A systematic review of mathematics interventions for primary school students with intellectual disabilities

Figures & data

Figure 1. Study identification procedures.

Table 1. Studies with group comparison design.

study	Intervention/ instructional components	Targeted skills	Intervention intensity (CII)	Effect size (Hedges’s g)
Agaliotis and Teli (2016)	Direct instruction, CRA, FB	Arithmetic: Multiplication, division problems	12 sessions of 30–35 min., 2–3 sessions per week, 4–6 weeks (360)	Multiplication: 0.11
Brankaer, Ghesquière, and de Smedt (2015)	Game	Early numeracy skills: Connecting numbers with magnitudes	8 sessions of 15 min., 2 sessions per week, 4 weeks (120)	0.19
Tzanakaki et al. (2014)	Systematic instruction, SLP, manipulatives, FB	Early numeracy skills: Counting, patterns, addition and subtraction problems with counting strategies	13–33 sessions of 15–20 min., 2–3 sessions per week, 12 weeks (360–540)	TEMA 3: 0.33 Counting: 0.24 Number identification: 0.16

CII = cumulative intervention intensity; SLP = system of least prompts; FB = feedback; CRA = concrete, representational, abstract approach; TEMA 3 = Test of Early Mathematics Ability 3^rd edition.

Table 2. Studies with single-case design.

study	Intervention/ instructional components	Targeted skills	Intervention intensity (CII)	Effect size: PND
Sahbaz and Katlav (2018)	CTD	Early numeracy skills: Number identification 1–5	8–9 sessions, 15 trials per session, daily for two weeks (120–135)	88.89%
Skibo, Mims, and Spooner (2011)	SLP	Early numeracy skills: Number identification 1–5	10–22 sessions, 15 trials per session, daily, three weeks (225)	77%, 90%, 100%
Browder et al. (2012)	Explicit instruction with modelling, SLP, GO, FB, CTD, PBMS	Early numeracy skills: Counting, create and add sets, measurement	4 sessions of 30 min. per week, 6 months (2880)	55–100%
Jimenez and Kemmery (2013)	Systematic instruction, GO, SLP, TA, CTD, MLT, PBMS	Early numeracy skills: Counting, create and add sets, measurement	At least 36 sessions (n/a)	100%
Jimenez and Staples (2015)	Systematic instruction, GO, SLP, TA, CTD, PBMS	Early numeracy skills: Counting, create and add sets, measurement	At least 15 sessions (n/a)	72%, 77%, 100%
Jimenez and Besaw (2020)	Systematic instruction, GO, SLP, PBMS	Early numeracy skills: making sets and pattern, measurement	Daily sessions of 30 min., 4–8 weeks (600–1200)	75–90%, 75–100%
Wright et al. (2020)	Systematic instruction, GO, SLP, TA, CTD, PBMS	Early numeracy skills: Counting, create and add sets, measurement	4 sessions of 20 min. per week, 2–6 weeks (160–480)	96%, 81%, 57%, 86%
Hudson, Zambone, and Brickhouse (2016)	Systematic instruction, GO, VOD, SLP, TA, CTD, PBMS	Early numeracy skills: Counting, create and add sets, measurement	3–4 sessions per week, around 15 sessions in 5 weeks (n/a)	100%
Jimenez and Saunders (2019)	Systematic instruction, GO, SP	Early numeracy skills: Subitising, simple addition problems	3–4 trials per week, each trial 5 min, 2–5 weeks (30–120)	91%, 39%, 100%
Calik and Kargin (2010)	Direct instruction: modelling, guided practice, reinforcement	Arithmetic: Single digit addition problems with touch points (counting on strategy)	8–9 sessions, 2 sessions per day (n/a)	100%
Cihak and Foust (2008)	MLT, SLP	Arithmetic: Single digit addition problems with number line or touch points	20–31 sessions with 10 trials, around 6 weeks (240)	92–100%
Stroizer et al. (2015)	Explicit instruction, MLT, CRA	Arithmetic: Addition, subtraction, multiplication facts 0–5	20 sessions of 20–60 min., daily, 4 weeks (400–1200)	90–100%
Zisimopoulos (2010)	Systematic instruction, picture fading technique with 4 steps (SLP), modelling, FB	Arithmetic: Single-digit multiplication facts	3 sessions of 10–15 min. per week, 6 weeks (180–270)	100%
Bouck et al. (2009)	VOD (pentop computer)	Arithmetic: Multiplication problems	3–4 sessions per week, 2–3 weeks (n/a)	100%, 29%, 57%
Bouck et al. (2018)	Explicit instruction, modelling, prompting, CRA, FB	Problem solving: Change-making with coins problems (addition, subtraction)	At least 9–11, 2 sessions of 10–20 min. per week, 11 weeks (180–270)	100%
Browder et al. (2018)	Systematic instruction, visual representation, TA, SI	Problem solving: Addition and subtraction word problems	Up to 100 sessions, daily, 30 min., one school year (3000)	100%
Root et al. (2017)	Explicit instruction, GO, SI, SLP, iPad	Problem solving: Solve compare word problems (How many more?)	6–8 sessions of 15–20 min., daily (113–150)	100%

SLP = system of least prompts; SP = simultaneous prompting; TA = task analysis; CTD = constant time delay; GO = graphic organiser; PBMS = problem-based maths story; MLT = model-lead test, VOD = voice-output device; SI = self-instruction; FB = feedback; CRA = concrete, representational, abstract approach; n/a = information not available.

