Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities - Division on ...

TABLE 1
Student Demographic
Student Age Gender
Student 1 6 Male <strong>Developmental</strong>ly Delayed;
Multih<strong>and</strong>icapped;
Cortical Visual
Impairment; Cerebral
Palsy; Bronchopulmonary
Dysplasia
Student 2 9 Female <strong>Developmental</strong>ly Delayed;
Multih<strong>and</strong>icapped;
Severe visual
impairment/severe
nearsightedness <strong>in</strong> each
eye; Cerebral Palsy;
Microcephaly; Seizures
ization data were collected <strong>in</strong> the special
education classroom <strong>and</strong> the cafeteria. For
Student 2, all assessments <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>terventions
were conducted <strong>in</strong> the student’s elementary
special education classroom. The first author,
a doctoral student <strong>in</strong> special education <strong>and</strong>
former licensed special education teacher
with seven years of experience with students
with multiple disabilities, served as the <strong>in</strong>terventionist.
In addition, all data collection,
<strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g procedural fidelity <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>ter-rater
reliability, were conducted by the other members
of the research team.
Materials
Three popular elementary picture books were
used for the <strong>in</strong>tervention. Each book was
adapted to conta<strong>in</strong> 5 specific concrete objects
mentioned <strong>in</strong> the book. These objects were
tactile representations of nouns embedded
throughout the story (e.g., “flower”). Each object
was attached to the page on which the
noun would be read <strong>and</strong> could be removed
(attached with Velcro). The same objects detached
from the page, <strong>and</strong> distractor objects,
were used for students to express comprehension
responses. Five objects appeared two
times <strong>in</strong> each book. Objects were selected <strong>and</strong>
adapted for the maximum sensory dist<strong>in</strong>ctiveness
possible (e.g., soft cloth, textured surface,
dist<strong>in</strong>ct smell like an orange). The books were
Diagnoses Accord<strong>in</strong>g to
School Records Aids <strong>and</strong> Services Communication And Literacy
Wheel chair; s<strong>in</strong>gle
switch; OT, PT,
Speech, Vision
Services
Wheelchair; s<strong>in</strong>gle
switch; OT, PT,
Speech, Vision
Impairment
Services
also adapted to abbreviate text <strong>and</strong> add a repeated
story l<strong>in</strong>e to promote underst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g.
Table 2 gives examples of the adaptations
used for each book <strong>and</strong> a list of the objects
used as noun referents.
Data Collection Procedures
412 / <strong>Education</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Developmental</strong> <strong>Disabilities</strong>-September 2009
Inconsistent communication
attempts; <strong>in</strong>consistent
response to objects;
<strong>in</strong>consistent respond<strong>in</strong>g
dur<strong>in</strong>g read alouds
Laughs or screams to
communicate mood;
<strong>in</strong>consistent response to
object or pictures;
<strong>in</strong>consistent respond<strong>in</strong>g
dur<strong>in</strong>g read alouds
Dependent variable. The dependent variable
was the number of correct <strong>in</strong>dependent
selection of one of two objects to answer comprehension
questions asked throughout the
read aloud of the story. The <strong>in</strong>terventionist
recorded the student’s response to each of 10
preplanned comprehension trials dur<strong>in</strong>g the
read aloud (each object occurred twice). Although
for purposes of <strong>in</strong>struction, the <strong>in</strong>terventionist
recorded the level of prompt the
student required (e.g., verbal, model, physical),
only responses scored as unprompted
correct () were graphed.
Inter-rater reliability. Inter-rater reliability
was measured by us<strong>in</strong>g an item-by-item formula.
A second observer viewed videotapes of
the sessions <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>dependently scored each of
the 10 comprehension trials. If item-by-item
agreement was not 90% (9/10 trials), the two
observers met to discuss the responses to be
observed prior to the cod<strong>in</strong>g of the next video.
Inter-rater reliability was calculated by tak<strong>in</strong>g
the number of agreements <strong>and</strong> divid<strong>in</strong>g it by