［Original Article］

Textual Requirements for High School Students with Developmental
Disabilities: Text Analysis About Assessing Educators andEmployment Support Professionals in Japan
Kai Seino

Department of Social Rehabilitation, Research Institute,
National Rehabilitation Center for Persons with Disabilities

Yoko Enomoto

Center for Promoting Education for Persons with Developmental Disabilities,
National Institute of Special Needs Education

Shiho Miyazawa

National Institute of Vocational Rehabilitation, Japan Organization for Employment of the Elderly,
Persons with Disabilities and Job Seekers

Abstract
Background: Individuals with developmental disabilities face various challenges in theireducational journey, which often vary as per their particular disability.
Aims: This study aimed to clarify how information presentation should be considered in text
teaching materials based on the characteristics of students with developmental disabilities.
Methods: 1. Creation of items to evaluate information presentation methods: As a preliminary
survey, a questionnaire survey was conducted by mail (November‑December 2008) to collect open‑
ended comments on “how to present information for creating text materials for children (persons)with developmental disabilities.” Questionnaires were sent to 750 educational institutions and 550
employment support institutions in Japan regarding employment readiness support for persons
with developmental disabilities. The educational institutions were (A) regular high schools and (B)special needs schools in the upper secondary school stage. The employment support organizations
were (1) Public Employment Security Oﬃces (in charge of employment for persons with disabilities),(2) Vocational Skills Development Centers for Persons with Disabilities, (3) Vocational Centers
for Persons with Disabilities, (4) Work/Life Support Centers for Person with Disabilities, (5)Support Centers for Persons with Developmental Disorders, (6) Employment Support Centers
for Persons with Disabilities, and (7) Employment Transition Support Offices for Persons with
Disabilities throughout Japan. The overall response rate was 33.9% (441 responses), and that for freedescriptions was 22.0% ( = 97). Based on the opinions (free descriptions) about text materials ( =97) identiﬁed in the preliminary survey, 30 items were created with reference to the KJ method. 2.Aquestionnaire survey was conducted by mail from February to March 2010 to understand how topresent information on developmental disabilities according to the characteristics of the disabilities.
The number of questionnaire responses was 374 (28.6% response rate). The characteristics of theinformation presentation method based on developmental disability characteristics were revealed
by a correspondence analysis and hierarchical cluster analysis. Respondents to the survey were
either teachers at educational institutions or support personnel at employment support agencies.
─1─

Journal of Developmental Disabilities Research No. 1

Respondents had experience in providing employment support to persons with developmental
disabilities, and based on their experience, they recalled the general disability characteristics of LD,
ADHD, and ASD and responded to the information presentation methods that they considered mostimportant for each of these disabilities. Respondents also responded only to the disability types (LD,ADHD, and ASD) to which they could respond.
Results: To understand the considerations regarding information presentation based on thecharacteristics of developmental disabilities, a correspondence analysis and hierarchical cluster
analysis using the dimension score of the correspondence analysis were carried out ( = 173). The
information presentation method considered each developmental disability (LD, ADHD, and ASD)
and was classified into three groups. A correlation analysis was carried out on the relationshipbetween disability characteristics (LD, ADHD, ASD), and each item (30 items) of the information
presentation method was classified into the same group as each obstacle ( = 173). A significant
correlation was found between the characteristics of each developmental disability and theinformation presentation method. Text mining was applied to the free description responses (LD: =114; ADHD: = 152; ASD: = 159). After the extraction of characteristics, sentences were identiﬁed
containing characteristic words that indicated the considerations necessary for each disability type.
For LD, “illustration,” “ruby,” and “picture” were extracted as characteristic words, and the contentsof sentences indicated that the use of these words was cited as a device. For ADHD, “information,”“short,” and “many” were extracted as characteristic words, and the contents of sentences indicatedthat not increasing the amount of information and expressing it in short sentences were cited as
devices. For ASD, “concrete,” “necessary,” and “content” were selected, and the content of thesentences showed that explaining speciﬁc examples of the content was cited as a device.
Conclusions: This study clarified supportersʼ consideration of the information presentation ofteaching materials according to the characteristics of students with developmental disabilities.
Keywords: developmental disabilities, autism spectrum disorder, information presentation, text
teaching materials, text mining

1.

Introduction

1.1

What this paper adds?
For persons with disabilities, working is an important aspect of social participation andeducation is where students with disabilities acquire skills before entering the workforce. In learning
situations, information is often presented as digital materials or paper texts. This study provides
useful suggestions by clarifying the ﬁndings of practitioners who provide support in these situations.
Previous studies report that developmental disabilities contribute to cognitive disabilities (Bromanand Grafman, 2014) the degrees of which vary across developmental disorders (Kanai et al., 2012;
Kanai et al., 2017). By clarifying how to present information so that it considers the characteristics
of diﬀerent developmental disorders, this study contributes to improving the learning eﬀectivenessof persons with developmental disorders. Key attributes improving text comprehension (McTigue
and Slough, 2010) and methods of information presentation for individuals with learning disabilities(Waight and Oldreive, 2021) have been studied. However, previous studies look at a single disorder,
neglecting to compare disorders. Additionally, eﬀective items were within the questionnaire set byresearchers, and may not reﬂect unexpected content. Therefore, this study investigated ASD, LD,
and ADHD. Further, to eﬀectively reﬂect the experiences of practitioners in the data, we collected─2─Journal of Developmental Disabilities Research No. 1

data through free descriptions. Therefore, we add the cognitive characteristics of information foreach developmental disability disorder and eﬀective methods of information presentation, reﬂecting
practical knowledge based on the experiences of practitioners of employment and education.
1.2