*Agaliotis, I., and A. Teli. 2016. “Teaching Arithmetic Combinations of Multiplication and Division to Students with Learning Disabilities or Mild Intellectual Disability: The Impact of Alternative Fact Grouping and the Role of Cognitive and Learning Factors.” Journal of Education and Learning 5 (4): 90–103. doi:https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v5n4p90.

 Google Scholar

*Brankaer, C., P. Ghesquière, and B. de Smedt. 2015. “The Effect of a Numerical Domino Game on Numerical Magnitude Processing in Children with Mild Intellectual Disabilities.” Mind, Brain, and Education 9 (1): 29–39. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/mbe.12065.

 Google Scholar

*Tzanakaki, P., R. P. Hastings, C. F. Grindle, J. C. Hughes, and Z. Hoare. 2014. “An Individualized Numeracy Curriculum for Children with Intellectual Disabilities: A Single Blind Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.” Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities 26 (5): 615–632. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-014-9387-z.

 Google Scholar

*Sahbaz, Ü., and S. Katlav. 2018. “Effectiveness of Constant Time Delay Instruction with Error Correction in Teaching the Skill of Identifying the Numerals to Students with Intellectual Disability.” European Journal of Special Education Research 3 (1): 111–131. doi:https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1162967.

 Google Scholar

*Skibo, H., P. Mims, and F. Spooner. 2011. “Teaching Number Identification to Students with Severe Disabilities Using Response Cards.” Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities 46 (1): 124–133.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Browder, D. M., B. A. Jimenez, F. Spooner, A. Saunders, M. Hudson, and K. S. Bethune. 2012. “Early Numeracy Instruction for Students with Moderate and Severe Developmental Disabilities.” Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities 37 (4): 308–320. doi:https://doi.org/10.2511/027494813805327205.

 Google Scholar

*Jimenez, B. A., and M. Kemmery. 2013. “Building the Early Numeracy Skills of Students with Moderate Intellectual Disability.” Division on Autism and Developmental Disabilities 48 (4): 479–490.

 Google Scholar

*Jimenez, B. A., and K. Staples. 2015. “Access to the Common Core State Standards in Mathematics through Early Numeracy Skill Building for Students with Significant Intellectual Disability.” Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities 50 (1): 17–30.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Jimenez, B. A., and J. Besaw. 2020. “Building Early Numeracy through Virtual Manipulatives for Students with Intellectual Disability and Autism.” Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities 55 (1): 28–44.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Wright, J. C., C. J. Lemons, V. F. Knight, E. Lindström, and J. Strauss. 2020. “Enhancing Early Numeracy Skills of Children with Severe Disabilities and Complex Communication Needs.” Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities 55 (3): 277–289.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Hudson, M. E., A. Zambone, and J. Brickhouse. 2016. “Teaching Early Numeracy Skills Using Single Switch Voice-output Devices to Students with Severe Multiple Disabilities.” Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities 28 (1): 153–175. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-015-9451-3.

 Google Scholar

*Jimenez, B. A., and A. Saunders. 2019. “Increasing Efficiency in Mathematics: Teaching Subitizing to Students with Moderate Intellectual Disability.” Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities 31 (1): 23–37. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-018-9624-y.

 Google Scholar

*Calik, N. C., and T. Kargin. 2010. “Effectiveness of the Touch Math Technique in Teaching Addition Skills to Students with Intellectual Disabilities.” International Journal of Special Education 25 (1): 195–204.

 Google Scholar

*Cihak, D. F., and J. L. Foust. 2008. “Comparing Number Lines and Touch Points to Teach Addition Facts to Students with Autism.” Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities 23 (3): 131–137. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1088357608318950.

 Google Scholar

*Stroizer, S., V. Hinton, M. Flores, and L. Terry. 2015. “An Investigation of the Effects of CRA Instruction and Students with Autism Spectrum Disorder.” Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities 50 (2): 223–236.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Zisimopoulos, D. A. 2010. “Enhancing Multiplication Performance in Students with Moderate Intellectual Disabilities Using Pegword Mnemonics Paired with a Picture Fading Technique.” Journal of Behavioral Education 19 (2): 117–133. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-010-9104-7.

 Google Scholar

*Bouck, E. C., L. Bassette, T. Taber-Doughty, S. M. Flanagan, and K. Szwed. 2009. “Pentop Computers as Tools for Teaching Multiplication to Students with Mild Intellectual Disabilities.” Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities 44 (3): 367–380.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Bouck, E. C., J. Park, J. Shurr, L. Bassette, and A. Whorley. 2018. “Using the Virtual–representational–abstract Approach to Support Students with Intellectual Disability in Mathematics.” Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities 33 (4): 237–248. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1088357618755696.

 Google Scholar

*Browder, D. M., F. Spooner, -Y.-Y. Lo, A. F. Saunders, J. R. Root, L. Ley Davis, and C. R. Brosh. 2018. “Teaching Students with Moderate Intellectual Disability to Solve Word Problems.” The Journal of Special Education 51 (4): 222–235. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466917721236.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Root, J. R., D. M. Browder, A. F. Saunders, and -Y.-Y. Lo. 2017. “Schema-based Instruction with Concrete and Virtual Manipulatives to Teach Problem Solving to Students with Autism.” Remedial and Special Education 38 (1): 42–52. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932516643592.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar