Self monitoring among secondary and post-secondary students with intellectual and developmental disabilities : a systematic review

Full text

1
SPECIAL EDUCATION RESEARCH, POLICY & PRACTICE
(2021 Edition)
2021 Edition
Volume 5
Table of Contents Page
Editorial Board of Reviewers 3
Promotion of Positive Partnerships with Culturally and Linguistically Diverse
Parents of General Education and Students with Special Needs
Nicole Manly and Darlene Desbrow
6
Characteristics of Rural STEM Clubs and Implications for Students with Disabilities
Karin M. Fisher, Peggy Shannon-Baker, Kelly Brooksher, and Kania Greer 15
Increasing Teacher Education Candidate Collaboration Knowledge and Skill
Through Approximation of Practice
Cathy L. Eschete, Renée E. Lastrapes, and Paul Mooney
40
Preparing Preservice Special Educators for Culturally and
Linguistically Diverse Classrooms: A Systematic Review of
Teacher Preparation Programs
Krystal Lewis-Pratl, Yojanna Cuenca-Carlino, and April Mustian
59
Self-Monitoring Among Secondary and Post-Secondary Students with
Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities: A Systematic Review
Melvin S. Marsh and Stephanie M. Devine
79
Pre-Service Teachers’ Noticing of Struggling Students’
Mathematical Thinking
Emily N. Rutherford and Dittika Gupta
95

2
Intellectual Development and Specific Learning Disability: 102
The Role of Norm-Referenced Tests
Edward K. Schultz, Emily Rutherford, and Dennis Cavitt
Training Preservice Special Educators for Professional Collaboration: 116
What Teacher Educators Think and Do
Laurie A. Sharp and Michelle Simmons
3D Printing as a Teaching Tool for People who are 128
Blind and Visually Impaired
Julia VanderMolen and Jennifer Fortuna
A Comparison of Adolescents’ Goals for One and Five Years 141
After High School Graduation
Kendra Williams-Diehm, Penny Cantwell, Kylie Lyons,
Malarie Deardorff, and Patricia Lynch
Author Guidelines 163
Publishing Process 164
Copyright and Reprint Rights 165

79
Self-Monitoring Among Secondary and Post-Secondary Students with Intellectual and
Developmental Disabilities: A Systematic Review
Melvin S. Marsh, MS
Stephanie M. Devine, PhD
Georgia Southern University
Abstract
Individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) are going to college to earn
certificates of completion in ever-increasing numbers in the pursuit of obtaining competitive
employment (Cullen, Simmons-Reed, & Weaver, 2017). However, these students may need more
support in order to reach their full potential and to survive and thrive independently as they
transition to adulthood. Learning how to self-monitor is an important skill for success in college
and employment. Unfortunately, there are significant gaps in the literature on self-monitoring for
students with IDD who are attending post-secondary institutions. A preliminary search of the
literature has revealed very few studies applicable to self-monitoring behaviors in college-aged
individuals with IDD. This paper will reflect the results of a detailed search of the peer-reviewed
literature surrounding this topic.
Keywords: developmental disabilities, self-monitoring, intellectual disabilities, postsecondary,
transition
Self-Monitoring Among Secondary and Post-Secondary Students with Intellectual and
Developmental Disabilities: A Systematic Review
For those with intellectual disabilities and developmental disabilities (IDD), the future often does
not consist of as many positive outcomes as peers who do not have such disabilities. This can be
seen in many quality-of-life outcomes where those with disabilities are more likely to be
overweight, exercise less, have more medical difficulties, and significantly lower incomes
(Lobenius-Palmér, Sjöqvist, Hurtig-Wennlöf, & Lundqvist, 2018; Ptomey et al., 2017). In
addition, those students with IDD are frequently unable to have the same educational opportunities
as traditional students (Cullen et al., 2017). A post-secondary education, even if it does not lead to
a completion of a degree, is often found to lead to a higher quality of life, including increased
likelihood of employment as well as increased wages when employed (Cullen et al., 2017). To
promote better postsecondary outcomes, many students with IDD are encouraged to attend post-
secondary education such as inclusive college opportunities, of which, there are more than 290
programs across the United States (ThinkCollege.net). However, to complete a college program
successfully, students need a high degree of self-determination.
Poor outcomes for those with IDD are often linked to relatively low self-determination skills and
self-management skills (Cullen et al., 2017). While self-determination skills can be challenging for
anyone to learn, it is often more challenging for those with disabilities. Self-determination skills
can include advocating for one’s self, setting one’s own goals, making decisions, and doing what
they can to reach whichever goal they set for themselves. Cullen et al. (2017) suggest that the first
step towards developing or improving self-determination skills often starts with improving and
mastering independent completion of daily living skills. While other same-age peers without
disabilities may be expanding their opportunities and increasing their independence as they reach
adulthood, those with IDD may have fewer opportunities, if any at all, to participate in their