Brief overview of Japanese laws regarding persons with developmental disabilities
Learning disabilities (LD), attention‑deﬁcit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and autism spectrum
disorder (ASD) were classiﬁed as developmental disabilities in Japan in 2005. The Act on Support for
Persons with Development Disabilities was enforced in 2005. This act recommends support basedon the characteristics of the obstacles persons with developmental disabilities face and the life stagesof persons with such disabilities. The characteristics of the disabilities that are covered by this law
are as follows: persons with LD have poorer calculation, writing, and reading abilities than those withtypical intellectual development; the characteristics of ADHD include inattention, hyperactivity, andimpulsivity; and the characteristics of high‑functioning ASD are communication barriers, lack ofinterpersonal and social skills, patterned behavior, and wavering interest (Ministry of Health, Labourand Welfare, 2008). The Act on Support for Persons with Development Disabilities was revisedin 2016. The revised law strengthened the conditions of providing appropriate educational andemployment support based on the characteristics of these developmental disabilities. In the future, it
is important to provide the support necessary for smooth transitions from education to employment
based on the characteristics of an individualʼs developmental disabilities.
1.3

Issues Related to Transition to Employment for persons with Developmental Disabilities: on
Textbooks to Support Work ReadinessIn recent years, the diﬃculty of transitioning from school education to employment has become
an issue for individuals with developmental disabilities such as LD, ADHD, and ASD. One of the pre‑employment problems is the diﬃculty in choosing a career path suitable for them (Japan Parentsʼ
Association of Learning Disabilities, 2008), while another is separation from employment due tomaladjustment in the workplace (National Institute of Vocational Rehabilitation, 2009; 2015).
In order to cope with such pre‑ and post‑employment issues, it is important for students todeepen their understanding of such important aspects of work as social structure and occupational
information (job understanding) and their understanding of themselves, such as their interests inwork and their strengths and weaknesses (self‑understanding), before they graduate from school, as
these are fundamental for employment.
In addition, when providing career guidance to strengthen the job understanding of students
with developmental disabilities, it is necessary to provide a wide range of information on suchmatters as vocational rehabilitation, a variety of career options including employment for persons
with disabilities, and the diﬀerences between general employment and employment for persons withdisabilities. As the amount of information to be provided has increased, it is necessary to provide
information not only orally, but also in the form of textbooks (on paper). Under these circumstances,
it is necessary to consider how to convey the information in the text in an easy‑to‑understandmanner, taking into account the characteristics of disabilities. Accordingly, this study focuses on“employment” texts.
1.4

Disability Types and Cognitive Functioning Disorders in Developmental Disorders
Students with developmental disabilities face various challenges when seeking employment.
Individuals with reading difficulties may face obstacles in comprehending and completing
─3─

Journal of Developmental Disabilities Research No. 1

employment‑related materials. According to Broman and Grafman (2014), developmental disorders,such as ASD, contribute to cognitive impairment. Cognitive dysfunction negatively impacts reading,as reading requires short‑term language memory (Castles et al., 2014). It has been reported thatthe degree of disability in such language memory varies depending on the disease; that is, verbal
memory is high in Aspergerʼs syndrome and low in other pervasive developmental disorders (Kanai
et al., 2012). Cognitive functions other than verbal memory also diﬀer depending on the disorder.
Adults with ASD have higher language comprehension than adults with ADHD when evaluatedby the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale‑Third Edition (Wechsler, 1997), but the latter have higher
picture completion skills (Kanai et al., 2017). In other words, since the characteristics of cognitive
function diﬀer depending on the disorder, the eﬀective information presentation method should diﬀer
accordingly. Consequently, adults with ASD have lower language comprehension and higher painting
skills than adults with ADHD (Kanai et al., 2017).
1.5

Issues related to reading materials and text presentation
The following are some of the ways in which textbooks are used in education. The authors of
the current study focused on text teaching materials regarding employment for students (persons)with developmental disabilities. In the ﬁeld of education, text teaching materials have been examinedfrom the perspectives of plainness, ease of remembrance, and motivation. Specifically, previous
studies have identiﬁed the following ways to increase usersʼ understanding: including illustrations
related to the written content (Larkin and Simon 1987; Mayer et al., 1995; Shimada and Kitajima,2008); specifying the structure of training material contents, such as paragraphs and items, (Seki,
1997); and ﬁnally, providing titles for teaching materials and using illustrations and colorization toincrease learnersʼ motivation (Shimada, 2016).
Aside from these ways, the characteristics of developmental disabilities need to be considered,
one reason being to create simpler speciﬁcations for students with developmental disabilities. The
importance of providing teaching materials that consider the characteristics of developmental
disabilities is that they guarantee information accessibility for persons with disabilities in the ﬁeld of
education. A previous study reported that it is important to consider the diﬃculty in ﬁnely adjustingeye movements for individuals with LD, impulsivity, and carelessness for individuals with ADHD,
and the promotion of understanding through visual representation for individuals with ASD (Ministryof Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, 2011). However, these simple examples
do not suﬃciently clarify the overall perspective on this issue. In the future, it will be necessary
to accumulate basic knowledge. Specifically, text teaching materials should be developed whileconsidering the characteristics of individuals with developmental disorders.
The following are some studies on the reading comprehension of persons with developmental
disabilities. According to Hoover (2011), colored text is more effective than black and white text
in presenting information to students with ADHD. In addition, there are reports that the use ofgraphic organizers is effective in presenting information to students with Aspergerʼs syndrome.
Research that focused on the reading comprehension abilities of students with ASD was reviewed(Singh et al., 2021). Effect size calculations indicated that visually cued instruction, metacognitive
strategy instruction, and adapted text were highly effective, while collaborative strategies andtechnology‑assisted instruction were moderately eﬀective. This study highlights the eﬀectivenessof visually cued instruction and adapted text in enhancing reading comprehension among students
with ASD. In addition to graphic organizers, visual cues help students with high‑functioning ASD
process reading materials (Stringﬁeld et al., 2011). Although some studies have examined the impact
─4─

