Factors predicting school staff's responsivity toward students with intellectual and developmental disability and complex communication needs.

Maayan et al. watched 67 school staff work with students who have intellectual or developmental disabilities and complex communication needs.

They coded how often staff responded to the child’s signals during 1:1 and group sessions.

Then they ran stats to see which child, staff, or setting traits predicted more back-and-forth talk.

In one-on-one sessions, kids who could speak at least a few words got far more staff responses.

In group sessions, staff talked more when the group had fewer kids, met more days each week, and when staff liked working with the students.

Disability level mattered too: staff were less responsive when the child had more severe delays.

HMelegari et al. (2025) showed that extra coaching and monthly meetings tripled PBIS fidelity in rural schools. Maayan’s data echo that idea: staff attitudes and session frequency—both coachable variables—drive better adult-child interaction.

Lipscombe et al. (2016) looked at toddlers with CP and found early communication skills link motor ability to later social success. That seems opposite to Maayan, who say speech level predicts staff talk. The gap is age and diagnosis: toddlers need any communication route (sign, device), while school staff still wait for spoken words.

Carmichael et al. (1999) proved crystallized intelligence keeps growing through age 20 in students with ID. Maayan’s finding that staff talk less to kids with severe disability fits: if staff assume “they can’t learn more,” they stop trying—exactly what B et al. say not to do.

You can’t change a child’s diagnosis, but you can change group size, session schedule, and staff mindset. Push for 3–the kids max, meet at least four times a week, and add quick attitude boosters like sharing success stories. If a child uses signs or a device, train staff to treat those as “speech” so responsivity stays high even when spoken words are few.