International Journal of Developmental Disabilities

ISSN: 2047-3869 (Print) 2047-3877 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/yjdd20

Developing and sustaining readers with

intellectual and multiple disabilities: A systematic
review of literature

Turki A. Alquraini & Shaila M. Rao

To cite this article: Turki A. Alquraini & Shaila M. Rao (2019): Developing and sustaining readers
with intellectual and multiple disabilities: A systematic review of literature, International Journal of
Developmental Disabilities, DOI: 10.1080/20473869.2018.1489994

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/20473869.2018.1489994

Published online: 22 Jan 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 10

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=yjdd20
Developing and sustaining readers with
intellectual and multiple disabilities: A
systematic review of literature
Turki A. Alquraini1 and Shaila M. Rao2
1
Special Education Department, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, 2Department of Special Education
and Literacy Studies, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI, USA

Objective: The purpose of this study was to carry out a systematic review of literature of effective reading
intervention for students with – intellectual disabilities (ID), intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD),
and multiple disabilities (MD). Findings and recommendations for future research are discussed.
Background and rationale: For students with ID, IDD, and MD ability to read can lead to a better quality of
life and better integration into the mainstream society. Several studies have expressed a concern over more
emphasis placed on social, personal, and vocational skills for individuals with ID, IDD, and MD than on read-
ing and literacy learning. Having a repertoire of effective interventions carried out with this population will help
teachers, teacher educators, and anyone else working with the individuals.
Method: This study synthesized findings from previous research with 167 students with ID, IDD, and/or MD
to assess effectiveness of instruction for key elements of effective reading instruction such as phonemic
awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension. The review made it explicit that literature
reviewed conforms to standards and quality indicators for experimental and quasi-experimental studies.
Outcomes: The 12 studies identified and included in this review collectively provided evidence-based strat-
egies for developing components of effective reading at elementary grades and sustaining effective reading
at secondary levels. Four tables included describe details of participants, setting, strategies, and evidence of
effectiveness.
Implications for future research: Recommendations offered included carrying out more studies using quali-
tative and/or mixed-method approaches to further study use of these strategies in different classrooms and
at different grade levels. An exclusive and systematic review of studies that used technology and assistive
technology to teach reading could also be carried out.
Keywords: Effective reading, literacy, reading strategies, intellectual disabilities, multiple disabilities, intellectual and developmental disabilities

Introduction and Taber-Doughty 2012) provided a traditional

For individuals with intellectual disabilities (ID), stu-
dents with intellectual and developmental disabilities
(IDD), and students with multiple disabilities (MD)
being able to read is one of the fundamental skills that
lead to independence in everyday living skills (Thomas,
1996). Ekwal and Shanker (cited in Rao 2009) stated
that for theoretical purposes and discussing the act of
reading, the definition of ‘reading’ can be stated as ‘the
act of interpreting by the reader, what is written by an
author’. The authors proposed that for the purpose of
diagnosis and remediation, reading may be thought of
as a process of recognizing words and understanding
words and ideas. Hoover and Gough (as cited in Shurr
Correspondence to: Shaila M. Rao, Department of Special Education
and Literacy Studies, Western Michigan University, 4571 Sangren Hall,
1903 W Michigan Ave, Kalamazoo, MI 49008, USA. Email:
Shaila.rao@wmich.edu
description of literacy as ‘the act of reading, decoding,
and comprehending language’ (p. 359). According to
Justice (cited in Browder et al. 2011), emergent literacy
includes reading and writing skills that young children
display before they become conventional readers. The
three basic goals of reading according to Thomas
(1996) are reading for survival, reading for information,
and reading for pleasure. As such, reading provides
individuals with ID, IDD, and MD much needed sup-
port to acquire independence in everyday life, including
life in school and beyond. Literacy affords several
social and personal benefits as well, which influence an
individual’s overall quality of life (Shurr and Taber-
Doughty 2012). A limited reading ability can hamper
an individual throughout life and contribute to great dis-
advantages in vocational, family, and other life-goal

# The British Society of Developmental Disabilities 2019

DOI 10.1080/20473869.2018.1489994 International Journal of Developmental Disabilities 2019 VOL. 0 NO. 0 1
Alquraini and Rao A Systematic review of Literature
pursuits (Rao 2009). According to Lerner and Johns
(2015, p. 343), ‘reading failure not only constitutes an
educational problem but it also rises to the level of a
major health problem, and as such, reading is critical to
success in our society’.
Several studies, e.g. Alberto et al. (2010), Alnahdi
(2015), Allor et al. (2010a); Browder and Xin (1998),
Browder et al. (2006), Fenlon et al. (2010), Joseph and
Seery (2004), Katims (2000), Kliewer and Biklen
(2001), Li (2014), Lundberg and Reichenberg (2013),
Rao (2009), Rao and Barkley (2009), Ratz and Lenhard
(2013), Schnorr (2011), and Thomas (1996) noted that
not enough is done in terms of providing quality read-
ing instruction for individuals with intellectual and
developmental disabilities. These studies expressed a
concern over more emphasis placed on social, personal,
and vocational skills for individuals with ID, IDD, and
MD than on reading and literacy learning. Allor et al.
(2010a, 2010b) contended that instructional methods for
Individuals with IDD, ID, and MD focused on teaching
isolated mastery of linear set of sub skills due to a gen-
eral belief in lack of ability of these students to learn
and master reading and literacy, and a notion that at
best, they might be taught to recognize a limited num-
ber of sight words. Lundberg and Reichenberg (2013,
p. 89) indicated a remorse over an assumption that stu-
dents with ID will not be able to acquire necessary liter-
acy competence for a full societal participation. The
authors posited that these individuals if not offered the
necessary opportunities would be outside of a ‘social
system’ and ‘socially excluded’.
Various previous reviews of reading instruction for
individuals with ID, for e.g. Alnahdi (2015), Browder
and Xin (1998), Browder et al. (2006), Hill (2016),
Joseph and Seery (2004), Katims (2000), Kliewer and
Biklen (2001), and Rao and Barkley (2009) offered sug-
gestions for enhancing reading of students with ID.
These recommendations included a need for more strat-
egies that are effective, intense, motivating, and mean-
ingful instruction that is explicit, with more direct
teacher involvement. Hill (2016) suggested a need for
more systematic and comprehensive approach to teach-
ing reading, and posited that individuals with severe
intellectual disabilities can show literate presence with
support and a belief in their abilities.
In several of these reviews published, the population
of focus was students reported as having-intellectual
disabilities, developmental disabilities, developmental
delay, mental disabilities, emotional impairment, behav-
ior disorders, severe intellectual disabilities, and learn-
ing disabilities.
In our current review, we included studies carried
out with students with ID, students with IDD, and/or
students with MD. Our search for literature yielded
studies conducted with students with a label of MD and
having concomitant impairments such as intellectual
2 International Journal of Developmental Disabilities 2019
disabilities, emotional and behavioral disorders, and
orthopedic/physical disabilities. Participants in four of
the twelve studies we included in this review had a
label of MD. Impairments under the label of MD
included orthopaedic impairments, emotional and
behavioral disorder, visual impairment, attention deficit
and hyperactivity disorder, sensory impairments, cere-
bral palsy, and physical disability. In two studies, the
labels of MD included intellectual disability and autism.
Conceptual model for review
In 2000, the United States Congress assigned The
National Reading Panel (NRP ) to conduct an assess-
ment of literature on reading and its implications for
reading instruction (Lerner and Johns 2015). The NRP
report and National Institute Child, Health, and Human
Development (NICHD) also in 2000) identified five
key elements of effective reading as it develops at
elementary level. These elements are phonemic or
phonological awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary,
and comprehension. The NRP report (NRP ) and ele-
ments identified by NICHD () do not explicitly mention
readers with disabilities, in particular population of
interest in this study that includes individuals with ID,
IDD, and MD. Lerner and Johns (2015) posited that
competence in phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency,
vocabulary, and text comprehension is needed for to be
effective readers. Our literature search yielded interven-
tion studies carried with our focus population to
enhance competence in one or more of these key com-
ponents. Ellery (2009) offered strategies under each of
the five components, and several techniques that educa-
tors can use to enhance and maintain students’ mastery
of the skills leading to effective reading. Ellery and
Rosenboom (2011) provided various strategies and
techniques that focus on word study, fluency, vocabu-
lary and comprehension to sustain and enhance the sec-
ondary readers created in elementary classrooms. The
authors offered strategies and techniques to enhance
four reading components for sustaining the strategic
readers: word study, fluency, vocabulary, and
comprehension.
We based our conceptual framework for this review
(see Figure 1) on findings in the report by NRP (), key
findings by NICHD (), and suggestions by other experts
(Ellery 2009, Ellery and Rosenboom 2011, Lerner and
Johns 2015).
Post-school transition to successful community inte-
gration, independence, and where possible employment
are the ultimate goals of education of individuals with
ID, IDD, and MD. According to Individuals with
Disabilities Improvement Act (IDEA 2004), ‘an over-
arching purpose of special education is to prepare them
for further education, employment, and independent liv-
ing’ (Carter et al. 2010, p. 194). Carter et al. studied
predictors of employability for individuals with ID,
VOL. 0 NO. 0