Journal of Developmental Disabilities Research No. 1

of graphic organizers and technology‑enhanced reading materials on learning among students
with developmental disabilities and other studies have examined diﬀerences in processing textual
information, there is less work regarding the ways to speciﬁcally present reading materials to persons
with developmental disorders.
We highlight one study that indicates that text design is actually more important thantechnological enhancements; future studies could further test that finding. The significance ofdevising ways to present information in teaching materials is as follows. A survey of children withlearning disabilities suggested that it would be eﬀective to present both digital and paper materials
to children with or without disabilities (Marino et al., 2014). There has also been research on online
texts. Rello et al.ʼs (2012) experiment using online textbooks for persons with dyslexia showed which
fonts and backgrounds, colors, font sizes, spacing (characters, rows, paragraphs), and column widths
improved readability for persons with dyslexia. That is, sentences and ﬁgures are also displayed inelectronic teaching materials. Therefore, the knowledge derived from this research can be used to
improve the readability of electronic teaching materials. According to McTigue and Slough (2010),
the main attributes that improve text comprehension are (a) text speciﬁcity, (b) the authorʼs voice, (c)consistent descriptive structure, (d) selective use of visual information, and (e) integrated language
and visual information. Further, Waight and Oldreive (2021) posit that it is important to consider
the use of language, image, audio, and video in developing accessible information for individuals
with learning disabilities. The use of clear and jargon‑free language is also important (Waight andOldreive 2021). Finnegan et al. (2016) integrated the results of previous studies and ascertained that
direct instruction and graphic organizers positively affect reading comprehension for individuals
with ASD. They also found collaborative learning, anaphoric queuing, and question generation to bepromising.
However, electronic text does not affect reading comprehension. Even online and electronic
books need to present the text in an accessible way. For this reason, as well as the fact that the mainteaching materials for students with disabilities in Japan are printed, the current study focuses on
print, (paper‑based) materials. Furthermore, this study is highly relevant in todayʼs scenario because
there are still many teaching materials that are mainly printed on paper in some areas of the world.
The cognitive functions involved in human information processing are important for both paper anddigital teaching materials.
1.6

Focus on high school students with developmental disabilities who are about to enter theworkforce
The Report of the Expert Group on Special Needs Education in the New Era (Ministryof Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, 2019) points out that students with
developmental disabilities “have diﬃculty adjusting to their environment and building relationships
with others, and drop out of school or resign from their jobs, and become isolated from society. In
some cases, they have diﬃculty adjusting to their surroundings or have trouble building relationships
with others, and drop out of school or leave the company, leaving them isolated from society.” Thereport also points out that “in addition to employment in the general framework, it is also possible
to obtain a disability certiﬁcate and use the so‑called ʼemployment framework for the disabled,ʼ so it
is necessary to understand how to deal with these systems and provide appropriate guidance andsupport accordingly.” Under these circumstances, we considered it important to provide students
with developmental disabilities with a wide range of information in an easy‑to‑understand mannerat the upper secondary school level in order to enhance their future employment opportunities. As
─5─

Journal of Developmental Disabilities Research No. 1

a methodology to achieve this, we believe it is necessary to focus on text materials (information
provided on paper), giving consideration to the characteristics of students with developmental
disabilities.
1.7

Study objectives
Taking into account the discussion in the previous section, this study aimed to clarify theconsideration of information presentation in text teaching materials based on the characteristics ofhigh school students with developmental disabilities. Subsequently, the authors examined informationthat was particularly important according to the characteristics of LD, ADHD, and ASD. Therefore,
this study is the first step in examining accessible texts in both printed and online media forstudents with developmental disabilities. Overall, the ﬁndings of this study are equally applicable todigital text and printed text.

2.

