What Does the Research Say?
Many of the studies and literature surveys reviewed here have a similar message that has been repeated over the last four decades- even when taking into consideration many of the recent technical advances, nothing replaces sound early literacy instruction. Hanser (2006) writes, "...early writing can be a challenging and frequently overlooked activity for students with significant disabilities including complex communication and physical needs. Beginning with emergent literacy development, writing plays a central role in supporting typical children’s understandings about print. Research in emergent literacy for children with complex communication and physical needs suggest that this population benefits from the same type of literacy activities used with typical children." (p. 4)
*Note: research is divided up into themes. Articles will continue to be added over time.
1) Research on emergent literacy and students with significant disabilities:
Hanser & Erickson, (2007)
These researchers examined the effectiveness of combining word study activities with communication activities for students with complex communication needs. The study used a nonconcurrent, multiple baseline design to assess progress of three students who completed 75 lessons across 4-6 weeks, incorporating 2 models into their instructional framework: Adams' model (1990), a detailed framework addressing how vocabulary and oral language skills are accessed by readers for successful word identification, and 2) Literacy Through Unity, a program developed by the authors that integrates word identification, spelling and communication. The core words in the study were of high communicative value and results showed an increase in spelling, word identification and word generation. The authors suggest that reading, writing and communication should be integrated for best results.
Koppenhaver & Erickson, (2003)
The goal of this study was to increase natural literacy learning opportunities in a preschool classroom for three children with autism spectrum disorders and severe communication impairments over nine months. This particular classroom was grounded in a model that focused mainly in achieving IPP goals. There was very little in the way of exposure to a variety of books and all writing tools were put away and brought out for specific activities only. Teacher expectations were low. The authors, after gathering baseline literacy data for four months began the intervention phase by flooding the classroom with books and tools that could be used for writing- as can be found in many classrooms for typically developing students. Opportunities to interact with books and writing tools were never prescriptive or directive, rather they were exploratory in nature. Finding supported an increased interest in the materials availed to the students and well a deepening understanding and use of books and writing tools. Authors noted that although each student made progress, it was not always a linear process, and it was recommended that close observation over time is required to track and interpret children’s developing and often unconventional literacy learning behaviours.
Koppenhaver, Erickson, Harris, McLellan, Skotko & Newton, (2001)
The authors contend that storybook reading provides a natural language learning context for supporting communication. Using a multiple baseline design, the study focused on 6 girls with Rhett syndrome and their mothers and storybook reading in the home as an early literacy and communication intervention. The focus was on whether and how the girls would engage in labelling during story reading as typically developing children do if given the right supports. Supports included a splint to help give the girls purposeful use of their hands, basic assistive technologies, AAC symbols and parent training. Implicit in the study in the parent training, is the transfer of this training to the educational setting. Parents were taught to give 10-30 seconds of wait time before providing support, to use the communication device by prompting with natural questions rather than demands like “Show me the train.” or “Where’s the girl?”, to attribute meaning to their daughters' communication attempts even if intent was unclear and to ask questions and make comments using available and appropriate symbols. Results of the study suggest that storybook reading is indeed a useful activity and context for literacy and communication development.
Hedrick, Katims & Carr, (1999)
This study is a comprehensive year long literacy intervention. Findings support that students with mild to moderate cognitive disabilities can make measurable gains in word identification, comprehension strategies, phonemic awareness, writing and confidence if taught using a balanced approach to language arts. The authors used an adapted version of the Four Blocks Literacy Framework.
Bedrosian, (1997)
The author examined the literature supporting the use of a language acquisition model for developing literacy skills in typically developing children, and applied it to non-verbal children who use AAC. A longitudinal case study was used to examine conditions that best facilitate the language acquisition process focusing on interactive storybook reading as a means to promote early literacy skills and related language skills. Important here is the author's conclusion that the theoretical constructs that are utilized for typically developing children can also be applied to children who use AAC to develop language and literacy.
