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

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Editor, and Authors

 

First, I would like to express my gratitude for getting the opportunity to serve as a reviewer of this paper. The paper is interesting, and as far as I can see the result of a meticulous research process.

 

I have very few things to comment. Lines 50 and forward cites the WWC criteria, but without reviewing them in any depth, or discussing trade-offs with SCED compared to RCT, and the WWC’s position in that matter. Also, the authors cite some requirements of SCED studies without explaining or justifying them. If the authors wish understanding from a broader audience, I urge them to explain concepts in more detail. In its present shape, the assumed reader is an expert on research design, and an expert on WWC criteria.

 

A few other concepts that need to be explained:

 

·         Grey literature

·         Tau-U

·         BC-SMD

·         Forest plot

 

I think it would be nice with an overall summary just before chapter 1.3

 

I did not understand the inter assessor agreement reported on lines 265 and forward. Please elaborate.

 

Given the fairly small sample size, I would suggest that your results have “potential” implications, rather than important ones.

 

Lastly, I would like to ask the authors to make the text a little less dense by reminding readers about abbreviations (e.g., single-case experimental design is abbreviated “SCED” in the abstract, but nowhere else).

Author Response

Please see the attachement

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thanks for the opportunity to review “Single-Case Writing Interventions for Students with Disorders of Intellectual Development: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis” for consideration in Education Sciences. The authors provide a thorough review of literature on writing interventions involving children with intellectual disability that specifically uses single-case experimental designs. Overall, the authors do a thorough job in setting the context for the review, though a few lingering questions emerged in my read. My main comments and questions focus on some framing in the Introduction and various points of clarification throughout the manuscript.

 

1.     Abstract

a.     I am not as familiar with the phrasing of “disorders of intellectual development”, given that I am more used to seeing this population of individuals referred to as students with an intellectual disability. Could the authors provide a reference or two for me as the reviewer to the use of this language as opposed to referring to the population as students with intellectual disability as what has been more commonly done? (I understand that there is a nuance between disorder vs. disability, though wouldn't intellectual development disorder make more sense?)

b.     Comma is needed in first sentence of abstract following difficulties.

c.     Provide a brief definition of “linguistic production” in the abstract, as this term is not defined yet for the reader to understand what is meant by the statement midway through.

d.     Similar comment regarding “encoding”, as this term is used but not well described in the abstract.

2.     Introduction

a.     Line 26 – Confused on the use of the semi-colon.

b.     Line 33 – I was a bit confused on the jump from ID to writing disorders, as the authors cite a study referring to writing disorders broadly rather than writing disorders in the context of ID. This transition could be revised to be a bit more clear (such as highlighting that the writing difficulties faced by students with ID are part of a larger issue around writing difficulties more generally).

c.     Line 71 – I was a bit confused on the attribution of writing difficulties being solely due to the lack of research-based instructional approaches and reduced opportunities to engage in writing activities. It seems more so that the challenges could be a combination of individual differences and noted cognitive and adaptive behavior challenges specific to ID with the added difficulties of poor instruction and limited opportunities. This sentence currently reads like challenges are solely due to instruction, which I feel should be revised to better contextualize the instructional heterogeneity in the context of individual needs. The rest of this paragraph goes on to talk about differences in writing skills, not just writing instruction, which supports the need for a more focused introduction on what is being discussed that paragraph.

d.     Line 92 – A recently published meta-analysis may be of interest to the authors (see Rodgers & Loveall, 2022, doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325221108896). I suggest that the authors incorporate this recent review into the current conversation, given that it focused on a meta-analysis using a moderator approach in children with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

3.     Methods

a.     Line 166 & 179 – Eric should be ERIC (as it stands for Education Resources Information Center).

b.     Figure 1 – it seems that the “records after duplicates removed” and “records screened” boxes might be combined to reduce redundancy.

c.     Lines 265-268 – Did authors rectify the low % agreements for noted manuscript features? If so, how? If already stated, please clarify for this section.

4.     Results

a.     General – Something that might be included in the Results or the Discussion that I felt was missing was coverage of studies in the current review to any other recent relevant reviews. Were studies included in other recent reviews? Were some studies new and not covered in others? This might be helpful in framing the current study to other recent studies and/or reviews (e.g., Rodgers & Loveall).

b.     Line 361 – While technology is important, I felt that this variable came up without much prior consideration. This was not discussed much in the Introduction and was not highlighted in section 2.6. I had actually expected subheaders in the Results more aligned with those provided in 2.6, so I found this a bit confusing as the terms did not match. This could be revised for clarity (either adding to 2.6 or revising the categories in 3.2.1).

c.     Line 417 – Typo – BS-SMD should be BC-SMD (unless BS-SMD is referring to something else).

d.     Table 1 – Check alignment for authors and other columns; some (like Pennington & Koehler) are not aligned with their outcomes, which makes reading across the table difficult to follow.

5.     Discussion

a.     Given the recent review by Bakken et al. focused on group design, what does this review contribute to the conversation? What’s the takeaway message when thinking about these results as well as those group design results? This might be touched on implicitly, though a more direct statement should be made to discuss findings across reviews.

b.     Line 469 – I’d suggest saying “large” effect sizes rather than “high” effect sizes.

c.     General – A key limitation that I feel should be brought up is the limited sample size and number of available studies. The authors hint at some design issues, but the takeaways seem hopeful, yet when putting that into context of how many children were included, it is a bit more worrying. This seems to match with the authors’ focus on concerns about heterogeneity and the need for more research, as it would be helpful to point out the limited sample size across studies and how that also factors into the current takeaways (which seem hopeful yet limited and preliminary in many ways).

Author Response

Please see the attachement

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Well written. Very thorough search process and clear description of the methodology. Detailed and systematic in reporting findings.

Author Response

Please see the attachement

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thanks for the opportunity to review the revision for “Single-Case Writing Interventions for Students with Disorders of Intellectual Development: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis” for consideration in Education Sciences. I very much appreciate the authors’ detailed responses to my noted comments and suggestions, and they were very attentive in their revisions. (I defer to PRISMA if it is better to include those boxes separately as well.) I have no further substantial comments at this point.