Materials and Methods*1

2.1 Item creation for the information presentation method
2.1.1 Preliminary study
As a preliminary study, a survey was used to collect responses regarding the information
presentation of text teaching materials developed for students with developmental disabilities
through free description. The survey was conducted by mail using a questionnaire (November‒
December 2008) as part of the study reported in Terada (2006). Questionnaires were sent to 750
educational institutions and 550 employment support institutions in Japan. The former included
1) regular upper secondary schools and 2) departments of special‑needs schools that fall under
the upper secondary school stage. The employment support organizations comprised (1) Public
Employment Security Oﬃces (in charge of employment for persons with disabilities), (2) Vocational
Skills Development Centers for Persons with Disabilities, (3) Vocational Centers for Persons
with Disabilities, (4) Work/Life Support Centers for Person with Disabilities, (5) Support Centers
for Persons with Developmental Disorders, (6) Employment Support Centers for Persons with
Disabilities, and (7) Employment Transition Support Oﬃces for Person with Disabilities throughout
Japan.
The response rate for the preliminary survey was 33.9% (number of questionnaires sent: 1,300;
number of questionnaires collected: 441). The response rate for the free description was 22.0% (numberof eﬀective answers: 97).
2.1.2 Creation of evaluation items for information presentation methods
Thirty evaluation items of information presentation were developed based on the opinions(free descriptions) about text materials ( = 97) collected in the preliminary survey (Table 1),
and categorized with reference to the KJ method (Scupin, 1997). This method aggregates databy categorizing and naming it according to its content. This method was chosen because it issuitable for creating item content that reﬂects qualitative data. In addition, regarding the wording,a checklist about the information presentation method was being referred to while creating text
teaching materials for teachers (Enomoto et al., 2016). In creating the items, the 15‑item perspective
on how to include information in texts presented in Terada (2006) was used as a reference. The
categorization process was discussed by two researchers with knowledge of the subject matter ofthis study. Speciﬁcally, one was a researcher in psychology and the other a researcher in education
specializing in the area of employment support for developmental disabilities.
─6─

Journal of Developmental Disabilities Research No. 1

Table 1

Information Presentation Method

LABEL

LABEL

1

A design that will prompt users to pick it up and read it

2

A design that is easy to read3

A design that makes it easy for a user to understand the content

4

A design that makes it easy to ﬁgure out which information is placed where5

Terms such as disabilities (or disorders) are handled considerately

6

The structure of the information is simple

7

The objective of the teaching materials is stated clearly8

It is written in plain sentences

9

A design that considers the pride of the user

10

A design that makes it easy to understand important points

11

Information is presented in a reliable form

12

A design that makes it easy for a user to utilize the information

13

Charts, illustrations, photographs, and ﬂow charts are utilized eﬀectively

14

A design that can be easily ﬁlled with information

15

Contents that a user can relate to16

Contents that help solve the problems of the user are selected

17

The sentences are engaging

18

Grammatically correct sentences are used

19

Many examples that can serve as a reference for a user are selected20

An appropriate quantity of information is included in one book21

The information provided has a consistent structure

22

An appropriate quantity of information is included on page 1

23

The purpose and method of usage are stated clearly24

A design that makes it easy to understand contents

25

A design that makes it easy for a user to make plans

26

A design that makes it is easy to ﬁnd the required information

27

Charts, illustrations, photographs, ﬂow charts, and so on are created correctly

28

Information is not misleading

29

Characters and terms are used appropriately

30

A design that is easy to handle

2.2

Survey participants
As part of this survey, we investigated how information is presented according to the disability
characteristics of developmental disabilities. A questionnaire survey was conducted by mail (February
to March 2010) targeting all regions of Japan. Questionnaires were sent to 750 educational institutions
and 556 employment support institutions. The educational institutions were “educational institutions
for students at the high school stage,” which are departments that fall under the high school stageof regular high schools or special needs schools, while the employment support institutions werebasically “employment support institutions for developmentally disabled persons” who have alreadygraduated from high school. The educational institutions speciﬁcally targeted were the same typesof institutions as in the preliminary survey. Respondents were either teachers at the educational
─7─

Journal of Developmental Disabilities Research No. 1

institutions or support personnel at the employment support agencies. Each institution was asked to
select one respondent most appropriate for the purpose of this survey.
The participants were informed that, by responding to the survey, they were considered tohave consented to participating. Informed consent was obtained from all respondents. The study wasapproved by National Rehabilitation Center for Persons with Disabilities Ethical Review Committee.
The study was conducted in accordance with ethical standards as speciﬁed in the 1964 Declarationof Helsinki and subsequent amendments or equivalent ethical standards.
2.3

Survey procedure
In this study, we analyzed a part of that survey; the actual questions are shown at the end of
this paragraph. We focused on the content of the free text, and decided to examine the presentationof the text information. This study examines a survey used for a qualitative study we conducted ten
years ago because the recent development of text mining software has made new analysis possible.
Since human cognitive functions are unlikely to change signiﬁcantly over the course of a decade, thisstudy is still signiﬁcant today.
In addition, with the development of information science and technology in recent years, text
mining software that analyzes language quantitatively has become widespread. This made it possible
to perform a mixed analysis entailing quantitative analysis of qualitative data, which was diﬃcult at
the time of the survey.
The self‑report questionnaire concerned the development of text teaching materials for
employment‑preparation training of high school students with developmental disabilities andwas constructed in a free description and selective style. This study analyzed responses to theinformation presentation method based on the characteristics of each developmental disability (LD,ADHD, ASD) that was part of the questionnaire. The concrete question items were:
1) The most important item among the 30 items of the information presentation method for LD,
ADHD, and ASD:
(Table 1)2) Concrete information to create teaching materials considering point 1 (the most importantitem):In the overall survey, respondents responded only to the disability types to which they
were able to respond, given their experience in providing employment support to persons with
developmental disabilities. Respondents were included in the analysis where they had indicatedthat they had direct support experience with any parties with LD, ADHD, or ASD (including thosesuspected of having such). The support experience is as follows. Respondents were those who
answered “quite a bit” or “a little” with respect to “experience providing support to persons with (orsuspected of having) LD, ADHD, or ASD developmental disabilities in preparation for employment.”
Based on their experiences, the respondents were asked to recall the overall characteristics of eachdisability ─ LD, ADHD, and ASD ─ and the most important issues for each, along with the reasons
why they considered them most important. As a result, the responses represent a synthesis of the
respondentsʼ overall experience to date with regard to each of the disability characteristics of LD,
ADHD, and ASD. Regarding diagnosis, responses were sought not only from those with a diagnosis
of developmental disability, but also from those receiving support due to suspicion of a developmental
disability.