Figure 1. Conceptual framework based on Ellery (2009), Ellery and Rosenboom (2011), Lerner and Johns (2015) .
IDD, and MD and other post school transition options.
Over and above demographic characteristics such as
age, gender, socio economic status, and community set-
tings (urban, rural), other more important variables and
predictors included self-determination skills, social
skills, and job related skills, which are crucial to obtain
and maintain employment. The job related skills
included writing, ability to follow directions, identifying
job opportunities, and interviewing skills among others.
These skills require an ability to write, read, and com-
prehend. This ability to read, comprehend, and commu-
nicate leads to the other critical skills such as, for
example, self-determination skills and social skills to
obtain and sustain employments.
Method
Definitions of ID, IDD, and MD
The focus population for this review was ID, students
with IDD, and/or students with MD. We defined ID,
IDD, and MD based on definitions used in the United
States, in particular, the definitions provided by Centre
for Parent Information and Resources (http://www.
parentcenterhub.org/repository/categories) and US
Department of Health and Human Services/National
Institute of Health (https://www.nichd.nih.gov/health/
topics/idds/conditioninfo/Pages/default.aspx). The
Centre for Parent Information and Resources uses
definitions of different disability terms from the
IDEA regulations.
International Journal of Developmental Disabilities
Alquraini and Rao A Systematic review of Literature
The Centre for Parent Information and Resources
defines Intellectual disability (ID) as ‘significantly sub-
average general intellectual functioning, existing con-
currently with deficits in adaptive behavior and mani-
fested during developmental period that adversely affect
child’s educational performance’. The American
Association on Intellectual and Developmental
Disabilities (AAIDD) specifies ‘developmental period’
and ‘adaptive behavior’ in their definition of ID and
states the definition as ‘a disability characterized by sig-
nificant limitations in both intellectual functioning and
in adaptive behavior, which covers many everyday
social and practical skills. This disability originates
before the age of 18’. It is to be noted that mental
retardation (MR) was a term in use for intellectual dis-
abilities until 2010. In October 2010, President Obama
signed the Rosa’s Law. Rosa’s Law changed the term
to be used in future to ‘intellectual disability.’ The
definition of the term itself did not change and is
what is described above as the definition of intellectual
disability (http://www.parentcenterhub.org/repository/
$9#categories).
Concomitant impairments such as intellectual dis-
ability and blindness, emotional or behavioral disorder
and orthopedic impairment characterize MD. The defin-
ition of multiple disabilities used in IDEA regulations is
‘concomitant [simultaneous] impairments (such as intel-
lectual disability-blindness, intellectual disability, ortho-
pedic impairment, etc.), the combination of which
causes such severe educational needs that they cannot
2019 VOL. 0 NO. 0 3
Alquraini and Rao A Systematic review of Literature
be accommodated in a special education program solely
for one of the impairments. The term does not include
deaf-blindness’ ( http://www.parentcenterhub.org/reposi-
tory/$9#categories).
IDD according to the US Department of Health and
Human Services/National Institute of Health are disor-
ders that are usually present at birth and that negatively
affect the trajectory of the individual’s physical, intel-
lectual, and/or emotional development. Many of these
conditions affect multiple body parts or systems.
Literature search and selection
Based on the conceptual model (see Figure 1), we
included individuals with ID, IDD, and/or MD in our
search for literature. Our purpose was to explore studies
that used strategies to enhance reading abilities of this
population at elementary/secondary levels and beyond
that would help develop readers and sustain their ability
to read.
Literature reviews are ‘key building blocks of good
research articles in Library of Information Science’
(Dilveko 2007, p. 451) and are defined as ‘systematic,
explicit and reproducible methods for identifying, eval-
uating, and synthesizing existing body of completed
and recorded work’. Dilevko highlighted the importance
of making the reviews explicit to enhance replicability
of the work, as replicability is the single most important
quality of a literature review. Making the review expli-
cit the author posited, enables other researchers to
reproduce the review methods. Our review followed a
clear conceptual model for selecting studies, followed
clearly stated procedures in synthesizing our review,
and chose explicit inclusionary and exclusionary crite-
ria. This was to enable other researchers in the field to
replicate the procedures.
In order to make our review explicit, we followed
several guidelines suggested in PISMA or Preferred
Reporting Items for Systematic Meta-Analyses by
Shamseer et al. (2015) using the checklist recom-
mended by the authors. The checklist has three broad
categories of recommended guidelines: Administrative
Information, Introduction, and Methods. Each of the
three broad categories has sub categories and statements
under these sub categories. There are a total of 17 sub
categories and 25 different statements. These 25 state-
ments are the recommended items or guidelines to
address in a systematic review (see Shamseer et al.
2015). In addition, we also referred to Gersten et al.
(2005), Hill (2016), and Horner et al. (2005) in select-
ing literature. Gersten et al. (2005) presented quality
indicators for experimental and quasi-experimental
studies in special education and suggest either one or
two conditions to be present when practices could be
considered evidence based. The two conditions are,
description of at least four acceptable prior quality stud-
ies with the strategy explored, and/or effect size
4 International Journal of Developmental Disabilities 2019
significantly greater than zero. Hill (2016) and Horner
et al. (2005) on the other hand described quality indica-
tors and essential elements of single subject designs.
These essential characteristics included detailed descrip-
tion of participant and setting; description of dependent
and independent variables, baseline phase; and experi-
mental/internal validity, external validity and social val-
idity. In terms of analysis of data, all studies provided a
detailed, visual analysis of the intervention that could
establish a causal relationship between the independent
and dependent variables studied.
All studies we included in this review met the fol-
lowing inclusionary, and/or exclusionary criteria.
Inclusionary criteria were 1) articles written in English,
2) published between 2000 and 2016 in peer reviewed,
scholarly journals, 3) studies with individuals identified
as having ID, IDD, or MD, 4) studies that reported
effect of chosen strategies (independent variables) on
any of the components of effective reading in our con-
ceptual model (see Figure 1), 5) studies that used quali-
tative research paradigm; and/or those that followed
any of the following experimental designs: single-
subject designs, group experimental designs, and/or
quasi-experimental design, and 6) studies that reported
effect sizes with experimental group designs. We did
not specify age as a criterion, as our goal was to look
for literature that would give us strategies to help create
and sustain readers at all ages in our target population.
The exclusionary criteria were 1) studies that had a
focus solely on enhancing social skills, number skills,
communication skills, or daily living skills and used
these skills as dependent variables and 2) prior research
reviews. We found some prior reviews of literature
(Alnahdi 2015, Browder and Xin 1998, Browder et al.
2006, Hill 2016, Joseph and Seery 2004, Katims 2000,
Kliewer and Biklen 2001, and Rao and Barkley 2009)
through our initial computer search. We referred to
these reviews and other position papers as broader lit-
erature base in our introduction section and to help
guide our methods section.
We included the following steps in ensuring a com-
prehensive search. The search terms used in our elec-
tronic search using databases such as Education
Abstracts, ERIC, and ProQuest database were combina-
tions of 1) reading, which included effect of chosen
strategies (independent variables) on any of the compo-
nents of effective reading in our conceptual model (see
Figure 1), 2) literacy 3) intellectual disability, 4) intel-
lectual and developmental disabilities, and 5) MD. We
also included ‘mental retardation’, a term in use in early
21st century, but only occasionally being used in the
current times. The first total for our computerized
search with truncations of descriptors for disability pro-
duced 650 articles. Although we did not use descriptors
of learning disabilities, behavioral disorders etc. this
first search resulted in studies done with different
VOL. 0 NO. 0
 Alquraini and Rao A Systematic review of Literature

