Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Terms related to disabilities change over time, evolving in response to changing social conventions. Currently, there is a shift toward emphasizing level of supports needed to maximize independence for individuals with disabilities, using terms such as extensive support needs (ESN), significant support needs (SSN), and complex support needs (CSN). Although changes in terminology might be perceived more positively because of increased emphasis on capabilities, they can result in confusion regarding for whom research is relevant when these terms are not defined or are used inconsistently. This article presents an analysis of ESN, SSN, and CSN in current research by examining research reviews using these terms. The results indicated that definitions varied but focused on traditional characteristics, such as disability type, IQ scores, and etiology. When there was an attempt to shift away from traditional characteristics focusing on eligibility for a state’s alternate assessment, there was no acknowledgment of wide variability in eligibility criteria across states. Similarly, when there was a focus on support needs, it was without reference to how supports were defined, what they were, or how they were determined. This lack of definitional clarity results in a call for specificity and consistency in using ESN, SSN, and CSN.

Keywords

disability definitions definitional clarity extensive support needs complex support needs significant support needs

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

*Alsaeed

Mansouri

M. C.

Shogren

K. A.

Raley

S. K.

Kurth

J. A.

Leatherman

E. M.

Turner

E. L.

(2023). A systematic review of interventions to promote self-determination for students with extensive support needs. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 48(1), 3–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/154079692

Aromataris

Fernandez

Godfrey

C. M.

Holly

Hanan Khalil

Tungpunkom

(2015). Summarizing systematic reviews: Methodological development, conduct and reporting of an umbrella review approach. International Journal of Evidence-based Healthcare, 13(3), 132–140. https://www.doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000055

*Biggs

E. E.

Arserio

S. P.

Robison

S. E.

Ross

M. E.

(2023). Home literacy environment and interventions for children with intellectual and developmental disabilities: A scoping review. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 66(6), 2118–2140. https://doi.org/10.1044/2023_JSLHR-22-00334

Brown

Lehr

D. H.

(1989). Persons with profound disabilities: Issues and practices. Brookes.

Copeland

S. R.

Luckasson

Shauger

(2014). Eliciting perceptions of satisfaction with services and supports from persons with intellectual disability and developmental disabilities: A review of the literature. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 58(12), 1141–1155. https://doi.org/10.1111/jir.12114

*Copeland

S. R.

Zagona

A. L.

(2022). Literacy learning among students with complex support needs in postsecondary education programs: A scoping literature review. Inclusion, 10(2), 118–133. https://doi.org/10.1352/2326-6988-10.2.118

*Cox

S. K.

Jimenez

B. A.

(2020). Mathematical interventions for students with autism spectrum disorder: Recommendations for practitioners. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 105, 103744. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2020.103744

*Crowley

(2022). Interventions for transition-age youth with disabilities: A meta-analysis of group design studies. American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 127(3), 169–193. https://doi.org/10.1352/1944-7558-127.3.169

Dorsman

N. I.

Luijkx

van der Schans

C. P.

van der Putten

A. A. J.

Waninge

(2024). Experiences of adult siblings of individuals with an intellectual disability and pervasive support needs. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 49, 155–173. https://doi.org/10.1177/15407969241245611

10.

Doyle

M. B.

Giangreco

(2013). Guiding principles for including high school students with intellectual disabilities in general education classes. American Secondary Education, 42(1), 57–72. https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/guiding-principles-including-high-school-students/docview/1462773543/se-2

11.

Dymond

S. K.

(2022). Reflections from an outgoing editor. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 47(1), 3–5. https://doi.org/10.1177/15407969221081804

12.

Faulkner

Fagan

M. J.

Lee

(2022). Umbrella reviews (systematic review of reviews). International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 15(1), 73–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2021.1934888

13.

Fusar-Poli

Radua

(2018). Ten simple rules for conducting umbrella reviews. Evidence-Based Mental Health, 21(3), 95–100. https://doi:.org/10.1136/ebmental-2018-300014

14.

Gee

Gonzalez

Cooper

(2020). Outcomes of inclusive versus separate placements: A matched pairs comparison study. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 45(4), 223–240. https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796920943469

15.

Grant

M. J.

Booth

(2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x

16.

Horner

R. H.

Carr

E. G.

Halle

McGee

Odom

Wolery

(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

17.

*Hudson

M. E.

Test

D. W.

(2011). Evaluating the evidence base of shared story reading to promote literacy for students with extensive support needs. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 36(1–2), 34–45. https://doi.org/10.2511/rpsd.36.1-2.34

18.

