The efficacy of an e-learning prevention program for substance use among adolescents with intellectual disabilities: A pilot study.

Marion and colleagues built a short online course called “Prepared on Time.” It teaches teens with intellectual disability how to say no to alcohol and drugs.

The team ran the course in two special-education classes. They asked the students questions before and after to see what changed.

This was a pilot, so there was no control group—just the same kids measured twice.

After the course the teens copied their classmates’ healthy choices a little more. This peer-modeling score went up.

Nothing else moved. Drug-and-alcohol knowledge, refusal skills, and use intentions all stayed flat.

Bottom line: the course nudged attitudes about peers, but did not touch real-world knowledge or plans.

Wyman et al. (2020) gives hope. Their PEERS social-skills class helped high-schoolers with ID make more friends. PEERS and the e-learning course both ran in special-ed classrooms, yet PEERS showed gains while Marion’s did not. The difference: PEERS used live coaching and role-play; Marion used only screens.

Matson et al. (2013) showed screens can work—parents who took an online course got better at teaching imitation to kids with autism. But those parents chose to log in; Marion’s teens had to. Motivation may explain why one online study won and the other stalled.

Davidson et al. (2023) also got positive results with a virtual program, but they taught neurotypical 8- to 10-year-olds to accept autistic classmates. Younger, motivated learners may simply respond better to screen-only lessons.

If you teach older teens with ID, do not rely on a short e-learning module alone. Add live practice, peer role-play, and choice to boost buy-in. Track both attitude and knowledge; one can move while the other sits still. Use Marion’s mixed result as a red flag: screens can prime interest, but they rarely change behavior without human backup.