Academic Technologies for College Students With Intellectual Disability.

Higgins et al. (2021) wrote a story-style review. They hunted for tech that helps college students with intellectual disability. The tech had to use behavior-analytic steps and follow Universal Design for Learning rules.

They looked at prompting apps, response-card clickers, and self-monitoring sheets. No new experiment was run; they simply mapped what exists.

The paper is a menu, not a scoreboard. It lists tools but gives no win-loss record. You will not find effect sizes or sample counts.

The authors say: pair simple ABA moves (prompts, self-graphing, choral responding) with UDL choices (captions, audio, large print) and the lecture door opens for students with ID.

Curiel et al. (2023) widen the lens. Their 2023 scoping review counted 59 behavior-analytic tricks in regular college classes. Most lifted quiz scores. M et al. narrow the view to students with ID, but both papers push the same tools—response cards, group contingencies, PSI—showing a smooth bridge from general to special population.

Torres et al. (2021) go further and actually test one package. They taught college students with IDD to pick suitable jobs using remote audio coaching and a short mnemonic. Skills lasted and spread to new apps and new coaches. Their data fill the empty chair left by M et al.’s review.

Kuder et al. (2018) looked at autism, not ID. They found CBT and social-skills groups work on campus. Together the two reviews circle the same conclusion: behavior-analytic or CBT-based supports can survive the college leap, but we still need more trials.

You can act today. Open your slide deck and add two UDL layers: captions and a built-in response poll. While you teach, run a 2-minute self-monitoring break: students mark their own attention on a phone graph. These tiny moves cost nothing and follow the exact tech list M et al. spotlight. Start collecting your own data to join the thin evidence pile.