80
community or complete tasks independently (Bouck, Savage, Meyer, Taber-Doughty, & Hunley,
2014; Cannella-Malone, Brooks, & Tullis, 2013). Learned helplessness is a common side effect of
others making decisions or completing tasks for another person, which is frequently a risk for
individuals with IDD as they tend to have limited exposure to self-determination skill development
(Cannella-Malone et al., 2013).
One way for educators to help increase self-determination skills so individuals with IDD are able to
have more opportunities to successfully transition into the real world may be in improving self-
monitoring skills. Self-monitoring is often considered a component of self-management (Clemons,
Mason, Garrison-Kane, & Wills, 2016) and is defined as a method to change behavior through self-
directed observation and recording of one’s own behavior (Mace et al., 2001). Increased self-
monitoring can improve self-reliance and quality of life and decrease dependence on others (Bouck
et al., 2014). Self-monitoring has also been shown to improve the academic skills of students in
middle and high school in the areas of reading comprehension (Kozminsky & Kozminsky, 2001),
assignment accuracy (Cancio, West, & Young, 2004), writing productivity (Trevino-Maack,
Kamps, & Wills, 2015) and general on-task behavior (Faul, Stepensky, & Simonsen, 2012).
Unfortunately, there is very little research relating to young adults with IDD as it pertains to
improving their self-monitoring skills. Most recent research is related to the elementary age
population both with and without IDD (Clemons et al., 2016; Lively, Myers, & Levin, 2019),
which may be due to structural characteristics of high schools as opposed to elementary schools
(Clemons et al., 2016). This gap in the literature needs to be explored because young adults with
IDD are attending college at record high rates. Therefore, the purpose of this review is to
consolidate quality self-monitoring studies found on secondary or postsecondary-aged students
with IDD. While the focus is ideally the college-aged population, due to limited studies in this age
range, this review includes the high school population for relevant studies.
The purpose of this study is to review the findings in previous literature relating to self-monitoring
technique use among high school students and young adults with IDD. The research questions
include the following:
1. What systems (personnel, technology, software, etc.) are being used to support self-
monitoring skill development for adolescents or young adults with intellectual and/or
developmental disabilities?
2. What skills are being targeted in these self-monitoring interventions?
3. How successful is the system/intervention?
4. What level of evidence is provided by the reviewed studies?
Method
A literature search was conducted in order to find relevant studies that might be appropriate to help
young adults with IDD enrolled in inclusive post-secondary education programs (IPSE) in order to
improve their self-monitoring skills. Due to limited research on this age group, this literature
review included studies for participants ranging in age from 14 to 26.
Eligibility Criteria