Hunt

Mortier

Aramburo

Fleming

Balasubramanian

(2022). Identifying commonly used literacy instructional practices for students with extensive support needs: Implications from a control group analysis. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 57(3), 272–286.

19.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004).

20.

Kaiser

A. P.

(1993). Editorial: Toward the dream of a common language. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 18(1), 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1177/154079699301800101

21.

*Kroesch

A. M.

Jozwik

Douglas

K. H.

Chung

Y.-C.

Uphold

N. M.

Baker

(2022). Using technology to support academic learning. The Journal of Special Education, 56(3), 158–167. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224669211070563

22.

Ley Davis

Spooner

Saunders

. (2022). Efficacy of peer-delivered mathematical problem-solving instruction to students with extensive support needs. Exceptional Children, 89(1), 101–118. https://doi-org.unr.idm.oclc.org/10.1177/00144029221098764

23.

Liu

Peng

Yan

(2025). Early numeracy and mathematics development: A longitudinal meta-analysis on the predictive nature of early numeracy. Journal of Educational Psychology. Advance Online Publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000925

24.

Luckasson

Coulter

D. A.

Polloway

E. A.

Reiss

Schalock

R. L.

Snell

M. E.

Spitalnik

D. M.

Stark

J. A.

(1992). Mental retardation: Definitions, classification, and system of supports (9th ed.). American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.

25.

*Mansouri

M. C.

Kurth

J. A.

Turner

E. L.

Zimmerman

K. N.

Frick

T. A.

(2022). Comparison of academic and social outcomes of students with extensive support needs across placements. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 47(2), 111–129. https://doi.org/10.1177/15407969221101792

26.

Minnesota Department of Education. (n.d). Eligibility requirements for the Minnesota Test of Academic Skills (MTAS). https://education.mn.gov/MDE/dse/test/mn/mtas/

27.

North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. (2023, July) NCEXTEND1 eligibility criteria. https://www.dpi.nc.gov/documents/accountability/policyoperations/tswd/ncextend1-eligibility-criteria

28.

Page

M. J.

Moher

Bossuyt

P. M.

Boutron

Hoffmann

T. C.

Mulrow

C. D.

Shamseer

Tetzlaff

J. M.

Akl

E. A.

Brennan

S. E.

Chou

Glanville

Grimshaw

J. M.

Hróbjartsson

Lalu

M. M.

Loder

E. W.

Mayo-Wilson

McDonald

. . .McKenzie

J. E.

(2021). PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: Updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. British Medical Journal, 372, Article 160. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n160

29.

Papatheodorou

(2019). Umbrella reviews: What they are and why we need them. European Journal of Epidemiology, 34, 543–546. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-019-00505-6

30.

Pennington

R. C.

Wakeman

Saunders

A. F.

Cerrato

B. M.

(2022). Training peers to teach reading comprehension to students with extensive support needs. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 57(4), 430–445.

31.

Pennsylvania Department of Education. (n.d.). PASA eligibility criteria: Decision making companion tool. https://www.education.pa.gov/K-12/Special%20Education/Assessments/Pages/Pennsylvania-Alternate-System-of-Assessment-(PASA).aspx

32.

Root

J. R.

Cox

S. K.

Saunders

Gilley

(2020). Applying the universal design for learning framework to mathematics instruction for learners with extensive support needs. Remedial and Special Education, 41(4), 194–206. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932519887235

33.

Rossetti

Lehr

Shaheen

Baulier

Burnette

Taub

(2023). Parent perceptions of remote instruction for students with extensive support needs. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 48(4), 41–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/15407969231154166

34.

Rowland

(2004). Communication matrix. https://www.communicationmatrix.org/

35.

*Ruhter

Karvonen

(2023). The impact of professional development on data-based decision-making for students with extensive support needs. Remedial and Special Education, 45(1), 44–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325231164636

36.

Schalock

R. L.

Borthwick-Duffy

S. A.

Bradley

V. J.

Buntinx

W. H. E.

Coulter

D. L.

Craig

E. M.

Gomez

S. C.

Lachapelle

Luckasson

Reeve

Shogren

K. A.

Snell

M. E.

Spreat

Tassé

M. J.

Thomspon

J. R.

Verdugo-Alonso

M. A.

Wehmeyer

M. L.

Yeager

M. H.

(2010). Intellectual disability: Definition, diagnosis, classification, and system of supports (11th ed.). American Association on Intellectual Disability.

