A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Reading and Writing Interventions for Students with Disorders of Intellectual Development

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is very important because it deals with an under researched area of students with disorders of intellectual development (ID). The paper may help teachers and other communities that deal with students with ID. The literature indicate an urgent needs of studies like this in the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR). Perhaps the study should indicate how the results of this study are applicable in solving challenges the 4IR and COVID-19 in the interventions of reading and writing.

More information about the research paradigm of the study may strengthen the study.

Author Response

We have prepared a revision of our manuscript: education-1378356 A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Reading and Writing Interventions for Students with Disorders of Intellectual Development. We would like to thank the reviewers for their valuable comments on our manuscript. We have considered these comments carefully and have provided a response to each in full below (our responses are set in bold and in red ink). 

Dear Reviewer 1,

Comments and Suggestions for Authors:

The paper is very important because it deals with an under researched area of students with disorders of intellectual development (ID). The paper may help teachers and other communities that deal with students with ID. The literature indicate an urgent needs of studies like this in the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR).

Point 1: Perhaps the study should indicate how the results of this study are applicable in solving challenges the 4IR and COVID-19 in the interventions of reading and writing.

Response 1: We agree that solving challenges according to the 4IR and pandemics is both time-relevant and important. However, to apply the present data and results directly to these challenges is beyond our scope, and we may risk making assumptions that our data does not support. For example, all interventions included in the review are implemented in educational institutions/settings while under the pandemic many students were home-schooled. Such differences in educational settings and educational support challenge the direct transfer of our results.

However, we have added a sentence to highlight the importance of students with ID having the opportunity to acquire reading and writing skills, which are basic competences for participation in today's and in future technological societies. This is added under section 4.6 Implication for Practice, p.16, line 558, which now reads:

" With a view to the increasingly automated and technological society locally and globally (the Fourth Industrial Revolution), reading and writing skills will in the future probably be more important than ever as a tool to actively participate in society [1]. Our results indicated that students with disorders of ID should be afforded access to research-based reading and writing interventions."

Point 2: More information about the research paradigm of the study may strengthen the study.

Response 2: We have added information to indicate that the paper arises mainly from a pragmatic paradigm. It has been added to the manuscript under section 1, Introduction, p. 1, line 42, which now reads:

“The present study is guided mainly by a pragmatic paradigm. By combining the qualitative method in the systematic review, and the quantitative method in the meta-analysis, we explore the existing interventions and investigate what may constitute an effective reading and/or writing intervention when compared to no intervention or practice as usual. In addition, we seek a more complete understanding of the gaps in the literature.”

Reviewer 2 Report

Well done on a very interesting and well-written paper. I really enjoyed reading it - your search methodology, in particular, was extremely clear, one of the best I've seen. I have a couple of small suggestions that I believe would improve the paper, but I'm happy to accept if you have a reason for not including these elements.

First, it would be good if the results section could begin with a short table summarising the 7 studies included, with author names, date of publication, methodology (RCT/QED), number of participants and anything else particularly characteristic of the study (maybe country?) That would help orient the reader as they read through the results. 

Second, in your section 'Results of Risk of Bias', it would be useful to know if any of the papers recognised the limitations inherent in their studies and offered explanations or mitigating factors in their 'limitations' section. Just a sentence saying whether or not these issues were recognised in the studies would be useful. 

Finally, I notice you put your own limitations section in the discussion. I recently did the same for another paper for this journal and was advised by two reviewers to put it in the conclusion (so I did.) Personally, as long as it's present I don't mind where it goes. However, it might be worth looking to see if this journal has a preferred convention (maybe they ask for it in the discussion? I can't remember.) From my reviewers' reactions, it does seem that people look for limitations in the conclusion, and may draw conclusions about the paper if it's not there. Up to you, I just thought I'd mention it.

Thanks again for a great paper on a fascinating study. It was a really interesting read.

Author Response

We have prepared a revision of our manuscript: education-1378356 A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Reading and Writing Interventions for Students with Disorders of Intellectual Development. We would like to thank the reviewers for their valuable comments on our manuscript. We have considered these comments carefully and have provided a response to each in full below (our responses are set in bold and in red ink). 

Dear Reviewer 2,

Comments and Suggestions for Authors:

Well done on a very interesting and well-written paper. I really enjoyed reading it - your search methodology, in particular, was extremely clear, one of the best I've seen. I have a couple of small suggestions that I believe would improve the paper, but I'm happy to accept if you have a reason for not including these elements.

Point 1: First, it would be good if the results section could begin with a short table summarising the 7 studies included, with author names, date of publication, methodology (RCT/QED), number of participants and anything else particularly characteristic of the study (maybe country?) That would help orient the reader as they read through the results.

Response 1: Table 1: Characteristics of the Intervention Studies Included in the Systematic Review and Table S2: Effects of Interventions on Dependent Variables in Reading and Writing were submitted as Supplementary Materials. Both tables are now included in the manuscript.

Table 1: Characteristics of the Intervention Studies Included in the Systematic Review is in section 3.1. Study Characteristics, p. 7, line 268.

Table S2: Effects of Interventions on Dependent Variables in Reading and Writing is in section 3.3. Effects of Interventions on Reading and Writing, p. 10, line 359.

If the tables are considered too detailed, we are willing to adjust them to include only the suggested variables. However, we believe both tables will give readers valuable additional information about the reading interventions and writing instructions. The tables will also provide more detailed information than we have included in the manuscript/text, such as information on the material and the tests used for each study.

Please be aware that both tables are pasted in the manuscript as pdf files. If necessary, I may send the tables as Word files.

Point 2: Second, in your section 'Results of Risk of Bias', it would be useful to know if any of the papers recognised the limitations inherent in their studies and offered explanations or mitigating factors in their 'limitations' section. Just a sentence saying whether or not these issues were recognised in the studies would be useful.

Response 2: Thank you for this valuable comment. We have now coded this information and have added a short summary in the manuscript under section 3.4 Results of Risk of Bias within Studies, p. 13, line 436, which now reads:

“It is worth mentioning that six of the nine of included studies reported limitations in the discussion of their results. In line with our results of the risk of bias evaluation, especially the measurement of the outcome (e.g., how appropriate the tests used are considered to be for students with disorders of ID, the students’ fluctuation within the test situations) was described as potential threats to study validity by the authors themselves” [2-7].

Point 3: Finally, I notice you put your own limitations section in the discussion. I recently did the same for another paper for this journal and was advised by two reviewers to put it in the conclusion (so I did.) Personally, as long as it's present I don't mind where it goes. However, it might be worth looking to see if this journal has a preferred convention (maybe they ask for it in the discussion? I can't remember.) From my reviewers' reactions, it does seem that people look for limitations in the conclusion, and may draw conclusions about the paper if it's not there. Up to you, I just thought I'd mention it.

Response 3: According to the Education Sciences Microsoft Word template (retrieved from: https://susy.mdpi.com/user/manuscripts/upload/b1dda0550f87f8e48143069487272a8b?&journal=education), the journal Educational Sciences does not have a preferred convention according to which study limitations are to be placed. In line with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) [8], which was used as the reporting items in the present paper, we would prefer to keep our own limitations section in the discussion section. However, we agree that the limitations of the original studies and the review can be difficult to distinguish. Therefore, we have revised the heading of the limitation section. It now reads on p. 16, line 523: “4.5 Limitations of the Review Process Used in This Review”.

Thanks again for a great paper on a fascinating study. It was a really interesting read.

Please be aware that the order of the references does not correspond to the numbering of the references in the manuscript.