81
All studies included in this review met the following criteria: a) contained at least one participant
who had a diagnosis of IDD between 14 and 26; b) completed single-case or group design study
published in a peer-reviewed journal within the last 7 years; and c) included an independent
variable with some form of technology-based self-monitoring technique or support. For the
purposes of this review, the authors considered self-monitoring techniques to include any
technologically based intervention that supported the participant observing and recording their own
behavior. Due to the importance of current and relevant self-monitoring technology to inform
practice, only studies published since 2013 were included.
Search Strategy
A literature search was conducted to identify peer-reviewed articles relating to adolescents and
young adults with IDD in which a technology-based self-monitoring intervention was attempted.
A multi-database search engine at the authors’ university was utilized in order to efficiently search
many databases at once. This EBSCO Discovery Search engine included 97 peer-reviewed
academic journal databases such as Academic Search Complete, APA PsychInfo, Child
Development & Adolescent Studies, Directory of open access journals ERIC, JSTOR, Medline,
ScienceDirect, Medline, the Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection, Sage Online, and
Teacher Resource Center.
Search terms were systematically created and applied using a variety of combinations to maximize
the possible resources. The following keywords were used: intellectual disability, developmental
disability, IDD, self-monitoring, technology, secondary, post-secondary, adult, grooming, hygiene,
work tasks, employment tasks, peer or caregiver, goal setting. All results were peer-reviewed
English language journal articles. The database searches resulted in a total of 35,856 articles. All
records were imported into Endnote X9 for screening. Duplicates were identified by the software
and the first author confirmed and deleted the duplicates. Titles and abstracts were then hand-
screened by the first author. If an abstract appeared to meet the inclusion criteria, the article was
read to confirm relevance and included in the study. For questions in which the researcher was
uncertain, a second researcher was utilized. The primary reason for exclusion was that the article
did not relate to people with disabilities. The second reason was the study failed to include at least
one person in the target age range. The tertiary reason was not including a self-monitoring
intervention.
After review, 27 studies were found to meet the inclusion criteria. Information about the articles
was extracted and recorded, including the APA citation information, research problem, sample,
independent and dependent variables, any instrumentation used, who provided support to the
person with IDD, procedures, results, conclusions, any obvious weaknesses of the study, relevance,
and major focus area. All of these were coded by the first author. Inter-rater reliability of 87% was
collected when a second author extracted the same information for 10 randomly selected studies.
Discrepancies were then discussed between the two authors and revised collectively.
Of the 27 remaining studies, each was analyzed using the quality indicators provided by the
National Technical Assistance Center on Transition (NTACT), either the single case or group
experimental as appropriate (NTACT 2016a, 2016b). See Table 1 for quality indicators used. The
primary author coded each study using the appropriate scale. The second author randomly selected
25% of articles to code. Inter-rater reliability for quality indicators was 75% overall agreement
across all articles. Discrepancies were then discussed between the two authors until agreement was
obtained and revised collectively.
Table 1.

82
Criteria for Inclusion and Quality Assessment for Each Study
Overall Characteristics
 The dependent variable skill is related to postsecondary transition
 Includes youth with disabilities between 11 and 26
 Rigorous research design. For Single Case research, this would include reversal, multiple
baseline, multiple probe, changing criterion, or alternating treatment
Numbered Characteristics (each must be operationally described in such a way as other
research teams could easily replicate)
1. Participant characteristics
2. Participant selection process
3. Setting features critical to the physical environment
4. Dependent variable (DV)
5. Quantifiable index measure procedure for each DV
6. Measurement process
7. Repeated measures of DV over time
8. Inter-observer agreement (IOA) and or reliability data were collected and met minimal
standards (e.g., IOA = 80%)
9. Independent variable (IV)
10. Systematic manipulation of IV and demonstration of control of the experimenter
11. Fidelity of implementation was directly measured and reported
12. Baseline measures included repeated measurement of the DV, demonstrated a stable
and predictable pattern (5 or more data points recommended)
13. Baseline procedures and conditions
14. A minimum of three demonstrations of experimental effect at different point in time
15. Common threats to internal validity were controlled in the design
16. External validity is established through the replication of the experimental effects
across participants, settings, or materials.
17. Socially important DV
18. The size of the change from intervention is deemed socially important
19. The author states that the IV implementation is practical and cost effective
20. The social validity of the intervention is enhanced by extended implementation time
periods, supported by typical intervention agents, and completed in typical physical
and/or social contexts.
High quality (Study meets all 20 indicators) 2
Acceptable quality (Study meets indicators 1-16 and at least one of 17-20) 13
Did not meet quality standards 13
Note. Based on the Quality Indicator Checklists for Group Experimental and Single Case Research
Designs from the National Technical Assistance Center on Transition (2016).
Results
Of these studies, 14 met the criteria for acceptable or high-quality studies as provided by the
NTACT Quality Indicators. All 14 were single-case research designs. A total of 12 were
considered acceptable quality while 2 met the criteria for high quality studies. A summary of each
of the 14 studies were included in Table 2.

83
Table 2.
Characteristics from Acceptable Quality Studies
Reference, Dependent SM Technology/ Setting / Research Results
Affiliation, Variable Intervention and Participants Design
and Quality Support
Rating
Bouck et al. Food Comparison of Public school, Alternatin All students
(2014) preparation high-tech and USA g performed better
: low-tech self- treatment with iPad than
Purdue % of monitoring 13, female design pencil and paper
University correctly systems: iPad Two 15-year-old method self-
completed with Upad App students (one monitoring
Acceptable steps in a (notetaking app male, one female) method
10-step with photos) and with ASD, ID,
recipe paper/pencil, and language
process Researcher impairment. All
with four support, Caucasian.
ingredients Verbal prompting
Cannella- Cleaning: iPod Touch, Special school, Multiple All students
Malone et al. % of InPromptu App USA probe improved task
(2013) correctly (used to self- across performance with
completed check steps in 16, Caucasian participan video prompting
The Ohio steps to task) male with CP and ts in the stages they
State Washing a ID experienced. Of
University, table Teacher support, 16, African the students were
Ball State (Phase 1) Video prompting American male maintenance was
University and with error with DD. acquired,
teaching correction, 15, male with DS, students
Acceptable themselves Most-to-least aphasia, patent maintained at
to vacuum prompts to teach ductus arteriosus. 100%
(Phase 2) iPod Race not
specified.
17, female with
ADHD, PDD.
Race not
specified.