disabilities and involving some other dependent varia-
bles such as numeracy, social skills, and self-determin-
ation skills. After eliminating studies that were outside
of the scope for this review, we had 35 studies in the
area of reading and literacy that included intervention
studies, position papers, and literature reviews.
We also conducted an ancestral search by checking
references from the short listed articles (dating back to
1996) and found several overlaps between the studies
cited/referenced. The literature reviews we found
(Alnahdi 2015, Browder and Xin 1998, Browder et al.
2006, Hill 2016, Joseph and Seery 2004, Katims 2000,
Kliewer and Biklen 2001, and Rao and Barkley 2009)
were included as reference but not in our review. Both
authors read the articles to ensure inclusionary and
exclusionary criteria, and an inter-rater agreement of
100% was reached between the two authors that
resulted in final selection of 12 (n ¼ 12) studies (see
Table 1) that met the criteria.
Analysis and results
Based on our conceptual model of effective reading at
elementary/secondary levels and beyond (see Figure 1),
we selected 12 studies published in seven different
peer-reviewed, scholarly journals following the inclu-
sionary and exclusionary criteria described in the meth-
ods section. A closer look at the studies showed that
different research designs were used by the researchers.
As such, our first level was analysing/categorizing
according to type of research. Out of a total of 12 stud-
ies reviewed 75% (9 studies) used different variations
of single subject designs and 3 (25%) studies used a
pre/post-test comparison groups design.
Single subject research, a proven methodology to
identify evidence-based practices (Horner et al. 2005)
especially at individual level and follows a rigorous
methodology (Hill 2016). The studies that followed sin-
gle-subject design that we included in our review were
also chosen based on the presence of the essential char-
acteristics (Hill 2016), or the quality indicators as
Horner et al.’s study termed them. All studies chosen
had adequate description of participant and setting;
dependent and independent variables; baseline phase;
experimental/internal validity; external validity and
social validity. All studies provided a detailed, visual
analysis of the intervention that could establish a causal
relationship between the independent and dependent
variables studied. Graphical representations and
descriptive data analysis used relevant terms to describe
effectiveness or effect size of interventions. For
example, mean, range, percentage of non-overlapping
data points (PNDs), percent of data points exceeding
the median (PEM). Table 2 describes characteristics of
participants in 9 studies using single-subject research
followed by the 3 studies that used pre-test/post-test
comparison designs.
Gersten et al. (2005) described quality indicators of
experimental and quasi-experimental research studies in
special education. The essential and desirable quality
indicators included adequate description of participants;
quality indicators for outcome measures; and quality
indicators for data analysis. These essential quality indi-
cators and a set of desirable quality indicators in a study
collectively had 18 different questions/statements listed
that researchers could use to evaluate studies reporting
effective strategies (see Gersten et al. 2005, p. 152).

Table 1. Overview of studies reviewed: in alphabetical order by first author.

Study N Age Research design Setting

Alberto et al. (2010) 5 12–15 Changing criterion, multiple Special education
baseline across groups design classroom for students with ID
Allor et al. (2010a) 59 8 Longitudinal study using Elementary schools and
treatment/contrast groups a private special school
experimental design
Browder et al. (2011) 3 6–9 Multiple probe single case design Self-contained special
across participants education classrooms
Cohen et al. (2008) 5 9–14 Multiple probe design Special classrooms for
across participants students with ID
Fredrick et al. (2013) 5 7–14 Multiple baseline design Self-contained special
education classrooms
Hudson and Browder (2014) 3 9–11 Multiple probe design across General education classrooms
participants. with 35 peers
Lundberg and Reichenberg (2013) 40 13–18 Pre-post-test comparison Special school for Students with ID
group design
Mims et al. (2012) 4 12–14 Multiple probe design Self-contained classroom
across students
Ruwe et al. (2011) 3 13–14 Combination multiple Self-contained classroom for
baseline across sets students with ID
and ABAB design with
1 participant
Shurr and Taber-Doughty (2012) 4 12–15 Multi-probe across Self-contained classroom
participants design
Van der Bijl et al. (2006) 97 9–13 Pre-post-test comparison Special school for children with
group design mental disability
Waugh et al. (2009) 3 9–11 A changing criterion design Self-contained classroom

International Journal of Developmental Disabilities 2019 VOL. 0 NO. 0 5

6
Table 2. Participant characteristics.

Study N & Age Detailed characteristics

Studies with variations of single subject designs
Alberto et al. (2010) 5, 12–15 Cognitive functioning scores of 40–46 and
adaptive behavior scores range was 29–56; all had MoID; verbal ability to
pronounce words; motor ability to demonstrate comprehension by writing word;
had parental consent to participate and had ability to attend to reinforcement in activities.
Browder et al. (2011) 3 6–9 MD (severe ID with physical or sensory impairments, cerebral palsy, blindness,
aggressive behavior); intensive support for self-care; communication through eye gaze,
vocalization, facial expression; physical support for mobility even though. Some prior reading
instruction: read aloud/were read to.
Cohen et al. (2008) 5 9–14 All with mild MR(ID); IQ 40–61. Knew minimum of 10 letter-sound correspondence; could follow
simple verbal directions; had imitative ability; could not blend words.
Alquraini and Rao A Systematic review of Literature