─8─Journal of Developmental Disabilities Research No. 1

2.4 Analysis methods
2.4.1 Selective type answer
Using correspondence analysis and cluster analysis, the information presentation method
according to the characteristics of developmental disabilities was explored. Moreover, to check theabsolute relationship between categories, a correlation analysis (φ coeﬃcient) was conducted, andthe existence and strength of the correlation were investigated.
2.4.2 Free description type answer
The free description responses were used to more concretely understand the selective typeanswers. Therefore, text mining was applied to the free description responses.
2.4.3 Statistical software
SPSS Statistics (Ver 24.0) was used to conduct the Mann‑Whitney U test and hierarchical cluster
analysis of the selective type answers. For the correspondence analysis of the selective type answers,
the statistics analysis software HAD was used. KH Coder 3 was used for the text mining of the freedescription answers.

3.

Results

3.1

Number of responses and response rate
The number of questionnaire responses in the ﬁnal investigation was 374 (response rate: 28.6%).
The number of educational institutions that responded was 197 (response rate: 26.3%). The numberof employment support institutions that responded was 168 (response rate: 30.2%). The number of
responses that did not specify the type of institution was 9. The numbers of responses and response
rates by institution are shown in Table 2. However, eﬀective responses diﬀered for each analysis.

3.2 First‑line information presentation method
3.2.1 Method 1
To understand the consideration of information presentation based on the characteristics ofdevelopmental disabilities, a correspondence analysis and a hierarchical cluster analysis using thedimension score of the correspondence analysis were conducted of the data for 173 respondents.
Specifically, the data were for responses for all disability characteristics (LD, ADHD, and ASD)
regarding the method of information presentation that was considered most important.
3.2.2 Result 1
The consideration of information presentation as per the characteristics of each developmental
disability (LD, ADHD, and ASD) diﬀered according to the results of the analysis. In addition, theinformation presentation method considered each developmental disorder and was classified into
three groups (Figure 1).
Speciﬁcally, the results of the correspondence analysis of the multiple‑choice responses showedthat each disability type (LD, ADHD, ASD) was clearly identiﬁed as a separate group on the two‑
dimensional arrangement chart, and the cluster analysis results showed that each disability typegroup was deﬁned by the respective following items: the LD group: 2. “easy‑to‑read design,” 7. “thepurpose of the material is clearly stated,” 17. “the text is attractive,” and 18. “grammatically correctsentences are used”; the ADHD group: 1. “the design makes the user want to pick up and readthe material,” 3. “the content is easily understood by the user: Design makes it easy for users tounderstand the content,” 4. “design that makes it easy for users to know which information is locatedwhere,” 5. “treats terms such as ʼdisabilityʼ with consideration,” 15. “content that users can relate
─9─Journal of Developmental Disabilities Research No. 1

Table 2
Iinstitution

Number of responses and response rate per institution
Number of
responses(Response rate)

Classiﬁcation of educational institutions

Iinstitution

Number of
responses(Response rate)

Classiﬁcation of employment support institutions

High school98（26. 2 ％）Public employment security oﬃce (incharge of employment for persons withdisabilities)

35（9. 4 ％）High school stage of
special needs schools

99（26. 5 ％）Vocational skills development center for
persons with cisabilities,

13（3. 5 ％）Vocational centers for persons withcisabilities,

17（4. 5 ％）Classiﬁcation of high schools
Full‑time, General Course

62（16. 6 ％）Work/life support centers for personwith disabilities

39（10. 4 ％）Full‑time,
specialized courses

25（6. 7 ％）Support centers for persons with
developmental disorders35（9. 4 ％）Distance learning,credit‑based system

3（0. 8 ％）Employment support center for personwith disabilities

4（1. 1 ％）Part‑time (Evening)8（2. 1 ％）Employment transition support oﬃce for 25（6. 7 ％）person with disabilities

Classiﬁcation of special needs schools
High school for special needs

88（23. 5 ％）Special support schools forhigher education

10（2. 7 ％）None speciﬁed

1（0. 3 ％）to,” 24. “design that makes it easy to understand the content,” and 25. “design that makes it easy forusers to plan”; and the ASD group: 9. “designed with user pride in mind,” 11. “provides information
in a reliable manner,” 16. “content has been selected to address user concerns,” 21. “information
provided has a consistent structure,” 27. “charts, illustrations, photos, ﬂowcharts, etc., are correctly
prepared,” 28. “information is not misleading,” and 29. “text and terminology are used appropriately.”
3.2.3 Method 2
The characteristics of the information presentation method based on the characteristics ofdevelopmental disabilities were revealed by Result 2 of the correspondence analysis and hierarchicalcluster analysis. To check whether the relationship was statistically significant regarding theinformation presentation method, the following analysis was conducted. A correlation analysis was
carried out on the relationship between disability characteristics (LD, ADHD, ASD) and each item (30items) of the information presentation method was classiﬁed into the same group as each obstacle (= 173).
3.2.4 Result 2
A weak correlation was found between LD and “A design that is easy to read” (φ = .305, <.001), “A design that makes it easy to understand important points” (φ = .160, < .001), and “eﬀective
utilization of diagrams” (φ = .250, < .001). Next, a weak correlation was found between ADHD and “A
design that will prompt users to pick it up and read it” (φ = .170, < .001), “amount of informationin one volume” (φ = .112, = .01), and “ease of understanding contents” (φ = .113, = .01). Finally,─ 10 ─