Gipe, Duffy & Richards, (1993)
This a story of a non verbal adult, Arthur, with significant physical disabilities as a result of cerebral palsy who, at the age of 33, finally met someone who recognized he had the potential to learn to read and write. Literacy instruction was guided by the then popular whole language principles, many of which remain good research- based practices for literacy learning (e.g., language and language learning are social activities, language learning involves risk, error is inherent in the process of learning to read and write). Over three years, 4 days a week, one hour per day, Arthur engaged in holistic and personally relevant literacy instruction, including access to a computer with speech output. By the end of the third year of intervention, Arthur was independently reading at a fifth grade level, his instructional level was sixth-seventh grade and his listening comprehension was at the college level. Written output did not progress as much, as the focus of instruction was primarily on reading. However, Arthur insisted that, moving forward, the focus of instruction should shift to writing. Given his reading progress, there is no reason to assume he would not be just as successful with written output.
Pierce & McWilliams, (1993)
This review looked at the emergent literacy research for typically developing children and examined those factors that most influence literacy development while exploring how the experiences of children with significant disabilities differ from those of typically developing children. As an example, the authors considered the role of play as an opportunity for children to "...incorporate culturally valued activities..." like reading and writing but also note the difficulties children with significant disabilities have with play in general let alone mimicking reading and writing due to fine and gross motor impairments. The focus in this study is on how to support parents in expanding the role they play regarding early “at home” literacy learning by providing possible intervention strategies.
Koppenhaver, Coleman, Kalman & Yoder (1991)
Although this review was written in 1991 the notion that children with significant disabilities have to be "ready" to be taught to read still exists despite evidence in emergent literacy literature emphatically stating that this is not the case for any child. The authors describe the concept of readiness and why it is still prevalent and then go on to examine the tenets of emergent literacy and how they apply to students with significant disabilities. The authors note that students with significant disabilities often "...experience literacy in qualitatively and quantitatively different ways" (p. 40) than their typically developing peers in that the activities they are exposed to do not support emergent literacy and discuss the attitudinal, environmental and physical barriers that further prevent literacy experiences for this population. They conclude with suggestions for parents, practitioners, and researchers. Although this article directed at speech language professionals, it is also relevant for teachers to consider the implications of the suggestions in the classroom.
2) Presuming Competence:
Jorgensen (2005)
In this paper the author examines prevailing beliefs regarding what we believe to be true when we consider intelligence and intelligence testing, the label of mental retardation and what we believe students with such a label are capable of. Jorgensen begins by describing a student with significant disabilities and asks the reader to consider how the description affects parental and educator beliefs in terms of programing and potential. Jorgensen discusses Donnellan’s concept of the least dangerous assumption, why intelligence testing is, at the very least problematic, and the research regarding what happens when students with significant disabilities are afforded good literacy instruction, assistive technology and high expectations. Next the reader is challenged to re-examine the student described earlier and to choose a path based on prevailing beliefs or on the criterion of the least dangerous assumption. Jorgensen follows with shifts in beliefs and actions should we choose to believe that the least dangerous assumption is to presume competence.
Donnellan (1984)
Donnellan presented a perspective on how to approach instructional decisions for children with complex communication needs, the main point being: “the criterion of least dangerous assumption holds that in the absence of conclusive data, educational decisions ought to be based on assumptions which, if incorrect, will have the least dangerous effect on the student.”(p. 142). Donnellan goes further and shifts the responsibility of poor performance from student deficits to “instructional inadequacy”. The author examined educational practice for students with significant disabilities in several dimensions:
1. the degree of opportunity for interaction with non-handicapped peers and others
2. the nature of educational placement strategies
3. the nature of instructional setting and materials
4. the nature of instructional cues and consequences
5. the nature of instructional arrangement
6. the degree of reliance on instructional inference
7. age appropriateness of curriculum, evaluation methods
8. the degree of home/school communication
Each dimension is discussed in terms of programs for students with autism. The author concludes the least dangerous assumption for students with significant disabilities is to presume competence because to do otherwise is to do harm by providing fewer educational opportunities, segregated classrooms, restricted or poor literacy instruction and limited choices as an adult.