84
Cannella- Vocational iPod Touch, IPSE, USA Adapted Both students
Malone, skills: InPromptu App alternatin improved their
Chan, and % of steps (used to self- 28, male with g performance on
Jimenez completed check steps in ASD, DD, treatment the tasks they
(2017) correctly in task) moderate ID, and design were assigned.
collating, speech and
The Ohio folding, Teacher support, language
State copy in Least to most impairment.
University, groups, prompting, 26, DS, moderate
Northern copy Video prompting ID, and a hearing
Illinois double- with error impairment.
University sided tasks correction
Acceptable
Clemons et Classroom Samsung Galaxy Public school, ABAB All students
al. (2016) engagemen Player 5.0, I- USA single- improved their
t Connect, subject performance
Missouri On-task Gymboss interval 17, male with withdrawa during
State behavior timer (used for specific LD l intervention with
University, self-check) 17, male with maintenance
University of ASD ranging from
Kansas Researcher 15, female with 83% to 100%
support, ID
Acceptable Verbal prompting
to identify target
behaviors,
teaching
technology,
Error correction
Cullen et al. General iPad, MyPicsTalk IPSE, USA multiple All students
(2017) daily App, probe improved their
living: Support not 22, Caucasian across performance
Ball State explicitly stated, male with ASD participan during
University, Four types Self-directed 20, Caucasian ts intervention,
The Ohio of cleaning video prompting, male with DS, regardless of how
State tasks: Video created ID, and mild many
University original visual impairment components the
task 24, Caucasian tasks had.
Acceptable plus 3 male with ID and
variations TBI

85
English et al. Vocational Video monitoring Non-profit, multiple Two participants
(2017) skills (video prompting Australia probe acquired skills
Gardening for one design with video
Monash skills participant) used 18, male with across monitoring while
University (Picking, as self-check ASD skills one required
planting, 23, male with video prompting.
Acceptable quality Researcher Asperger’s and All maintained
control, support, social anxiety skills.
bed Video creation 23, male with
marking, (researcher as ASD, anxiety,
hoeing, model) selective mutism,
and epilepsy
labeling)
Gushanas Hygiene: General online IPSE, USA multiple- All students
and self-monitoring baseline successfully
Thompson Reducing checklist 21, Caucasian across- reduced their
(2019) Body Odor (SurveyMonkey) male with CP and participan body odor using
OI ts self-monitoring
Texas A&M Researcher 19, Caucasian techniques.
University support male with
ADHD, EBD
Acceptable Trainings on the 22, Hispanic male
checklist with ASD
21, African
American female
with TBI
20, Caucasian
male with
unspecified ID
Heider, Vocational iPhone, video Public school multiple All students
Cannella- skills: prompting USA probe successfully
Malone, and across learned and
Andzik Making Researcher 21, female with behaviors maintained at
(2019) name tags, support, moderate ID, DS, 100%, three of
setting up Self-directed selective mutism, the four tasks
The Ohio coffee prompting, moderate hearing with no student
State trays, Training on loss maintaining at
University wrapping technology, 21, male with 100% for the
boxes Video creation moderate ID and wrapping task
Acceptable DS