Journal of Developmental Disabilities Research No. 1

Figure 1

The results of a correspondence analysis of the selective type answers for the first‑line
information presentation method (the dotted line represents a group based on the results of acluster analysis).

a weak correlation was found between ASD and “handling words such as ʼdisabilityʼ considerately”(φ = .112, = .01), “simple structure of information” (φ = .158, < .001), “consideration of the userʼs dignity” (φ = .176, < .001), “information that is useful for problem solving” (φ = .228, < .001),“consistent structure” (φ = .187, < .001), “accuracy of diagrams” (φ = .141, = .001), and “using
characters and terms suitably” (φ = .116, = .01). A significant correlation was found between
the characteristics of each developmental disability (LD, ADHD, and ASD) and the information
presentation method. Accordingly, the relationship between each disability characteristic and theinformation presentation method was statistically signiﬁcant.
3.3 Diﬀerence in concrete consideration by disability characteristic
3.3.1 Method 3
The statistical relationship between the obstacle characteristics and some selective type answers
to the ﬁrst‑line information presentation methods was examined. Based on this, the authors decided
to devise an eﬀective plan for the actual information presentation method. To this end, text mining
was applied to the free description responses (LD: = 114; ADHD: = 152; ASD: = 159). To createteaching materials based on the free description responses of those with experience in support fordevelopmental disabilities, the necessary matter was discussed concretely.
3.3.2 Result 3
The authors decided to clarify the diﬀerences in the discussed matter to consider characteristics
according to disability type. Therefore, the free description answer on the necessary device was─ 11 ─

Journal of Developmental Disabilities Research No. 1

Table 3
LD

Jaccardcoeﬃcient

Disability Characteristic Words
ADHD

Jaccardcoeﬃcient

ASD

Jaccardcoeﬃcient

Illustration. 065

Information. 040

Consider. 066

Character

. 060

Short

. 036

Concrete. 054

Understanding

. 055

Many

. 035

Necessary. 054

Sentence

. 054

Point

. 032

Content

. 052

Size

. 051

Supporter. 032

Photograph. 044

Consideration. 045

Amount ofInformation. 028

Expression

. 036

Ruby

. 042

Time

. 024

Many

. 035

Teaching
Materials. 041

1 page. 023

Explanation. 032

Photograph

. 039

Think

. 023

Case

. 032

Comprehend

. 036

Form

. 023

Form

. 027

Note. LD, learning disabilities; ADHD, attention‑deficit hyperactivity disorder; ASD, autism spectrum
disorderanalyzed. The Jaccard coefficient was computed to quantitatively clarify the difference arisingfrom disability type. The authors extracted ten words with a high Jaccard similarity coefficient
to represent each obstacle (Table 3). Then, the authors examined the sentences containing theextracted words and analyzed the contents of each sentence (Table 4).
For LD, the feature words “Illustration,” “Character,” “Understanding,” “Sentence,” “Size,”“Consideration,” “Ruby,” “Teaching Materials,” “Photograph,” and “ Comprehend” were extracted.
The content of sentences containing feature words indicated the following as textual innovations.:“Use materials that can be understood without text,” “Use illustrations and photographs,” “The sizeof a character: Suitable size of a character, ﬁgure, and ruby,” “A color and a feel,” “Line is changed,”“Unﬁlled space and contrast,” “An itemized formis used,” “Electronization of a textbook,” “Assumed
for upper elementary grades,” and “Addresses reading, writing, and math disabilities; diﬀerent design(a display in white, character style, etc.) with the same teaching materials is applied.”
For ADHD, “Information,” “Short,” “Many,” “Point,” “Supporter,” “Amount of Information,” “Time,”“1 page,” “Think,” “and “Form” were extracted. The content of sentences containing feature words
indicated the following as textual innovations.: “Design the text to be organized, structured, and easy
to ﬁnd without increasing the amount of information,” “Use short sentences,” “Keep it simple andeasy to understand,” “Use bold text,” “Use bullet points,” “Be direct or speciﬁc,” “Provide a comments
section,” “Make the text so that the reader can get a sense of accomplishment in a short time,” “Makethe ﬁrst page of the talk a one‑page summary; complete it on one page,” “Data that can help consider
what you should do,” and “Composition made with intuitive vision, such as color and form, reliance.”
For ASD, “Consider,” “Concrete,” “Necessary,” “Content,” “Photograph,” “Expression,” “Many,”“Explanation,” “Case,” and “Form” were extracted as feature words. The content of sentences
containing feature words indicated the following as textual innovations: “Explain by showing speciﬁc
examples,” “Use photographs, an example in question‑and‑answer format, or ﬂowcharts,” “Use simple
and easy‑to‑understand expressions,” “Avoid negative expressions and increase positive content anddata from the survey,” “Use a clear and concise format. Use simple, easy‑to‑understand expressions,”“Avoid negative expressions,” and “Increase positive content and surveyed data.”
─ 12 ─

Journal of Developmental Disabilities Research No. 1

Table 4
Disability

LD

Examples of sentences for Each Characteristic Word

Extraction word

Outline of the contents in a sentence

Illustration, Character,Photograph, Understanding,Sentence

Text that can be understood even if there is neither a character
nor a sentence is used.
To make a character and a sentence empathic, a suitableillustration and photograph are used.
The size of a character.