3) Barriers to Literacy Learning for Students with Significant Disabilities:
Koppenhaver (2000)
This paper was presented at the Biennial International Society for Alternative and Augmentative Communication (ISAAC) conference in Dublin, August 1998. Koppenhaver’s main argument is that literacy and AAC are integral to each other and stresses that we cannot think of them as separate entities. Koppenhaver argues that there are two issues that are central to ensuring that literacy development can be addressed with children who use AAC, the first being that emergent literacy is “necessary but not sufficient” and secondly, we must set our sites on the achievement and measurement of conventional literacy outcomes. Koppenhaver cites three research studies (all included on this weebly page) that support, “…that children’s demonstrations of emergent literacy learning seemed much less dependent on cognitive capability than on learning opportunity, modeling possible uses of print and communication symbols, and access to supportive texts and technologies.” (p. 273). The barrier Koppenhaver addresses here is the idea that emergent literacy is not a sufficient literacy outcome in students with complex communication needs.enough. In the second half of this paper, Koppenhaver examines conventional literacy instructional practices and how to apply these with AAC usersget there, including a sheared vision between all stakeholders- parents, clinicians and researchers.
Light & Kelford Smith, (1993)
The authors conducted a survey to compare home literacy experiences of children with significant disabilities who also use AAC to those of their non-disabled peers. Parents responded to questions about the frequency of story reading, time devoted to story reading, availability of writing materials, children's participation in writing activities, means of communication and positioning issues, and parent and child roles in reading activities. Findings support the idea that students with significant disabilities often arrive at school with qualitatively and quantitatively different literacy backgrounds impacting their development in this domain. The authors highlight the barriers as to why this is so.
Koppenhaver, Evans, & Yoder (1991)
This retrospective survey of 22 literate adults with severe physical and speech impairments was conducted to determine their home and school contexts around literacy learning. While the authors caution any interpretation of the data due to “adults looking back in time…and introspection in the face of the shifting sands of time is an uncertain venture at best.” (p. 27), their findings remain important. The respondents reported school environments that offered a wide range of reading instruction but little in the way of social interaction around about their literacy learning. Frustration was reported as there were so few opportunities to discuss their writing or reading with anyone other than the teacher. Respondents also noted a much greater emphasis on reading as opposed to writing both at home and school. The home environment of the respondents were rich with literacy materials and literacy models which contributed to their literacy acquisition. Respondents attributed literacy learning to their own talents, perseverance, as well as the support and expectations of those around them. The authors conclude with the barrier around meaningful work and gainful employment after school completion and the need for further research regarding the application of literacy learning models for typically developing students to this population.
4) Integrating Literacy and Communication:
Erickson, Clendon, Abraham, Roy, Van De Carr (2005)
This study implemented the new (at the time) MEville to WEville curriculum over 8 weeks in three classrooms with 23 students with significant disabilities. The instructional approach of this curriculum is of interest as it was designed to support integrated literacy and communication learning as opposed to repeated trials or mastery focused instruction. The study found modest gains based on comparisons of pre-test and post-test literacy measures in writing, letter identification, concepts about print and phonological awareness.
Sturm & Clendon (2004)
This article looks at the language and literacy relationship for students who use AAC and includes a table outlining required language domains and the implications these domains have for reading and writing. The authors argue that if an AAC user is to become a proficient communicator, “…language and literacy must be embedded in their lives from infancy.” (p.79). The article offers a close examination of the barriers these students face and also includes literacy deficits and their impact by considering language development, AAC and their relationship to literacy learning. For instance AAC users typically demonstrate impaired pragmatic skills that are needed to understand an authors’ intention and audience. The authors offer a look at best practice for students with complex communication needs as well as directions for future research.
Erickson, Koppenhaver, Yoder & Nance (1997)
The authors describe the instructional strategies and rationale involved in teaching Jordan, an 11 year old student with significant disabilities including speech, physical visual and cognitive impairments. Balanced literacy instruction with in an inclusive classroom provided learning opportunities in reading comprehension, word analysis, self-selected reading, and writing. An AAC device was used for communication as well as for written communication. The authors are clear about the difficulties inherent in becoming literate for this population stressing that a multi disciplinary team is a necessity in order to problem solve and collaborate effectively as there is “no single solution to literacy learning” for this population.
Blischak (1995)
A longitudinal case study involving a second grade student, Thomas, in an inclusive classroom who has quadriplegic cerebral palsy with severe physical, speech and vision impairments. The author describes the broad range of assessments, interventions, successes and difficulties of providing "meaningful, experientially based literacy instruction with a variety of persons, objects and materials" (p. 17). The intervention program included a wide variety of literacy learning experiences, reading aloud, independent book access, writing and modeling of reading. High expectations for Thomas were prevalent. Blischak describes the challenges presented by Thomas’s impairments but also describes accommodations and how the intervention goals met Thomas’s needs.