Fredrick et al. (2013) 5 7–14 All had MoID; IQ range was 40–55 identified based on teachers’ reports. Communicated verbally,
performed successfully in their sight-word/Edmark program. No behavior issues and had parental/
Hudson and Browder (2014) 3 9–11 Two Hispanic (1 boy 1 girl) and 1 Caucasian boy. Recommended by special education teachers,

International Journal of Developmental Disabilities

had ID, IQ ¼ or <55. Regular attendance; communication using picture symbols and/or verbally,
eye gaze, pointing, communication switches; followed verbal directions; normal hearing and
vision with corrections;

2019
Mims et al. (2012) 4 12–14 1 girl, 3 boys having intellectual disability and autism (MD) ; able to use symbolic or abstract language,
2 with IQ of 42 and 2 unknown IQ, all had difficulty following verbal directions, regular school attendance.
Ruwe et al. (2011) 3 13–14 All boys with ID and one coupled with acute scoliosis. Two in grade 8, one in grade 7; reading

VOL.
levels at kindergarten, second grade, and one below grade-level; IQ range 58–65. One was taking

0
medication for ADHD and other two were not on medications.
Studies following pre-post-test group design
Allor et al. (2010a) 59 12–15 IQ scores 40–69.; ID/MD-Down syndrome, autism, Williams’s syndrome, physical disability).

NO.
0
n ¼ 34, treatment group; n ¼ 25 contrast group
Lundberg and Reichenberg (2013) 40 13–18 3 students with severe ID and remaining with mild ID. Student with ID/MD (autism, attention deficit
hyperactivity disorder, and/or Turner’s syndrome)
Waugh et al. (2009) 3 9–11 All 3 (2 male, 1 female) with MoID; IQ scores 40–53 and adaptive behavior scores 54–62. Had
verbal ability to produce sounds, received special education services, and could attend to 20 min
activities. No prior formal reading intervention and had no experience with simultaneous
prompting procedures.
MoID: moderate intellectual disability.

Three studies that used pre-test/post-test comparison
designs met guidelines for all 10 indicators under essen-
tial quality indicators and most of the eight desir-
able indicators.
Table 3 describes settings where the studies were
carried out, and Table 4 describes details of
intervention.
Participant characteristics
There were 35 participants across the 9 studies that
used variations of single subject designs. We wanted to
collect information about evidence-based practices used
to create and sustain readers from interventions carried
out with individuals across the age groups. Age range
of the participants was from 6 years to 15 years. Table
2 presents details of participants’ characteristics in all 9
studies that followed variations of single subject
designs followed by the participants’ characteristics in
3 studies that used pre-test/post-test groups design.
Allor et al. (2010b), Lundberg and Reichenberg
(2013) and Van der Bijl et al. (2006) used variations of
pre-test/post-test comparison groups design to assess
effectiveness of intervention for enhancing comprehen-
sion. A total of 132 students participated in these three
studies which followed pre-test/post-test groups design.
Setting characteristics
All of the 12 studies with a total of 167 participants
took place in various settings. Table 3 describes import-
ant aspects of the different settings.
Strategies used and components of effective
reading addressed
Nine out of 12 (75%) studies reviewed for this study
used the following variations of single subject design:
1) Multiple probe design: Browder et al. (2011) used
multiple probes single-case design to successfully
evaluate functional relationship between scripted
task analytic lessons read-aloud with systematic
prompting on engagement and comprehension of
three elementary age students with intellectual and
multiple disabilities. Students with intellectual dis-
abilities had physical and/or sensory disabilities
coupled with intellectual disability. Each student
used three different response modes (eye gaze
response; object response; and touch response). This
study described at length participants, setting, (see
Tables 2 and 3) materials, data collection procedure,
steps/task analyzed shared story reading prompts,
research design, different phases of intervention,
social validity, and a good graphic representation of
intervention and responses for each child.
Effectiveness was described using number of correct
responses and mean responses for each child across
the three response modes for both comprehension
and engagement. The authors did not report percent-
age of non-overlapping data points (PNDs) for the
intervention. The effect of intervention was evident
International Journal of Developmental Disabilities
Alquraini and Rao A Systematic review of Literature
through a clear visual representation of intervention
phases and PNDs could be easily established. The
detailed description provided met quality indicators
of single-subject designs (see Hill 2016, Horner
et al. 2005) information for easy replicability.
Suggestion for future included more such studies for
generalizability.
Cohen et al. (2008) used a three-step (attention get-
ting step, decoding step, reading the word step) decod-
ing strategy along with constant time delay to teach 5
students with mild to moderate intellectual disabilities
word reading (see Tables 2 and 3 for additional details
of the participants and setting). The study used a mul-
tiple probe design across the five participants to assess
effect of constant time delay procedure on number of
words sounded out and read correctly. The three-step
decoding strategy was a successful strategy in case of
all five students. Results reported in terms of percentage
and average increases represented graphically are a
clear representation of the successful strategy. The
study reported detailed procedures including preinter-
vention assessment and reading level assessment. Clear
C-V-C or C-V-V-C combination words were used in
the study. Reliability and procedural validity also was
described with great details. The authors described
design, variables and data collection process, and social
validity thoroughly making it easy for researchers to
replicate. The data collected and analyzed indicated that
the combined three-step decoding strategy using con-
stant time delay was successful. Authors also provided
suggestions for further improvement in subse-
quent studies.
In their study in 2014, Hudson and Browder eval-
uated effect of peer-delivered least prompts intervention
and adapted read-alouds of grade level novel on correct
listening comprehension on three students with moder-
ate intellectual disabilities in their fifth grade general
education literacy class. The authors also provided
examples of several studies that used read-aloud
coupled with different additional features and prompts
successfully with individuals with intellectual disability
and multiple disabilities.
The peer tutors in this study by Hudson and
Browder were selected from fifth grade literacy class
based on clear observation of intent to participate and
studying their willingness to stay with the group. Please
see Tables 2 and 3 for details of participants as well as
the settings. Authors provided detailed account of peer
training, materials used, peer tutor scripts, grade-level
book, adapted text, listening comprehension questions,
participant books, and response boards. Authors also
provided details of teacher training, peer delivered
intervention, ongoing probe sessions, generalization
probe sessions, procedural reliability, social validity,
description of research design, dependent variable, data
collection, and data analysis. All three participants
2019 VOL. 0 NO. 0 7
Alquraini and Rao A Systematic review of Literature
Table 3. Setting characteristics.
Study & P
Studies with single subject designs
Alberto et al. (2010) 5 students with MoID
Browder et al. (2011) 3 students with ID/MD
Cohen et al. (2008) 5 students with ID
Fredrick et al. (2013) 5 students with MoID
Hudson and Browder (2014) 3 students with ID
Mims et al. (2012). 4 students with IDD
Ruwe et al. (2011) 3 Middle school boys
with ID and health issues
Shurr and Taber-Doughty (2012) 4 students with MoID
Waugh et al. (2009)
Studies following pre-post-test group design
Allor et al. (2010b) 59 students with ID
Lundberg and Reichenberg (2013) 40 adolescents
with mild ID
Van der Bijl et al. (2006) 33 students with moderate
to severe ID
MoID: moderate intellectual disability; MR: mental retardation; P: participants.
benefitted from this intervention. Results were reported
using clear visual representation of the intervention
phases and range of increase in % responses and an
overall percentage increase in prompted correct
responses (PCI); independent correct responses (ICI)
and generalized correct responses (GC). Authors pro-
vided information about certain limitations and also rec-
ommend tips for future research.
In yet another study that met most quality indicators
(Hill 2016; Horner et al. 2005), Mims et al. (2012)
investigated effect of modified system of least intrusive
prompts on text dependent listening comprehension of
four middle-school students with intellectual disability
during read-alouds of adapted grade level biographies.
Improvement for all students is reported using number
8 International Journal of Developmental Disabilities 2019
Study setting
Middle and high school students. Intervention
in special education classroom. The research team
trained teacher to carry out intervention with the students.
Instruction carried out in group format (3 and 2 student groups).
Large urban school district. Study took place in self-contained
classrooms during regular literacy classroom time. Three highly
qualified teachers, experience between 4 and 19 years, two
with a BA and 1 with MA in special education. Instruction provided
in one-to-one format with paraprofessionals working with the rest
of the classroom.
Three students from elementary students in classroom for mild ID(MR)
and 2 middle school students in classrooms for MoID/MR
on a one-on-one basis with minimum distractions.
No other instruction took place
at the time of the study.
Two different self-contained classrooms; 1 in elementary and the
other in middle school. Assessment and intervention carried out by
classroom teacher after researchers provided training.
General education classroom for peer delivered instruction in small
group situation individual baseline and probe sessions by researcher
in special education classrooms. Library used by researcher
for training peer tutors. Individual training of peers outside
cafeteria in a quiet part
Self-contained classroom for students with autism in middle school
and multipurpose room for individual baseline, intervention and
generalization sessions.
Middle school boys in self-contained classrooms in Pacific Nothwest.
Study in one of the three classrooms (vacant at the time) located in
self-contained wing of the school. Present would be participant, first
author, and occasionally several assistants with other students. In
presence of other students intervention carried out in the kitchen
area of the room with a low noise level and quiet maintained
throughout.
Students’ self-contained classroom within local 7th and 8th grade
junior high school. Activities conducted at a large table across from
the first author at the back of the room. Quiet, calm, distractions-free
setting with approx. 8 other students and 3 staff engaged in several
activities simultaneously with other students.
Study conducted spring and fall semesters in 2 parts. Three teachers
total trained through the study by first author in simultaneous
prompting strategy.
Large urban school district and elementary schools (11–13)
participating over three years and 1 private school.
District personnel worked with researchers in selection
of schools and participants.
Four special schools in Sweden. All 40 participants had mild
intellectual disability.
A large special school for children with mental disability.
of correct responses, means, range, actual and percent
increases, all represented graphically in very clear and
replicable terms. Citing a need for more research the
authors carried out this study with 4 adolescents in self-
contained classrooms. Replicable study details provided
included: details of participants, setting, material
(adapted biographies), research design, dependent and
independent variables and data collection procedures,
data analysis, social validity, and information about
generalizability.
Shurr and Taber-Doughty (2012) described yet
another successful read-aloud application paired with
picture symbol this time and delivered successfully
using a multiple probes design. The authors posited that
hearing a text read aloud allows students with moderate
VOL. 0 NO. 0
 Alquraini and Rao A Systematic review of Literature