Sentence, Ruby

An itemized statement is used. The level of elementary school
upper classes is used.

Size, Ruby

Suitable size of a character, ﬁgure, and ruby.

Consideration

A color and a feel.
A line is changed.
Unﬁlled space and contrast.

Teaching materials,
Comprehension

The teaching materials of the contents correspond to thedisability with respect to reading, writing, and arithmetic. A
diﬀerent design (a display in white, character style, etc. ) withthe same teaching materials is applied.
Electronization of a textbook (teaching materials and sentence).

The amount of information is limited and arranged.
Information, Many, Amount The ﬂow of information is structured.
of information Short
A design that makes it easy to ﬁnd information.
Direct expression in a short sentence.
ADHD

ASD

Point

It is intelligible.
It is simple. A bold letter is used.
An itemized statement is used. A concrete expression is used.

Supporter

While parents and a supporter communicate, a comment ﬁeld
is prepared so that problems can be dealt with and organizedTime

Time is controlled. The text is written in a way that a sense ofaccomplishment is acquired in a short time.

Page 1

It summarizes the talk on the 1st page. It is complete on page
1 and is not connected to the next page.

Think

Data that can help consider what you should do, checking
feelings and actions.

Form

Composition made with intuitive vision, such as a color and aform, reliance.

Concrete, Necessary,
Explanation Photograph,
Content

According to various scenes, a concrete example is necessary.
It enables understanding the contents with a photograph.

Expression

Simple and clear expression.
Negative expressions are avoided.

Many

Aﬃrmative contents are increased.
The data investigated are increased.

Case

An example in question‑and‑answer format.

Form

A flow chart is used to make it easy for the user to obtainrequired information.

Note. LD, learning disabilities; ADHD, attention‑deficit hyperactivity disorder; ASD, autism spectrum
disorder─ 13 ─

Journal of Developmental Disabilities Research No. 1

4. Discussion
This study examined the consideration of effective information presentation of text teachingmaterials based on the characteristics of students with developmental disabilities. First, theconsideration of information presentation by a supporter by each obstacle classiﬁcation was clariﬁed
quantitatively and statistically.
The relationship between each obstacle characteristic and the consideration of information
presentation was ascertained. Next, to clarify the contents of the information presentation
method, text mining was applied to the free description responses about the concrete matter ofteaching materials that considered each obstacle characteristic. Further, the word characteristics
of each disability were quantitatively extracted. Subsequently, the typical and concrete methodof information presentation was arranged by reading and comprehending each sentence basedon the results. We showed that effective information presentation differed according to disability
classification through qualitative and quantitative analysis based on the participantʼs thoughts.
However, regarding the evaluation of disability type and the eﬀect, there is a limitation due to thesubjectivity of the supporter who provided the response.
In line with a supporterʼs idea, the following is suggested based on the results of the correlation
analysis, or characteristic word extraction and sentence reading comprehension. Regarding LD, “easeof reading” content on devices, such as “ease of understanding a point” and “eﬀective utilization ofdiagrams” is critical. Further, teaching materials that consider various factors, such as “the size of acharacter,” “use of an illustration and a photograph,” and well‑designed “intelligibility of a sentence ora character” are needed. Regarding ADHD, intelligibility (for example, a design that requires reading
information in one volume) and ease of understanding the contents are required. Further, “shortening”
of sentences, not being made to increase the information, ease of understanding important points,
and information on page 1 are needed. For ASD, the following factors were considered important:accuracy, consideration of feelings, handling the word “disability” considerately, consideration of
the userʼs dignity, structure of information, consistency of the information structure, accuracy of
diagrams, a suitable way of using characters and terms, and information that is useful for problem‑
solving. The findings of this study regarding the consideration and use of effective information
presentation methods for children with developmental disabilities by supporters are in line with thoseof previous studies. They correspond to the results of previous research on text teaching materials,
such as illustrations (Larkin and Simon, 1987; Mayer et al., 1995; Shimada and Kitajima, 2008), clear
statements (Seki, 1997) about the contents of teaching materials, illustrations and photographs, andcolorization (Shimada, 2016). From this, it is suggested that the information presentation method
for text teaching materials generally used is eﬀective for persons with developmental disabilities.
Moreover, in this study, consideration corresponding to the finer needs of each disability wassuggested. Therefore, in the future development of teaching materials, it may be useful for support
providers to consider information presentation corresponding to each disability characteristic.
This study highlights the importance of selecting characters, ﬁgures, photographs, and so on,
tailored to each disease, as well as the speciﬁc content, format, and amount of information. This isconsistent with the general text comprehension elements suggested by McTigue and Slough (2010): (d)selective use of visual information, and (e) language and visual information. Concurrently, it reinforces
the importance of more speciﬁc content.
Moreover, this study shows the effects of using illustrations, photographs, ruby, colors,
digitization, and so on, for learning disabilities. This information considers the use of elements for─ 14 ─