This study implemented the new (at the time) MEville to WEville curriculum over 8 weeks in three classrooms with 23 students with significant disabilities. The instructional approach of this curriculum is of interest as it was designed to support integrated literacy and communication learning as opposed to repeated trials or mastery focused instruction. The study found modest gains based on comparisons of pre-test and post-test literacy measures in writing, letter identification, concepts about print and phonological awareness.
Sturm & Clendon (2004)
This article looks at the language and literacy relationship for students who use AAC and includes a table outlining required language domains and the implications these domains have for reading and writing. The authors argue that if an AAC user is to become a proficient communicator, “…language and literacy must be embedded in their lives from infancy.” (p.79). The article offers a close examination of the barriers these students face and also includes literacy deficits and their impact by considering language development, AAC and their relationship to literacy learning. For instance AAC users typically demonstrate impaired pragmatic skills that are needed to understand an authors’ intention and audience. The authors offer a look at best practice for students with complex communication needs as well as directions for future research.
Erickson, Koppenhaver, Yoder & Nance (1997)
The authors describe the instructional strategies and rationale involved in teaching Jordan, an 11 year old student with significant disabilities including speech, physical visual and cognitive impairments. Balanced literacy instruction with in an inclusive classroom provided learning opportunities in reading comprehension, word analysis, self-selected reading, and writing. An AAC device was used for communication as well as for written communication. The authors are clear about the difficulties inherent in becoming literate for this population stressing that a multi disciplinary team is a necessity in order to problem solve and collaborate effectively as there is “no single solution to literacy learning” for this population.
Blischak (1995)
A longitudinal case study involving a second grade student, Thomas, in an inclusive classroom who has quadriplegic cerebral palsy with severe physical, speech and vision impairments. The author describes the broad range of assessments, interventions, successes and difficulties of providing "meaningful, experientially based literacy instruction with a variety of persons, objects and materials" (p. 17). The intervention program included a wide variety of literacy learning experiences, reading aloud, independent book access, writing and modeling of reading. High expectations for Thomas were prevalent. Blischak describes the challenges presented by Thomas’s impairments but also describes accommodations and how the intervention goals met Thomas’s needs.
5) Writing for Students With Significant Disabilities:
Hanser (2013)
This paper is a review of best practice in emergent writing for students with significant disabilities. Hanser begins by describing the concept of emergent writing for students without disabilities to raise the point that children do not need to be "ready" to engage in or be exposed to emergent writing activities, in fact it begins at birth. This must include students with significant disabilities. The focus of the article is on using the alphabet specifically, rather than selecting whole words or phrases from word banks, to teach writing. Hanser uses classroom vignettes to highlight issues such as the importance to choosing the right alternative pencil, minimizing the physical demands placed on writers and choosing writing topics. The article also provides strategies and suggestions for potential assistive technology devices.
Sturm, Cali, Nelson, & Staskowski (2012)
This report describes the procedures used create the Developmental Writing Scale (DWS) for beginning writers with which was developed out of the need to have a tool sensitive enough to track the the sometimes small advances in the writing quality of beginning writers with and without disabilities. The authors contend that, "...no measure currently exists to bridge single letter writing and spelling and beginning composition abilities." (p. 299) and further state that current measures are not sensitive enough to mark progress and instead focus on what a student can't do with text. The current version of the DWS contains a 14 point developmental scale, standardized scoring criteria, examples, and accommodations for each level. The DWS was designed with the following purposes in mind:
Wollak & Koppenhaver (2011)
The purpose of this seven year case study was to improve writing outcomes for junior high students with disabilities in inclusive classrooms via and e-pal exchange with pre-service teachers. Significant in this study is the adapted Flowers & Hayes model that addresses the underlying cognitive processes of writing. The original model holds that planning, translating, and reviewing are necessary to written communication (see Flower & Hayes, 1981). In order to consider the challenges of writing for students with significant disabilities, the authors added the constructs of production- the processes inherent in an alternative writing tool, motivation- the writer’s willingness to actively engage, and social context.
