (Eds.), Handbook for research in early literacy (pp. 97–110). Guilford Press.
57.
ScruggsT. E.MastropieriM. A.CastoG. (1987). The quantitative synthesis of single-subject research: Methodology and validation. Remedial and Special Education, 8(2), 24–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193258700800206
58.
SlavinR. E.LakeC.ChambersB.CheungA.DavisS. (2009). Effective reading programs for the elementary grades: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 79(4), 1391–1466. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654309341374
*TruxlerJ. E.O’KeefeB. M. (2007). The effects of phonological awareness instruction on beginning word recognition and spelling. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 23(2), 164–176. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434610601151803
61.
*WestoverJ. M.MartinE. J. (2014). Performance feedback, paraeducators, and literacy instruction for students with significant disabilities. Journal of Intellectual Disabilities, 18(4), 364–381. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744629514552305
62.
*WrightH. B. M.FloresM. M.DunnC.ShippenM. M.DarchC. (2022). Teaching letter sound correspondence to preschool students with developmental and intellectual disabilities. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 57(2), 204–215.
63.
YorkeA. M.CaronJ. G.PukysN.SternadE.GrecolC.ShermakC. (2020). Foundational reading interventions adapted for individuals who require augmentative and alternative communication (AAC): A systematic review of the research. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 33, 537–582. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-020-09767-5