Table 4. Strategies used and components of effective reading addressed.

Study Independent and dependent variables

Alberto et al. (2010)
Allor et al. (2010b)
Browder et al. (2011)
Cohen et al. (2008)
Fredrick et al. (2013)
Hudson and Browder (2014)
Lundberg and Reichenberg (2013)
Mims et al. (2012)
Ruwe et al. (2011)
Shurr and Taber-Doughty (2012)
Van der Bijl et al. (2006)
Waugh et al. (2009)
Study describing in detail sight-word instruction in multiple-word
phrases and simultaneous prompts to enhance reading comprehension.
Detailed study of effectiveness of reading program on concept of print,
phonological and phonemic awareness, letter knowledge, word recognition,
fluency, comprehension, and vocabulary.
Detailed study of effects of scripted task analytic lessons with systematic prompting
on engagement and comprehension.
Description of use of a three-step decoding strategy and constant-time delay procedure
on decoding ability, fluency of reading.
Details of effectiveness of 2-part phonetic instructional sequence, direct instruction and
simultaneous prompting on learning of word-analysis skills, letter-sound correspondence
and its automaticity, and blending.
Detailed study describing use of peer-delivered least prompts intervention and adapted
read-alouds used to enhance listening comprehension.
Details of study assessing effect of ‘reciprocal teaching’ and guided social interaction on
fluency, listening comprehension, word recognition, and reading comprehension answering
inference questions.
Study describing in detail effects of modified system of least prompts, graphic organizer
for rules for ‘wh’ questions, on listening comprehension.
Detailed description of direct Instruction (DI) flashcard system used to improve
sigh-word knowledge.
Details of study examining effect of read-aloud using age-appropriate texts and
pairing with picture symbols and discussion, on reading comprehension through
multiple-choice questions.
Detailed study of effectiveness (and comparison) of two sigh-word reading strategies
on recognition of sight-words and other vocabulary words. Strategies compared were
modified orthography with picture association added, and traditional orthography.
Detailed description of using simultaneous prompting, sight-word cards, corresponding
letter-sound cards, generalization word cards, and objects corresponding sight words
to enhance letter-sound correspondence and blending skills.

intellectual disability to access the content of literature
irrespective of their reading skills. The study described
several other studies using read louds to teach literacy
to students with moderate intellectual disabilities. Shurr
and Taber-Doughty worked with four middle school
students with moderate intellectual disability in self-
contained classrooms about 60% of their day. The study
provided a detailed description of the intervention
including description of setting, independent and
dependent variables, materials, research design, data
collection, social validity, and treatment fidelity check-
lists. Results section of the article included a clear and
detailed graphical representation of different phases of
intervention. The study used visual analysis of repeated
gains made by students during intervention and general-
ization phase. Percent gains reported in all four partici-
pants that are represented graphically ranged between
50 and 100%. Along with limitations cited after a thor-
ough discussion of results, the study provides sugges-
tions for future research that included more studies for
generalizability of the procedure.
Read-aloud of adapted grade level biographies and
systematic prompting to promote comprehension for
four students aged 12–14 years with moderate to severe
developmental disabilities was focus of Mims et al.
(2012). Adaptations made to the biographies included
summarizing the text using controlled vocabulary and
pairing keywords with picture symbols. Authors pro-
vided adequate information for possible replication in
terms of participants, setting, materials, content validity,
questions, research design, dependent, independent vari-
ables, data collection procedures and finally, generaliza-
tion, social validity, limitations, and suggestions for
future research. Results were provided using mean
number of correct unprompted responses and ranges
for baseline, intervention, and generalization for
each student.
2) Changing Criterion Design: Three studies (Alberto
et al. 2010, Fredrick et al. 2013 added changing cri-
terion design as a variation to single-subject design to
teach sight words.
Alberto et al. (2010) assessed effectiveness of sight-
word instruction in multiple word phrases on reading
comprehension of 5 students with moderate intellectual
disabilities. Their cognitive functioning scores of 40–46
and adaptive behaviour scores range was 29–56 years.
The authors contended that sight-word instruction is
memory dependent. As such, words chosen for instruc-
tion need to be functional words and those that students
see often. To enhance generalizability of these words,
the authors used phrases/connected text where the
words appear more often to help with memory. As pos-
ited by the authors, the study would add to limited
research on use of connected text for sight-word recog-
nition literature. For enhanced replicability, Alberto
et al. provided detailed information about participants,
setting, research design, teacher training, procedure,
assessment probes, instructional sessions, generalization
probes, procedural fidelity, inter-observer agreement,