86
Kellems, General iPad, VideoTote Community multiple All students
Rickard, daily App to show living, USA probe improved their
Okray, living, video modelling across performance on
Sauer-Sagiv, cleaning, of task 20, male with behaviors tasks learned and
and food Fragile X maintained at
Washburn preparation Static picture- Syndrome and ID between 80% to
(2018) based task 19, male with 100% depending
Possible analysis (used as ASD and ID on student and
Brigham tasks self-check), 20, female with task.
Young included: Support person ASD and ID
University, not explicitly
Eugene 4J Food – stated,
School Making, Video creation,
District, Cleaning, Technology
University of Daily training
Oregon, living –
Springfield mailing a
School letter
District
High
Kim (2018) Vocational Samsung mini- Rehabilitation multiple All students
skills: netbook, video facility, probe improved on task
Kim, Lotus Gardening monitoring Korea across behavior,
Flowers (Watering participan weeding,
Children and Support Person Three Korean ts watering during
Center Weeding), not explicitly males (ages 13 to intervention.
On-task stated although 14) with ASD
Acceptable behavior there was a staff and language
model impairment
Lively et al. On task Vibrating watch Juvenile justice, single- All students
(2019) behavior (to alert student USA case improved on task
for on-task concurren behavior during
Texas behavior) 15, male with t multiple- intervention (70
Woman’s EBD baseline to 91% average)
University, Teacher support 16, male with no design and all
University of documented maintained after
Wisconsin- Training on the disability intervention
Madison, technology 16, male with a withdrawn (77 to
University of specific LD and 85%)
Arizona Training on ADHD
intervention
High specific
paperwork

87
Mackey and Vocational Video Feedback Transition within- All desired
Nelson skills; (self-evaluation Academy participan behaviors
(2015) hygiene, of video of USA t multiple- increased during
active behavior) probe intervention 1
University of engagemen Two, 19-year-old design except for those
St Joseph t, decision Job Coach identical across that were near
making, Caucasian male behaviors, the ceiling. Very
Acceptable appropriate twins with ASD few changes
interaction and ID occurred between
s with intervention 1
others, and and 2.
transitions
Wu, Cleaning iPod Touch, Public school multiple Video prompting
Cannella- Table iMovie (to USA probe with error
Malone, washing, provide video across correction
Wheaton, Window prompting as a 14, nonverbal participan effectively taught
and Tullis washing self-check), male student with ts design two daily
(2016) Auxiliary speaker ASD and ID with a living/workplace
Researcher 17, male with reversal skills which were
National Prader-Willi design generalized.
Kaohsiung Syndrome and ID Video prompt
Normal fading was more
University, effective within
The Ohio the intervention.
State
University,
Ball State
University
Acceptable

88
Yakubova Vocational iPad with point- Public school multiple Students
and Taber- skills of-view video USA probe improved from
Doughty Decision modelling across their baseline
(2017) making Teacher, 20, Caucasian participan scores with the
skills Video creation, male with ASD ts intervention with
Duquesne Cue sheet used as and significant
University, Missing a self-check, communication stimulus
Purdue material, Technology deficits generalization.
University inappropri- training 19, Native Maintenance
ate American with varied with
Acceptable material, ASD scores ranging
insufficient 17, Caucasian from 57.2% to
material male with ASD 100%, with one
19, Caucasian student
male with ASD decreasing trend
and the other
participants
staying steady or
having a positive
trend.
Note. SM = self-monitoring; ASD = Autism Spectrum Disorder; ID = Intellectual Disability; DD =
Developmental Disability; CP = Cerebral Palsy; DS = Down Syndrome; ADHD = Attention
Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder; PDD = pervasive developmental disorder; EBD = Emotional
Behavioral Disorder; LD = Learning Disability; TBI = Traumatic Brain Injury; OI = Orthopedic
Impairment.
Study Characteristics
The primary aim of the studies was to teach forms of self-monitoring in order to improve a variety
of skills, including general daily living skills as well as specific skills such as cleaning and food
preparation. In addition, improving either work related behaviors or improving vocational skills
were also often targets for intervention. Other topics included improving personal hygiene, social
skills, improving classroom engagement, and improving on task behaviors in general.
Technology use
Technology used for the self-monitoring behavior primarily included the use of an iPad (Bouck et
al., 2014; Cullen et al., 2017; Kellems et al., 2018; Yakubova & Taber-Doughty, 2017), with 12
students of 42 students (29%) using this technology. Other tablets included a Samsung Galaxy
Player 5.0 tablet (Clemons et al., 2016) and a Samsung mini-netbook (Kim, 2018). Other common
technology included the iPod Touch (Cannella-Malone et al., 2017; Wu et al., 2016) or an iPhone
(Heider et al., 2019). Specific apps included Upad App (Bouck et al., 2014), MyPicsTalk App
(Cullen et al., 2017), InPromptu App (Cannella-Malone et al., 2017), and I-Connect self-
monitoring software (Clemons et al., 2016) (see Table 3 for more information). In addition, several
forms of video modeling (English et al., 2017; Kim, 2018; Yakubova & Taber-Doughty, 2017),
video prompting (Heider et al., 2019), and video feedback (Mackey & Nelson, 2015) were used.
Some used a more general online checklist (Gushanas & Thompson, 2019). Other studies also
used a Gymboss interval timer (Clemons et al., 2016) and a vibrating watch (Lively et al., 2019) to
remind participants to check their behavior at various intervals.

