Study systematically reviewed research on instructional methods used to teach employment skills to secondary students with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD). Electronic database searches identified 56 relevant studies involving 766 participants with IDD. Across the studies, four intervention approaches emphasized technology or some other instructional stimulus (i.e., self-management devices, video-based, audio-based, picture and tactile-based) and four focused on live instructors (i.e., direct instruction, augmentative and alternative communication, simulation, peer-delivered). Among the 21 instructional methods used within these approaches, performance feedback, device-assisted instruction, response prompting, and community-based instruction were the most common. The authors address the extent to which these intervention approaches were effective across students, instructional methods, settings, and outcomes, as well as offer recommendations for future research and practice.
|Plain Language Summary:
Plain Language Title
Methods to teach employment skills to high school students with intellectual and developmental disabilities: A systematic planned out, orderly, regular review
Review go over, check Question
What methods are effective works well, good, strong for teaching employment skills to students with intellectual and developmental disabilities?
Although many young adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) want to enter the workforce, they often have limited opportunities after high school. A variety of state say, tell, condition and federal regulations task schools with preparing students for future work. This review go over, check assesses the evidence on instructional methods used to teach employment skills to high school students with IDD.
Studies were published between 1983 and 2015.
Studies had to evaluate the effect result, cause of an intervention care on at least one specific work-related task or behavior. Studies had to test an intervention care using either a single-case design, which is often used in populations with low numbers, or a group design, which involves a comparison group. Also, at least half of study participants had to (1) have autism brain disorder, illness that makes it hard for someone to talk to other people or an intellectual disability, (2) be between 14 and 22 years old, and (3) be enrolled in a public high school or transition program. All studies were published in English in a peer-reviewed journal.
The review go over, check included 56 studies covering 766 total students. Students were most likely to be male, to have an intellectual disability without autism, and to have moderate medium, mild, controllable cognitive impairment. More than half of the studies were conducted in school settings, and about one third took place in a workplace.
The review go over, check identified a variety of approaches to teaching employment skills. Four intervention care approaches emphasized technology or some other instructional stimulus (such as picture prompts), and four focused on live instructors. Interventions also targeted many different types of skills. The most common skill categories were clerical, janitorial, and social tasks. Almost half of the studies addressed a social skill.
The results suggest that each of the eight intervention care approaches have a positive effect result, cause on work-related skills for young people with IDD. Interventions were effective works well, good, strong for a variety of participants, settings, and outcomes. There is not enough evidence to determine figure out, decide, find out, test whether certain instructional methods are more effective works well, good, strong than others.
Use of Statistics
The review go over, check does not contain have, keep together, hold detailed statistical analysis.
Quality of Evidence
Some studies (particularly studies using a single-case design) did not report enough information information, to learn more to evaluate the effects of the intervention. care Otherwise, the quality of the evidence was strong. Most study participants came from three high-quality randomized controlled trials.