International Journal of Developmental Disabilities 2019 VOL. 0 NO. 0 9

Alquraini and Rao A Systematic review of Literature
and social validity. This study described effectiveness
of intervention in results section using means and ranges
for each group and for each dependent variable. Also
used were two measures of effect sizes-percent of non-
overlapping data points (PNDs) and percent data points
exceeding median (PEM) calculated for each phases.
Limited generalizability of sight-word instruction
and a strategy to overcome the limitation was focus in
Fredrick et al. (2013) that developed and used a 2-part
phonetic instructional sequence to be used with direct
instruction approach. Fredrick et al. (2013) had word
analytic skills (verbal imitation of sounds, letter-sound
correspondences, retrieval of learned letter-sounds to a
predetermined rate of automaticity, and blending) as
dependent variable. The focus was enhanced generaliz-
ability of these skills by 5 students with moderate ID
with IQ range of 40–45. Participants were successfully
taught to generalize the blending skills to untaught
CVC words; functional, community words; and envir-
onmental, connected-text phrases. Waugh et al.’s study
cited good existing support for use of Phonics instruc-
tion which helped students learn word-analysis skills
and successfully taught 3 students with moderate intel-
lectual disabilities aged 9–11 years and IQ 40–53. This
study demonstrated positive gains in letter-sound cor-
respondence and blending skill when taught using sim-
ultaneous prompting. Students first learnt how to read
five words using sight-word instruction followed by let-
ter-sound correspondence in these five words and
blending skills. Students generalized the skills to novel
words. Both studies provided good details about partici-
pants, teacher training, independent and dependent vari-
ables, assessment, design, procedure, data collection
and data analysis, teaching sessions, materials, proced-
ural fidelity, inter observer agreement, and social valid-
ity. Discussion section provided limitations and
suggestions for replicability of the study.
3) Multiple baseline Design: Ruwe et al. (2011)
studied effectiveness of Direct Instruction (DI)
flash card system in improving sigh-word know-
ledge of three middle school boys with ID.
Passage reading probe was also used to assess
generalizability of the sight word knowledge in
the context of passage. Each student read 3 sets
of 20 words each and 6 passages that had the
sight words. The study found the system to be
highly effective for sight word recognition
although, the authors felt student success in pas-
sage reading could not be directly attributed to
the DI flashcard system. The authors provided
adequate details of dependent variable (sight
words) and independent variable (DI flashcard
system); experimental design and data collection
procedures, probes, information about reliability,
clear graphical representation of results showing
enhanced word recognition, and a thorough
10 International Journal of Developmental Disabilities 2019
discussion of the intervention for easy replicabil-
ity. Results were reported using averages and
number of words gained. Average increase for all
three sets of 20 words reported was 19.31, 19.2,
and 19.35.
Studies using pre-test/post-test
groups design
Allor et al. (2010b), Lundberg and Reichenberg (2013),
and Van der Bijl et al. (2006) used variations of pre-
test/post-test comparison groups design to assess effect-
iveness intervention for enhancing comprehension. A
total of 132 students participated in these three studies
which followed pre- and post-test groups design. Tables
2 and 3 describe participant and setting characteristics
of these three studies as well as the other nine that used
variations of single-subject case studies designs.
Allor et al. (2010a,2010b) carried out a longitudinal
experimental study to assess literacy progress of 59 (34
in experimental group and 25 in contrast group) stu-
dents with mild to moderate ID with IQ 40 to 69 when
a comprehensive reading intervention was delivered.
The study described in detail instructional design fea-
tures, instructional strands, staff development procedure
to implement the intervention, delivery of intervention
to the experimental group and the contrast/control
group. The description provided details of assessment
and monitoring progress in various components of read-
ing such as concepts of print, phonological and phon-
emic awareness, oral language, letter and word
knowledge, vocabulary, and fluency. The intervention
consisted of instruction that integrated and applied con-
cepts of print, phonological and phonemic awareness,
oral language, word recognition, vocabulary, fluency
and comprehension. In short, all components of effect-
ive reading. The contrast group (n ¼ 25) received
instruction using a structured curriculum. Students in
experimental group outperformed students in the con-
trast group on all (phonemic awareness, vocabulary,
decoding, fluency [sight word efficiency, letter-word
identification], and reading comprehension) measures
with effect sizes ranging from small (.26) to medium
(.66) for these different measures.
The second study by Lundberg and Reichenberg in
2013 assessed successful effect of guided social inter-
action on reading comprehension of 40 adolescents.
Participants were grouped in two intervention condi-
tions; reciprocal teaching (RT) for the experimental
group and inference teaching (IT) for the control group.
They assessed effect of RT to deliver intervention
through dialogue between teachers and students using
independent variables of prediction, generating ques-
tions, clarifying; and summarizing. The study described
in detail participants, and the dependent variables
focused such as word recognition, sentence comprehen-
sion, fluency, reading comprehension, and listening
VOL. 0 NO. 0