37.

Schalock

R. L.

Luckasson

Tassé

M. J.

(2021). Intellectual disability: Definition, diagnosis, classification, and system of supports (12th ed.). American Association on Intellectual Disability.

38.

Shanahan

Lonigan

C. J.

(2010). The National Early Literacy Panel: A summary of the process and the report. Educational Researcher, 39(4), 279–285. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X10369172

39.

Spann

Biggs

E. E.

Ross

(2023). Supports and empowerment for families of children with extensive support needs throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 48(3), 139–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/15407969231189241

40.

Sternberg

(1994). Individuals with profound disabilities: Definitions, characteristics, and conceptual framework. In Sternberg

(Ed.), Individuals with profound disabilities: Instructional and assistive strategies (3rd ed.; pp. 3–20). PRO-ED.

41.

Tass

Mehling

(2018). Intellectual disability: Historical changes in terminology. In The SAGE encyclopedia of intellectual and developmental disorders (Vol.4; pp. 851–853). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483392271

42.

Taub

D. A.

McCord

J. A.

Ryndak

D. L.

(2017). Opportunities to learn for students with extensive support needs: A context of research-supported practices for all in general education classes. The Journal of Special Education, 51(3), 127–137. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466917696263

43.

Tawney

Demchak

(1984). Severely handicapped? Multiply handicapped? A definitional analysis. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 4(3), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/027112148400400302

44.

Texas Education Agency. (2023, August). STAAR Alternate 2 participation requirements. Student Assessment Division. https://tea.texas.gov/student-assessment/testing/staar-alternate/staar-alternate-2-resources

45.

Thompson

Guess

(1989). Students who experience the most profound disabilities: Teacher perspectives. In Brown

Lehr

D. H.

(Eds.), Persons with profound disabilities: Issues and practices (pp. 3–41). Brookes.

46.

Thompson

J. R.

Bradley

V. J.

Buntinx

W. H.

Schalock

R. L.

Shogren

K. A.

Snell

M. E.

Wehmeyer

M. L.

Borthwick-Duffy

Coulter

D. L.

Craig

Gomez

S. C.

Lachapelle

Luckasson

R. A.

Reeve

Spreat

Tassé

M. J.

Verdugo

M. A.

Yeager

M. H.

(2009). Conceptualizing supports and the support needs of people with intellectual disability. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 47(2), 135–146. https://doi.org/10.1352/1934-9556-47.2.135

47.

Thompson

J. R.

Schalock

R. L.

Shogren

K. A.

Tassé

M. J.

Wehmeyer

M. L.

Craig

E. M.

Hughes

(2023). Supports intensity scale—Adult version (2nd ed.). American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.

48.

Thompson

J. R.

Wehmeyer

M. L.

Hughes

Shogren

K. A.

Seo

Little

T. D.

Schalock

R. L.

Realon

R. E.

Copeland

S. R.

Patton

J. R.

Polloway

E. A.

Shelden

Tanis

Tassé

M. J.

(2016). Supports intensity scale—Children’s version. American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.

49.

Thurlow

M. L.

Lazarus

S. S.

Larson

E. D.

Albus

D. A.

Liu

K. K.

Kwong

(2017). Alternate assessments for students with significant cognitive disabilities: Participation guidelines and definitions (NCEO Report 406). University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

50.

*Toews

S. G.

McQueston

Kurth

J. 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.

*Walker

V. L.

Conradi

L. A.

Strickland-Cohen

M. K.

Johnson

H. N.

(2023). School-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports and students with extensive support needs: A scoping review. International Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 69(1), 13–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/20473869.2022.2116232

52.

*Walker

V. L.

Kurth

Carpenter

M. R.

Tapp

M. C.

Clausen

Turner

E. L.

(2021). Paraeducator-delivered interventions for students with extensive support needs in inclusive school settings: A systematic review. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 46(4), 278–295. https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796921105512

53.

Zagona

A. L.

Kurth

J. A.

Lockman Turner

Pace

Shogren

Lansey

Jameson

Burnette

Mansouri

Hicks

Gerasimova

(2022). Ecobehavioral analysis of the experiences of students with complex support needs in different classroom types. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 47(4), 209–228. https://doi.org/10.1177/15407969221126496

Definitions of Support Needs: An Analysis and Call for Clarity

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References