89
Table 3.
Description of Applications Used
Application name Description
UPAD for iCloud A productivity and note-taking app by PockeySoft.
My Pictures Talk A video modelling tool used to develop social stories and more using
video, pictures, and text. By Grembe Apps.
InPromptu An app with video prompts already created or that can be developed for
daily living skills tasks. By Ohio State University Department of
Education.
I-Connect A self-monitoring mobile app that can be set up for individualized goals.
The app includes interval timers and reminders for specific tasks as well
as a data collection tool for students and teachers or service providers.
By the University of Kansas.
Intervention supports
Initial instruction on and continuing use support is usually needed for individuals with IDD when
developing self-monitoring skills (Heider et al., 2019). In the reviewed studies, the support was
provided by the researcher (Bouck et al., 2014; Clemons et al., 2016; English et al., 2017;
Gushanas & Thompson, 2019; Heider et al., 2019; Wu et al., 2016), teacher (Cannella-Malone et
al., 2013; Cannella-Malone et al., 2017; Lively et al., 2019; Stauch, Plavnick, Sankar, & Gallagher,
2018; Yakubova & Taber-Doughty, 2017), a job coach (Mackey & Nelson, 2015), other
observers/peers (Gushanas & Thompson, 2019), a staff model (Kim, 2018), or the specific support
was either not listed or not explicitly stated (Cullen et al., 2017; Kellems et al., 2018; Kim, 2018).
Specific supports provided included verbal prompting (Bouck et al., 2014; Clemons et al., 2016;
English et al., 2017; Wu et al., 2016), video prompting with error correction (Cannella-Malone et
al., 2013; Cannella-Malone et al., 2017; Clemons et al., 2016; Wu et al., 2016), video monitoring
(English et al., 2017; Kim, 2018), most-to-least prompting (Cannella-Malone et al., 2013), least-to-
most prompting (Cannella-Malone et al., 2017), technology training (Cannella-Malone et al., 2013;
Clemons et al., 2016; Heider et al., 2019; Kellems et al., 2018; Lively et al., 2019; Yakubova &
Taber-Doughty, 2017), self-directed prompting (Cannella-Malone et al., 2013; Cannella-Malone et
al., 2017; Cullen et al., 2017; Heider et al., 2019), prior video creation (Cullen et al., 2017; English
et al., 2017; Heider et al., 2019; Kellems et al., 2018; Kim, 2018; Yakubova & Taber-Doughty,
2017), survey creation (Gushanas & Thompson, 2019), trainings on intervention paperwork
(Gushanas & Thompson, 2019; Lively et al., 2019), and a cue sheet (Yakubova & Taber-Doughty,
2017).
Research design
All included studies used some form of single-case research design. This included one multiple-
probe across skills, two multiple-probe across behaviors, four multiple-probe across participants, a
multiple-probe across participants with a reversal design, and a within-participant multiple-probe
across behaviors. A multiple baseline across-participants design and a single-case concurrent
multiple-baseline design were also performed. Other studies implemented an alternative design, an
adapted alternative design, and an ABAB single-subject withdrawal design. For more detailed
information, please see Table 3.
Location and setting
A total of 12 studies were conducted in the United States. In addition, one study each was found in
Australia and Korea. Of these studies, three were performed in an IPSE setting, one in a non-