comprehension. In addition, the study provided details
of intervention texts, and other materials used in deliv-
ering instruction. Although both groups showed
improvements, the effect sizes for improvements in dif-
ferent components of reading (word recognition, sen-
tence recognition, fluency, and reading comprehension)
were higher (.16 to .45) for group with RT as interven-
tion. In comparison effect sizes ranged from .02 to .32
for the same components for the IT group. The study
provided details of interventions and effect sizes for all
components for bot RT and IT groups.
In the third study, Van der Bijl et al. (2006) used a
comparison pre-test/post-test design with a withdrawal
period in assessing through comparison, two strategies
of sight word recognition. The study described in clear
terms the treatment or independent variables (modified
orthography (MO) and modified orthography with add-
itional association made with traditional orthography
MO/TO). Material and equipment details including
details of other stimulus materials, data recording
sheets, teaching procedure, and evaluation procedures
were convincing. A pre-test/post-test comparison group
design with a withdrawal period was used to determine
effectiveness of the strategies. The results described and
discussed showed that 33 individuals with moderate to
severe mental disability in the assigned groups were
able to learn to recognize sight words using any of the
two strategies and retain them. Effect size values on
day 10 were reported as .25; .31, and .56. For retention
the effect sizes reported were .15, .27; and .42.
Evidence of effectiveness
Of the 12 studies selected, 9 studies (Alberto et al.
2010, Browder et al. 2011, Cohen et al. 2008, Fredrick
et al. 2013, Hudson and Browder 2014, Mims et al.
2012, Ruwe et al. 2011, Shurr and Taber-Doughty
2012, Waugh et al. 2009) used variation of single sub-
ject research designs. According to Hill (2016) and
Horner et al. (2005), single subject research or single
case designs offer rigorous methodology. The docu-
ments offer experimental control and each participant
serves as his/her own control. This enables researchers
to use a smaller sample size to include in research stud-
ies to assess effectiveness of intervention. The social
validity of the study/intervention that was described in
each of these 9 studies that followed single subject
designs is an added advantage of this design; it helps
include dependent variables that have social and func-
tional importance. Each study published vivid graphical
representations of the intervention showing clear
improvement in dependent variables which were differ-
ent components of effective reading instruction in our
conceptual framework. All graphical representations
and descriptive data analysis used relevant terms to
describe effectiveness or effect size of interventions.
For example, mean, range, PND, PEM (Alberto et al.
International Journal of Developmental Disabilities
Alquraini and Rao A Systematic review of Literature
2010); Mean and ranges (Browder et al. 2011, Mims
et al. 2012, Waugh et al. 2009); Percent (%) improve-
ment in dependent variables in question (Cohen et al.
2008, Shurr and Taber-Doughty 2012); range and %
improvement (Hudson and Browder 2014); numerical
data and Mean (Fredrick et al. 2013); average and per-
cent increase in responses (Ruwe et al. 2011) were used
to indicate changes in different dependent variables in
all phases of intervention, including generalization
phase. Clearly described aspects of a single subject
research in all of the 9 studies contributed to replicabil-
ity by future researchers.
With reference to the three studies that had pre-post-
intervention group designs, all three studies (Alberto
et al. 2010, Lundberg and Reichenberg 2013, Van der
Bijl et al. 2006) included an adequate section on discus-
sion of the results presented in clear tables. These three
studies met guidelines for quality indicators (see
Gersten et al. 2005) for group experimental and quasi-
experimental research in special education. The studies
adequately described conceptualization underlying the
studies, participants and sampling, details of independ-
ent and dependent variables, implementation of the
intervention, data collection and analysis, outcome
measures, and generalization of skills achieved. Allor
et al. (2010a), Lundberg and Reichenberg (2013), and
Van der Bijl et al. (2006) reported effect sizes (medium
to strong) for interventions for different components of
reading targeted. Evidence of other studies that used
similar strategies was included in literature review sec-
tions of these studies. As such, these studies satisfied
the standards Gersten et al. (2005) suggested for deter-
mining a practice to be evidence-based.
Discussion
We based our conceptual model for this review (see
Figure 1) on findings in the report by National Reading
Panel (NRP 2000); key findings by NICHD 2000, and
suggestions by other experts (Ellery 2009, Ellery and
Rosenboom 2011, Lerner and Johns 2015). Our focus
was to explore studies that used strategies to enhance
reading abilities of students with individuals identified
as having ID, IDD, or MD in any one, or combination
of the contributing factors of effective reading
(Figure 1) that would help develop and sustain their
reading ability.
Effective strategies described
Read-aloud strategy was used successfully by five of
the 12 (41%) of reviewed studies that used variations of
single subject designs. Read-aloud has been success-
fully used by educators to teach a variety of subject
areas in different settings for both, students with and
students without disabilities. Details provided by all of
these 5 studies (Browder et al. 2011, Cohen et al. 2008,
Hudson and Browder 2014, Mims et al. 2012, Shurr
2019 VOL. 0 NO. 0 11
Alquraini and Rao A Systematic review of Literature
and Taber-Doughty 2012) contributing to the replicabil-
ity of the studies would offer encouragement to future
researchers to use read-aloud strategy to enhance com-
prehension. The remaining 4 studies (Alberto et al.
2010, Fredrick et al. 2013, Ruwe et al. 2011, Waugh
et al. 2009) used variations of single subject research
designs to enhance sight-word recognition using 2-part
phonics instruction sequence using direct instruction
approach, sight words with connected text; and direct
instruction flashcards system. These studies focused on
phonological awareness, phonics, and vocabulary com-
ponents from the five essential components of effective
reading in our conceptual framework (Figure 1) The
three studies that used pre-test/post-test experimental
design in their research used 1) intervention that inte-
grated and applied concepts of print, phonological and
phonemic awareness, oral language, word recognition,
vocabulary, fluency and comprehension (Allor et al.
2010a); 2) reciprocal teaching (Lundberg and
Reichenberg 2013), and 3) comparison using two strat-
egies- modified orthography (MO) and modified
orthography with additional association made with trad-
itional orthography MO/TO (Van der Bijl et al. 2006).
During our search for literature, we came across
various previous reviews of reading instruction for indi-
viduals with ID, for e.g. Alnahdi (2015), Browder and
Xin (1998), Browder et al. (2006), Hill (2016), Joseph
and Seery (2004), Katims (2000), Kliewer and Biklen
(2001), and Rao and Barkley (2009) that offered sug-
gestions for enhancing reading of students with ID.
These recommendations included a need for more strat-
egies that are effective; intense, motivating, and mean-
ingful instruction that is explicit and with more direct
teacher involvement. To this end, this review further
contributed to the literature base. The studies we
included provided replicable descriptions of research
procedure for all 9 studies that used single subject
research design, as well the three studies that used pre-
test/post-test group designs effectively to enhance dif-
ferent (all five) components of effective instruction rec-
ommended in literature (Ellery 2009; Ellery and
Rosenboom 2011; Lerner and Johns 2015; NICHD
2000; NRP 2000) and which we included in our con-
ceptual framework. We offer suggestions and recom-
mendations in the following section for future research
to expand the literature base of evidence-based strat-
egies to enhance reading of individuals with ID, IDD,
and MD.
Conclusion and recommendations
This review synthesized findings from 12 different
studies that assessed effectiveness of various strategies
to create and sustain readers with intellectual and mul-
tiple disabilities. Collectively, the studies addressed all
five components of effective reading recommended in
literature (Ellery 2009; Ellery and Rosenboom 2011;
12 International Journal of Developmental Disabilities 2019
Lerner and Johns 2015, NICHD 2000; NRP 2000) and
on which we based our conceptual framework. These
strategies will help in developing and sustaining effect-
ive readers.
We recommend carrying out more studies using
qualitative and/or mixed-method approaches to further
study use of these strategies in different classrooms and
grades. The differences in the approach between quanti-
tative and qualitative paradigms, such as for example,
multiple sources of data, inductive and deductive data
analysis, participants’ meanings, and emergent design
quality (Creswell 2014) will help gather more and bet-
ter information and evidence of how the strategies are
actually being implemented and evidence of their
effectiveness.
According to Creswell (2014), the two forms of data
are integrated in the design analysis and different per-
spectives drawn from qualitative and quantitative data
can provide stronger and richer evidence. The quantita-
tive portion of the study could use either face-to-face
surveys or online surveys to collect data about teachers’
knowledge and interventions. The data can be analyzed
using quantitative data analysis techniques. An open-
ended method of qualitative paradigm using observation
and/or open-ended questions providing descriptive
answers can then follow.
Another recommendation for future studies would be
to carry out an exclusive and systematic review of stud-
ies that used technology and other assistive technology
to teach reading. For example, researchers could pair an
augmentative and alternative communication device or
other any other assistive technology and/or technology
as a current evidence-based intervention is carried out.
It would also help if more research could be carried out
to assess effectiveness of interventions to teach students
with ID, IDD, and MD standards-based curriculum.
More studies could be carried out according to the
chronological age groups. This would add to the reper-
toire and database of successful age-appropriate strat-
egies that may benefit adolescents and adults with ID,
IDD and/or individuals with MD. Such interventions
would help to create and sustain effective readers and
provide individuals with ID, IDD, and MD much
needed support to acquire independence in everyday
life, including life in schools and beyond.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by
the authors.
Funding
The author would like to extend sincere appreciation to
the Deanship of Scientific Research at King Saud
University for funding this research. Fund: RG-
1437-001.
VOL. 0 NO. 0