The authors selection of computer based literacies to support an e-pal exchange to enhance writing included the use of Co:Writer, a robust word prediction program to ensure students had access to the words they wanted to spell. Students were taught a structure for sending the email and were also given the opportunity to share their writing by having the computer read it aloud. Next students were given the choice to send their message as is, revise and/or edit- tasks students with significant disabilities rarely engage in. Blog writing, Twitter and instant messaging was also introduced once confidence with the e-pal exchange was established. General student outcomes include increased engagement and growth in written language abilities. For an in depth look at the cognitive processes of writing and students with complex communication needs, see Koppenhaver & Williams, 2010 and Sturm and Koppenhaver 2000.
Hanser (2006)
This article was written to aid the reader, occupational therapists in particular, in identifying environmental and physical factors that foster emergent writing for students without disabilities, identifying environmental and physical barriers to emergent writing for students with significant disabilities and selecting tools and activities to support emergent writing for students with significant disabilities. Hanser discusses a number of alternative pencils using case studies to illustrate appropriate selection as well as ways to build meaningful writing opportunities.
This paper is a review of best practice in emergent writing for students with significant disabilities. Hanser begins by describing the concept of emergent writing for students without disabilities to raise the point that children do not need to be "ready" to engage in or be exposed to emergent writing activities, in fact it begins at birth. This must include students with significant disabilities. The focus of the article is on using the alphabet specifically, rather than selecting whole words or phrases from word banks, to teach writing. Hanser uses classroom vignettes to highlight issues such as the importance to choosing the right alternative pencil, minimizing the physical demands placed on writers and choosing writing topics. The article also provides strategies and suggestions for potential assistive technology devices.
Sturm, Cali, Nelson, & Staskowski (2012)
This report describes the procedures used create the Developmental Writing Scale (DWS) for beginning writers with which was developed out of the need to have a tool sensitive enough to track the the sometimes small advances in the writing quality of beginning writers with and without disabilities. The authors contend that, "...no measure currently exists to bridge single letter writing and spelling and beginning composition abilities." (p. 299) and further state that current measures are not sensitive enough to mark progress and instead focus on what a student can't do with text. The current version of the DWS contains a 14 point developmental scale, standardized scoring criteria, examples, and accommodations for each level. The DWS was designed with the following purposes in mind:
- Identify small differences in beginning writing skills
- Offer instructionally relevant information about what to target next
- Serve as a functional outcome measure for periodic assessment probes and classroom produced writing artifacts
- Be easy for educators to learn and use reliably
- Quantify evidence of small but significant changes so educators can celebrate growth with students and their caregivers.
Wollak & Koppenhaver (2011)
The purpose of this seven year case study was to improve writing outcomes for junior high students with disabilities in inclusive classrooms via and e-pal exchange with pre-service teachers. Significant in this study is the adapted Flowers & Hayes model that addresses the underlying cognitive processes of writing. The original model holds that planning, translating, and reviewing are necessary to written communication (see Flower & Hayes, 1981). In order to consider the challenges of writing for students with significant disabilities, the authors added the constructs of production- the processes inherent in an alternative writing tool, motivation- the writer’s willingness to actively engage, and social context.
The authors selection of computer based literacies to support an e-pal exchange to enhance writing included the use of Co:Writer, a robust word prediction program to ensure students had access to the words they wanted to spell. Students were taught a structure for sending the email and were also given the opportunity to share their writing by having the computer read it aloud. Next students were given the choice to send their message as is, revise and/or edit- tasks students with significant disabilities rarely engage in. Blog writing, Twitter and instant messaging was also introduced once confidence with the e-pal exchange was established. General student outcomes include increased engagement and growth in written language abilities. For an in depth look at the cognitive processes of writing and students with complex communication needs, see Koppenhaver & Williams, 2010 and Sturm and Koppenhaver 2000.
Hanser (2006)
This article was written to aid the reader, occupational therapists in particular, in identifying environmental and physical factors that foster emergent writing for students without disabilities, identifying environmental and physical barriers to emergent writing for students with significant disabilities and selecting tools and activities to support emergent writing for students with significant disabilities. Hanser discusses a number of alternative pencils using case studies to illustrate appropriate selection as well as ways to build meaningful writing opportunities.
References
Bedrosian, J. (1997). Language acquisition in young AAC system users: Issues and directions for future research. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 13(3), 179-185.