90
profit, one community living setting, one transition academy, one rehabilitation facility, and one
juvenile justice facility. The remaining studies were performed in a public-school classroom
setting.
Participant characteristics
In total, there were 42 participants across all 14 studies. The average age of participants was 18.5
(range 13 to 28) with only one person being outside the target age range. A total of 6 participants
were female and 36 were male. There was not enough demographic data provided in the studies to
include a breakdown of race. The most common disability diagnosis under the umbrella of IDD
was ASD, with 20 students (58%) having this disorder with or without intellectual disability and 8
exclusively having this diagnosis. In addition, five participants were diagnosed with Down
Syndrome. A total of two participants had an unspecified intellectual disability. One participant
had no disability, but the other participants in the study had a range of disabilities, some of which
fall under the umbrella of IDD, including ADHD and Prader Willi Syndrome. Due to the small
sample size of most of the studies, attrition was low with most not having any participants removed
from the study.
Discussion and Conclusions
This systematic review highlighted the state of the literature as it pertains to self-monitoring
interventions for secondary and post-secondary students with intellectual and developmental
disabilities. There were a wide variety of goals of the self-monitoring studies as well as a variety
of different disabilities that were considered. In total, 27 studies were analyzed with 12 meeting
acceptable standards and 2 meeting high quality standards for research. These are further discussed
in the following section.
Cooper et al. (2007) define self-monitoring as a procedure where an individual systematically
observes and records when a behavior occurs or does not occur. NTACT, Rowe et al. (2020) lists
self-monitoring, within which they also include the terms self-observation and self-recording, as a
research-based practice for transition-age students (high school to college) with specific learning
disabilities. This literature review included video modelling and video prompting as applicable
self-monitoring interventions when participants were required to use the video prompting or
modelling as a self-check while completing tasks. The results of this review, which includes 14
methodologically rigorous studies, 42 participants with primarily positive functional relationship,
and over 20 different professional affiliations, suggest that technology-supported self-monitoring
meets the level of evidence needed to be considered an evidence-based practice by the NTACT
(2018). All study participants improved their baseline performance during the self-monitoring
intervention. In addition, most students learned the skill at a high level that maintained over time.
Further, some students were able to generalize their learned skills to other tasks. These results show
promise for the use of technology-based self-monitoring techniques to support independent skill
development for adolescents and young adults with IDD.
However, there is still more work to be considered in this area. Currently, much of the research on
self-monitoring focuses on elementary school students. There are only a few studies on the self-
monitoring of post-secondary students with disabilities. One question that may need to be asked is
why are there so few secondary and post-secondary studies in this research in comparison to
elementary school aged population? Focusing on post-secondary school can be valuable as the
percentage of students with disabilities on college campuses have doubled or tripled in the past 25
years (Francis et al., 2018). Despite this increase, only 20% of students with disabilities graduate
from a four-year college (Francis et al., 2018). Self-monitoring training may help improve skills

91
and allow students to overcome some obstacles to success as they continue in life and potentially in
their education.
Another consideration for future research would be to improve the power of these self-monitoring
studies, which would make this strategy more generalizable to other secondary and post-secondary
students with disabilities. One of the biggest challenges with these studies has been that these were
single case designs with small numbers of participants. Unfortunately, due to the inability to
randomly assign participants to having a disability or not, the low percentage of the population
with an IDD, as well as potential challenges with acquiring enough funding to acquire a larger
sample size, single case designs, with their lower sample sizes, are often the most appropriate
selection. In order to overcome the challenge that small studies provide, future researchers need to
replicate these studies in both similar and different settings (classroom, workplace, etc.), locations
(inner city, rural, different countries), different participants, in different settings, and with different
technologies, and researchers. Potentially, it may be helpful to look at as many specific disabilities,
both with and without comorbidities in order to get a broader perspective on the use of self-
monitoring tools.
Further, the studies performed will need to be of higher quality than many studies found in the
current literature. During the quality assessment, 13 of the 27 articles selected (48%) did not meet
minimum standards and thus were not counted. In order to meet acceptable standards, NTACT
(2016b) requires a study to meet items 1 through 16 on their quality indicators checklist (see Table
1) and at least one quality indicator from items 17 through 20. High quality studies met all 20
criteria. Of the studies disqualified, all were disqualified due to not meeting the first 16 quality
indicators. Nine did not meet by one quality indicator while the remaining missed two or more.
The most common quality indicator missed, by 7 of 13 disqualified studies, was including enough
significant detail in the setting in order to recruit similar participants for replication by another
researcher. The second most common indicator was controlling for threats to external validity, this
was missed by four studies. If additional acceptable and high-quality studies are performed, this
would better lend more support for the use of self-monitoring to help students with IDD succeed.
The use of video monitoring and video prompting as a self-check were the most common in the
reviewed studies. Due to the time constraints of video production, it may be worthwhile to consider
other self-monitoring technologies that do not rely so heavily on videos and video creation. Some
self-monitoring goals, such as on-task behavior and asking whether one meets a pre-identified step
in a task analysis, might be easier to perform without the time and expense of preparing videos,
which should be a consideration in future research.
Lastly, most studies in this review were supported by the researcher, teacher, or job coach. Peer-
assisted instruction is considered a research-based and promising practice for transition-aged
students (NTACT, 2019). For postsecondary students with IDD, the use of peers to reinforce or
implement self-monitoring skill instruction provides an opportunity for more natural supports that
lead to less stigma for students with IDD, particularly in a college setting. More research on the use
of classmates or peers to help with implementing self-monitoring interventions is needed.
References
Bouck, E. C., Savage, M., Meyer, N. K., Taber-Doughty, T., & Hunley, M. (2014). High-Tech or
Low-Tech? Comparing Self-Monitoring Systems to Increase Task Independence for
Students With Autism. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 29(3), 156-
167. doi:10.1177/1088357614528797