Notes on contributors
Dr. Turki A. Alquraini is an Associate Professor of
Special Education at King Saud University. Dr.
Alquraini’s research focuses on students with intellec-
tual and multiple disabilities. Recent research includes
inclusive education, access to general curriculum,
assistive technology, transition services and universal
design for learning.
Dr. Shaila M. Rao, Professor of Special Education
has taught undergraduate and graduate level courses
for 16 years and 12 years in public schools as teacher
and assistant principal. Her research interests include
literacy, assessment, curriculum development, diversity,
and inclusion of students with disabilities in general
education. She has published several articles and
book chapters.
ORCID
Turki A. Alquraini http://orcid.org/0000-0002-
8148-2106
References
Alnahdi, G. H. 2015. Teaching reading for students with intellectual disabil-
ities: A systematic review. International Education Studies, 8, 79–87.
Allor, J. H, et al. 2010a. Methods of increasing the intensity of read-
ing instruction for students with intellectual disabilities. Education
& Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 45,
500–511.
Allor, J. H, et al. 2010b. Comprehensive reading instruction for stu-
dents with intellectual disabilities: Findings from the first three
years of a longitudinal study. Psychology in the Schools, 47,
445–466.
Alberto, P. A, et al. 2010. Teaching the reading of connected text
through sight-word instruction to students with moderate intellec-
tual disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 31,
1467–1474. [10.1016/S0891-4222(10)00106-X] doi:10.1016/j.ridd.
2010.06.011
Browder, D. M, et al. 2011. Using shared stories and individual
modes to promote comprehension and engagement in literacy for
students with multiple, severe disabilities. Education and Training
in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 46, 339–351.
Browder, D. M, et al. 2006. Research on reading instruction for indi-
viduals with significant disabilities. Exceptional Children, 72,
392–408.
Browder, D. M. and Xin, Y. P. 1998. A meta-analysis and review of
sight word research and its implications for teaching functional
reading to individuals with moderate to severe disabilities. The
Journal of Special Education, 32, 130–153.
Carter, E. W, et al. 2010. Summer employment and community
experiences of transition-age youth with severe disabilities.
Exceptional Children, 76, 194–212. Retrieved from http://libproxy.
library.wmich.edu/login?url¼http://search.proquest.com/docview/
201197548?acountid¼15099
Cohen, E. T, et al. 2008. Using a three-step decoding strategy with
constant time delay to teach word reading to students with mild
and moderate mental retardation. Focus on Autism and Other
Developmental Disabilities, 23, 67–78.
Creswell, J. W. 2014. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and
mixed method approaches. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Dilveko, J. 2007. Guest editorial: Reading literature and literature
reviews. Library and Information Science Research, 29, 451–454.
Ellery, V. 2009. Creating strategic reader: Techniques for develop-
ing competency in phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabu-
lary, and comprehension. 2nd ed. Newark, DL: International
Reading Association.
Ellery, V. and Rosenboom, J. 2011. Sustaining strategic reader:
Techniques for supporting content literacy in grades 6–12.
Newark, DL: International Reading Association.
International Journal of Developmental Disabilities
Alquraini and Rao A Systematic review of Literature
Fenlon, A., et al. 2010. “So much potential in reading!”: Developing
meaningful literacy routines for students with multiple disabilities.
Teaching Exceptional Children, 43, 42–48.
Fredrick, L., et al. 2013. From Initial to functional phonics: teaching
word-analysis-skills to students with moderate intellectual disabil-
ity, Education and Training in Autism and Developmental
Disabilities, 48, 49–66.
Gersten, R., et al. 2005. Quality indicators for group experimental
and quasi-experimental research in special education. Exceptional
Children, 71, 149–164.
Hill, D. 2016. Phonics based reading interventions for students with
intellectual disability: A systematic literature review. Journal of
Education and Training Studies, 5, 205–214.
Horner, R. H., et al. 2005. The use of single-subject research to iden-
tify evidence-based practice in special education. Exceptional
Children, 71, 165–179.
Hudson, M. E. and Browder, D. M. 2014. Improving listening com-
prehension responses for students with moderate intellectual dis-
ability during literacy class. Research and Practice for Persons
with Severe Disabilities, 39, 11–29.
Joseph, L. and Seery, M. 2004. Where is the phonics? A review of
the literature on the use of phonetic analysis with students with
mental retardation. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 55–94.
Katims, S. 2000. Literacy instruction for people with mental retard-
ation: Historical highlights and contemporary analysis. Education
and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental
Disabilities, 35, 3–15.
Kliewer, C. and Biklen, D. 2001. “School’s not really a place for
reading”: A research synthesis of the literate lives of students
with severe disabilities. The Association for Persons with Severe
Handicaps, 26, 1–12.
Lerner, J. W. and Johns, B. H. 2015. Learning disabilities and
related mild disabilities. 12th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth
Cengage Learning.
Li, H. 2014. The effects of read-aloud accommodations for students
with and without disabilities: A meta-analysis. Educational
Measurement Issues and Practice, 33, 3–16.
Lundberg, I. and Reichenberg, M., 2013. Developing reading com-
prehension among students with mild intellectual disabilities: An
intervention study. Scandinavian Journal of Educational
Research, 57, 89–100.
Mims, P., et al. 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, 67–80.
Rao, S. 2009. From isolation to combination: a multi-step, multi-
component approach to developing literacy skills of students with
cognitive impairments. Reading Improvement, 46, 63–77.
Rao, S. and Barkley, E. 2009. Read and reach the whole child: using
adapted/created/enhanced (ACE) stories for content representation.
Reading Improvement, 46, 50–60.
Ratz, C. and Lenhard, W. 2013. Reading skills among students with
intellectual disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities,
34, 1740–1748.
Ruwe, K., et al. 2011. The multiple effects of direct instruction flash-
cards on sight word acquisition, passage reading, and errors for
three middle school students with intellectual disabilities. Journal
of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 23, 241–255.
Schnorr, R. F. 2011. Intensive reading instruction for learners with
developmental disabilities. The Reading Teacher, 65, 35–45.
Shamseer, L., et al. 2015. Preferred reporting items for systematic
review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elabor-
ation and explanation. BMJ, 349, g7647. Retrieved from http://
www.prismastatement.org/Extensions/Protocols.aspx
Shurr, J. and Taber-Doughty, T. 2012. Increasing comprehension of
middle school students with moderate intellectual disability on
age-appropriate texts. Education and Training in Autism and
Developmental Disabilities, 47, 359–372. Retrieved from http://
www.jstor.org/stable/23879971
Thomas G. E. 1996. Teaching students with mental retardation: A
life goal curriculum planning approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Van der Bijl C, et al. 2006. A comparison of two strategies of sight
word instruction in children with mental disability. Research in
Developmental Disabilities, 27, 43–55.
Waugh, R. E, et al. 2009. Using simultaneous prompting to teach
sounds and blending skills to students with moderate intellectual
disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 30,
1435–1447.
2019 VOL. 0 NO. 0 13