Blischak, D. M. (1995). Thomas the writer: Case study of a child with severe physical, speech and visual impairments. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 26, 11-20.
Carpe, A., Harder, K., Tam, C., & Reid, D. (2010). Perceptions of writing and communication aid use among children with a physical disability. Assistive Technology, 22(2), 87-98.
Donnellan, A. M. (1984). The criterion of the least dangerous assumption. Behavioral Disorders.9, 141-150.
Erickson, K. A., Clendon, S., Abraham, L., Roy, V., & Van de Carr, H. (2005). Toward Positive Literacy Outcomes for Students with Significant Developmental Disabilities. Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits, 2(1), 45-54.
Erickson, K. A., Koppenhaver, D. A., Yoder, D. E., & Nance, J. (1997). Integrated communication and literacy instruction for a child with multiple disabilities. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 12, 142-150.
Gipe, J. P., Duffy, C. A., & Richards, J. C. (1993). Helping a nonspeaking adult male with cerebral palsy achieve literacy. Journal of Reading, 380-389.
Hanser, G. (2006). Promoting emergent writing for students with significant disabilities. OT Practice, 11(9), 1-8.
Hanser, G., & Erickson, K. A. (2007). Integrated Word Identification and Communication Instruction for Students with Complex Communication Needs: Preliminary Results. Focus on Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 22(4), 268-278.
Hanser, G. (2013). Getting writing with the alphabet on the radar for students with significant physical and intellectual disabilities. Closing the Gap, Feb/Mar, 24-31.
Hedrick, W. B., Katims, D. S., & Carr, N. J. (1999). Implementing a multimethod, multilevel literacy program for students with mental retardation. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 14(4), 231-239.
Jorgensen, C. (2005). The least dangerous assumption: A challenge to create a new paradigm. Disability Solutions. 6, 1-15.
Koppenhaver, D. A., Coleman, P., Kalman, S., & Yoder, D. (1991). The implications of emergent literacy research for children with developmental disabilities. American Journal of Speech-Language-Pathology: A Journal of Clinical Practice, 1, 38-44.
Koppenhaver, D., Evans, D., & Yoder, D. (1991). Childhood reading and writing experiences of literate adults with severe speech and motor impairments. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 7(1), 20-33.
Koppenhaver, D. (2000). Literacy in AAC: What should be written on the envelope we push?. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 16(4), 270-279.
Koppenhaver, D. A., Erickson, K. A., Harris, B., McLellan, J., Skotko, B., Newton, R. A. (2001). Storybook-based communication intervention for girls with rett syndrome and their mothers. Disability and Rehabilitation, 23(3/4), 149-159.
Koppenhaver, D. A., Erickson, K. A. (2003). Natural emergent literacy supports for preschoolers with autism and severe communication impairments. Topics in Language Disorders, 23(4), 283-293.
Koppenhaver, D., & Williams, A. (2010). A conceptual review of writing research in augmentative and alternative communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 26(3), 158-176.
Light, J., Binger, C., & Smith, A. K. (1994). Story reading interactions between preschoolers who use AAC and their mothers. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 10(4), 255-268.
Light, J., Kelford Smith, A. (1993). The home literacy experiences of preschoolers who use augmentative communication systems and of their nondisabled peers. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 9, 10-25.
Pierce, P. L., & McWilliam, P. J. (1993). Emerging literacy and children with severe speech and physical impairments (SSPI): Issues and possible intervention strategies. Topics in Language Disorders, 13(2), 47-57.
Sturm, J., & Koppenhaver, D. A. (2000). Supporting writing development in adolescents with developmental disabilities. Topics in Language Disorders,20(2), 73-92.
Sturm, J. M., & Clendon, S. A. (2004). Augmentative and alternative communication, language, and literacy: Fostering the relationship. Topics in Language Disorders, 24(1), 76-91.
Sturm, J. M., Cali, K., Nelson, N. W., & Staskowski, M. (2012). The Developmental Writing Scale: A new progress monitoring tool for beginning writers. Topics in Language Disorders, 32(4), 297-318.
Wollak, B. A., & Koppenhaver, D. A. (2011). Developing Technology-Supported, Evidence-Based Writing Instruction for Adolescents with Significant Writing Disabilities. Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits, 7(1), 1-23.