92
Cancio, E. J., West, R. P., & Young, K. R. (2004). Improving Mathematics Homework Completion
and Accuracy of Students with EBD Through Self-Management and Parent Participation.
Journal of Emotional & Behavioral Disorders, 12(1), 9-22.
doi:10.1177/10634266040120010201
Cannella-Malone, H. I., Brooks, D. G., & Tullis, C. A. (2013). Using Self-Directed Video
Prompting to Teach Students with Intellectual Disabilities. Journal of Behavioral
Education, 22(3), 169-189. doi:10.1007/s10864-013-9175-3
Cannella-Malone, H. I., Chan, J. M., & Jimenez, E. D. (2017). Comparing self-directed video
prompting to least-to-most prompting in post-secondary students with moderate intellectual
disabilities. International Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 63(4), 211-220.
doi:10.1080/20473869.2017.1301695
Clemons, L. L., Mason, B. A., Garrison-Kane, L., & Wills, H. P. (2016). Self-Monitoring for High
School Students With Disabilities: A Cross-Categorical Investigation of I-Connect. Journal
of Positive Behavior Interventions, 18(3), 145-155. doi:10.1177/1098300715596134
Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2007). Applied behavior analysis (2nd ed.). Upper
Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson/Merrill-Prentice Hall.
Cullen, J. M., Simmons-Reed, E. A., & Weaver, L. (2017). Using 21st century video prompting
technology to facilitate the independence of individuals with intellectual and developmental
disabilities. Psychology in the Schools, 54(9), 965-978. doi:10.1002/pits.22056
English, D. L., Gounden, S., Dagher, R. E., Chan, S. F., Furlonger, B. E., Anderson, A., & Moore,
D. W. (2017). Effects of video modeling with video feedback on vocational skills of adults
with autism spectrum disorder. Developmental Neurorehabilitation, 20(8), 511-524.
doi:10.1080/17518423.2017.1282051
Faul, A., Stepensky, K., & Simonsen, B. (2012). The Effects of Prompting Appropriate Behavior
on the Off-Task Behavior of Two Middle School Students. Journal of Positive Behavior
Interventions, 14(1), 47-55. Retrieved from
Francis, G. L., Duke, J., Brigham, F. J., & Demetro, K. (2018). Student Perceptions of College-
Readiness, College Services and Supports, and Family Involvement in College: An
Exploratory Study. Journal Of Autism And Developmental Disorders, 48(10), 3573-3585.
doi:10.1007/s10803-018-3622-x
Gushanas, C. M., & Thompson, J. L. (2019). Effect of Self-Monitoring on Personal Hygiene
Among Individuals With Developmental Disabilities Attending Postsecondary Education.
Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 42(4), 203-213.
doi:10.1177/2165143418781297
Heider, A. E., Cannella-Malone, H. I., & Andzik, N. R. (2019). Effects of Self-Directed Video
Prompting on Vocational Task Acquisition. Career Development and Transition for
Exceptional Individuals, 42(2), 87-98. doi:10.1177/2165143417752901
Kellems, R. O., Rickard, T. H., Okray, D. A., Sauer-Sagiv, L., & Washburn, B. (2018). iPad®
Video Prompting to Teach Young Adults With Disabilities Independent Living Skills: A
Maintenance Study. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 41(3),
175-184. doi:10.1177/2165143417719078
Kim, J. (2018). Effects of point-of-view video modeling for Korean adolescents with autism to
improve their on-task behavior and independent task performance during vegetable
gardening. International Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 64(4-5), 297-308.
doi:10.1080/20473869.2017.1341449
Kozminsky, E., & Kozminsky, L. (2001). How do general knowledge and reading strategies ability
relate to reading comprehension of high school students at different educational levels?
Journal of Research in Reading, 24(2), 187. doi:10.1111/1467-9817.00141
Lively, R., Myers, D., & Levin, J. R. (2019). Using Self-Monitoring to Support Student Behavior
in a Juvenile Justice Facility. Journal of Correctional Education, 70(1), 36-52.