A comprehensive review of the literature was conducted for articles published between 1993 and 2012 to determine the degree to which technology-based interventions can be considered an evidence-based practice to teach academic skills to individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). Criteria developed by Horner et al. (Except Child 71:165-178, 2005) and Gersten et al. (Except Child 71:149-164, 2005) were used to determine the quality of single-subject research studies and group experimental research studies respectively. A total of 29 [Corrected] studies met inclusion criteria. Of these studies, only three single-subject studies and no group studies met criteria for quality or acceptable studies. Taken together, the results suggest that practitioners should use caution when teaching academic skills to individuals with ASD using technology-based interventions. Limitations and directions for future research are discussed.

A review of the literature was conducted for articles published between 2003 and 2010 to build a case for the degree to which evidence-based practices were documented for teaching academic skills to students with severe developmental disabilities. This review extended earlier comprehensive work in literacy, mathematics, and science for the population in question. A total of 18 studies met the Horner et al. ( 2005) quality indicator criteria. In general, time delay and task analytic instruction were found to be evidence-based practices. In addition, specific target responses were defined to show academic learning, with the most prevalent target responses being discrete responses; the type of systematic prompting and feedback used most often was time delay, while the component used least often was stimulus fading/shaping; and teaching formats used most often were massed trials and one-to-one instruction.

A comprehensive review of the literature was conducted for articles published between 1993 and 2013 to evaluate the quality of the Visual Activity Schedules (VAS) literature using current evidence-based criteria developed by Horner et al. (Except Child 71:165-179, 2005). Authors sought to determine whether VAS can be considered an evidence-based practice by expanding on the findings from previous reviews. A total of 31 studies met inclusion criteria for the use of VAS to various behaviors to students with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Of these studies, 16 met criteria for acceptable quality. Results suggest that VAS can be considered an EBP for individuals with ASD, especially when used in combination with systematic instructional procedures. VAS can be used to increase, maintain, and generalize a range of skills of individuals from preschool through adulthood in a variety of settings (e.g., general education, community). Implications for practitioners using VAS, limitations, and recommendations for future research are discussed.

This study evaluated strategies to teach secondary math and science content to students with moderate and severe developmental disabilities in a quasiexperimental group design with special education teachers randomly assigned to either the math or the science treatment group. Teachers in the math group implemented four math units representing four of the five national math standards. The science teachers implemented four science units representing three of eight national science content standards. A fourth standard, science as inquiry, was embedded within each of the units. Results showed students made gains in respective content areas. Students who received instruction in math scored higher than students who received instruction in science on the posttest of math skills. Likewise, students who received instruction in science scored higher than students who received instruction in math on the posttest of science vocabulary skills. Limitations and suggestions for future research and practice are discussed.

Improving educational outcomes for students with autism and intellectual disability requires delivering services and supports marked by evidence-based practices. We surveyed 535 special educators of students with autism and/or intellectual disability about (a) their implementation of 26 instructional practices, (b) their recent access to training and resources on those practices, (c) the factors they consider when deciding which practices to use, (d) the importance they place on various instructional areas (e.g., social skills, reading), and (e) their preparedness to provide that instruction. Although teachers reported implementing a wide range of evidence-based instructional practices, their recent access to training and resources was fairly limited. Special educators identified a constellation of factors informing their instructional decision making, placing emphasis on student needs and professional judgment. When considering instructional areas, a gap was evident between ratings of importance and preparedness. We address implications for strengthening professional development pathways and offer recommendations for future research.