Blischak, D. M. (1995). Thomas the writer: Case study of a child with severe physical, speech and visual impairments. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 26, 11-20.
Carpe, A., Harder, K., Tam, C., & Reid, D. (2010). Perceptions of writing and communication aid use among children with a physical disability. Assistive Technology, 22(2), 87-98.
Donnellan, A. M. (1984). The criterion of the least dangerous assumption. Behavioral Disorders.9, 141-150.
Erickson, K. A., Clendon, S., Abraham, L., Roy, V., & Van de Carr, H. (2005). Toward Positive Literacy Outcomes for Students with Significant Developmental Disabilities. Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits, 2(1), 45-54.
Erickson, K. A., Koppenhaver, D. A., Yoder, D. E., & Nance, J. (1997). Integrated communication and literacy instruction for a child with multiple disabilities. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 12, 142-150.
Gipe, J. P., Duffy, C. A., & Richards, J. C. (1993). Helping a nonspeaking adult male with cerebral palsy achieve literacy. Journal of Reading, 380-389.
Hanser, G. (2006). Promoting emergent writing for students with significant disabilities. OT Practice, 11(9), 1-8.
Hanser, G., & Erickson, K. A. (2007). Integrated Word Identification and Communication Instruction for Students with Complex Communication Needs: Preliminary Results. Focus on Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 22(4), 268-278.
Hanser, G. (2013). Getting writing with the alphabet on the radar for students with significant physical and intellectual disabilities. Closing the Gap, Feb/Mar, 24-31.
Hedrick, W. B., Katims, D. S., & Carr, N. J. (1999). Implementing a multimethod, multilevel literacy program for students with mental retardation. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 14(4), 231-239.
Jorgensen, C. (2005). The least dangerous assumption: A challenge to create a new paradigm. Disability Solutions. 6, 1-15.
Koppenhaver, D. A., Coleman, P., Kalman, S., & Yoder, D. (1991). The implications of emergent literacy research for children with developmental disabilities. American Journal of Speech-Language-Pathology: A Journal of Clinical Practice, 1, 38-44.
Koppenhaver, D., Evans, D., & Yoder, D. (1991). Childhood reading and writing experiences of literate adults with severe speech and motor impairments. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 7(1), 20-33.
Koppenhaver, D. (2000). Literacy in AAC: What should be written on the envelope we push?. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 16(4), 270-279.
Koppenhaver, D. A., Erickson, K. A., Harris, B., McLellan, J., Skotko, B., Newton, R. A. (2001). Storybook-based communication intervention for girls with rett syndrome and their mothers. Disability and Rehabilitation, 23(3/4), 149-159.
Koppenhaver, D. A., Erickson, K. A. (2003). Natural emergent literacy supports for preschoolers with autism and severe communication impairments. Topics in Language Disorders, 23(4), 283-293.
Koppenhaver, D., & Williams, A. (2010). A conceptual review of writing research in augmentative and alternative communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 26(3), 158-176.
Light, J., Binger, C., & Smith, A. K. (1994). Story reading interactions between preschoolers who use AAC and their mothers. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 10(4), 255-268.
Light, J., Kelford Smith, A. (1993). The home literacy experiences of preschoolers who use augmentative communication systems and of their nondisabled peers. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 9, 10-25.
Pierce, P. L., & McWilliam, P. J. (1993). Emerging literacy and children with severe speech and physical impairments (SSPI): Issues and possible intervention strategies. Topics in Language Disorders, 13(2), 47-57.
Sturm, J., & Koppenhaver, D. A. (2000). Supporting writing development in adolescents with developmental disabilities. Topics in Language Disorders,20(2), 73-92.
Sturm, J. M., & Clendon, S. A. (2004). Augmentative and alternative communication, language, and literacy: Fostering the relationship. Topics in Language Disorders, 24(1), 76-91.
Sturm, J. M., Cali, K., Nelson, N. W., & Staskowski, M. (2012). The Developmental Writing Scale: A new progress monitoring tool for beginning writers. Topics in Language Disorders, 32(4), 297-318.
Wollak, B. A., & Koppenhaver, D. A. (2011). Developing Technology-Supported, Evidence-Based Writing Instruction for Adolescents with Significant Writing Disabilities. Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits, 7(1), 1-23.