Journal of Developmental Disabilities Research No. 1

learning disability information in Wait et al. (2021). In addition, this study embodies the clear andnon‑technical language pointed out by Wait et al. (2021) as follows. In other words, the writing should
reﬂect the upper elementary school level. Furthermore, this study demonstrates that photographs,
concrete examples, flowcharts, question‑and‑answer formats, and simple, straightforward, andpositive expressions are effective for students with ASD. This is consistent with the graphicorganizer found to be eﬀective in Finnegan et al.ʼs (2016) study of ASD reading comprehension. It
is also congruent with and reinforces the promising anaphoric queuing and question generation byFinnegan et al. (2016). However, no promising collaborative learning was identiﬁed. In addition, no
electronic text was found to be ineﬀective. Based on the ﬁndings of Marino et al. (2014) and Rello
et al. (2012), this result could apply not only to paper materials but also to electronic materials.
Additionally, based on the ﬁndings of McTigue and Slough (2010), it can be applied to improve theunderstanding of general texts. A limitation of this study is that the results of this investigation on
the topic of developmental disabilities in students are limited in terms of text teaching materials
on employment training. However, information presentation can be applied regardless of the text
content. Therefore, further verification is necessary. To clearly show whether the information
presentation method extracted from this research is generalizable to other teaching materials andan understanding of the general contents of the study, it is necessary to conduct further research.
However, one issue that should be openly addressed as a prospect for future study is interactive
reading materials and other technological enhancements, which are an increasing research focus.
In this study, responses were not obtained by recalling individual cases, but through a procedurein which the respondents were presented with definitions of LD, ADHD, and ASD and asked torespond to the considerations for each disability characteristic based on their own experience insupporting persons with developmental disabilities in the workplace. Respondents responded
only to those disability types to which they were able to respond based on their experience inproviding support. Therefore, some respondents might have responded regarding all disability types,
others only regarding some. However, respondents were not asked for details on which of the LD,
ADHD, and ASD disability characteristics they had experience supporting, so they might not haveexperience supporting all disabilities. This point is considered a limitation of this study that should
be addressed in future research.

5. Conclusion
This study clarified support providersʼ consideration of information presentation methodsof teaching materials that consider the characteristics of students (persons) with developmental
disabilities. The results of this study may contribute to the optimization of teaching materials forstudents with developmental disabilities to promote understanding and learning.
Acknowledgment
This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Numbers JP20830144, JP20H01702.
Note
1. This study was conducted more than 10 years from the time of data acquisition to the timeof analysis.

─ 15 ─

Journal of Developmental Disabilities Research No. 1

References
Broman, S. H. & Grafman, J. (Eds.). (2014). Atypical cognitive deﬁcits in developmental disorders: Implications
for brain function. East Sussex, United Kingdom: Psychology Press.
Castles, A., Kohnen, S., Nickels, L. & Brock, J. (2014). Developmental disorders: What can be learned from
cognitive neuropsychology? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological
Sciences, 369(1634), 20130407. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0407
Enomoto (Terada), Y., Takezawa, T. & Inoue, T. (2016). Hattatsusyougai noaru Hito wo Taisyou toshita
Koutougakkoudankai deno Syuuroujyunbikyouiku ni Gyuuyou na Gakusyuunaiyou no Kentou [SigniﬁcantLearning Content in High Schools for Employment Preparatory Education of Persons with Developmental
Disabilities]. Japanese journal of learning disabilities, 25 (1), 105‑120.
Finnegan, E. & Mazin, A. L. (2016). Strategies for increasing reading comprehension skills in students with
autism spectrum disorder: A review of the literature. Education and Treatment of Children, 187‑219.
Fujita, K., Maekawa, H., Dairoku, H. & Yamanaka, K. (2006). WAIS‑III Seijinchinoukensa [Japanese version
Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale ─ Third Edition]. Tokyo: Nihon Bunka Kagakush.
Hoover, K. (2011). Text preferences of a student with attention deﬁcit hyperactivity disorder: A case study[Doctoral Dissertation]. Bowling Green State University.
Japan Parentsʼ Association of Learning Disabilities (2008). LD nadono Hattatsusyougai noaru Koukousei
no Jittaicyousahoukoku [Report on the Actual Conditions of High School Students with LD and Other
Developmental Disabilities]. Tokyo, Japan: Japan Parentsʼ Association of Learning Disabilities.
Kanai, C., Hashimoto, R., Itahashi, T., Tani, M., Yamada, T., Ota, H. & Kato, N. (2017). Cognitive proﬁles ofadults with high‑functioning autism spectrum disorder and those with attention‑deficit/hyperactivity
disorder based on the WAIS‑ III. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 61, 108‒115. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ridd.2016.12.008
Kanai, C., Tani, M., Hashimoto, R., Yamada, T., Ota, H., Watanabe, H. & Kato, N. (2012). Cognitive proﬁlesof adults with Aspergerʼs disorder, high‑functioning autism, and pervasive developmental disorder nototherwise speciﬁed based on the WAIS‑III. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 6(1), 58‒64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2011.09.004
Larkin, J. H. & Simon, H. A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive
Science, 11(1), 65‒100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551‑6708.1987.tb00863.x
Marino, M. T., Gotch, C. M., Israel, M., Vasquez III, E., Basham, J. D. & Becht, K. (2014). UDL in the
middle school science classroom: Can video games and alternative text heighten engagement andlearning for students with learning disabilities? Learning Disability Quarterly, 37(2), 87‒99. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0731948713503963
Mayer, R. E., Steinhoff, K., Bower, G., & Mars, R. (1995). A generative theory of textbook design: Using
annotated illustrations to foster meaningful learning of science text. Educational Technology Research andDevelopment, 43(1), 31‒41. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02300480
McTigue, E. M. & Slough, S. W. (2010). Student‑accessible science texts: Elements of design. Reading
Psychology, 31(3), 213‒227. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702710903256312
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology. (2011). Gakkou niokeru Hairyojikounado[Consideration at school. Special Needs Education Division]. http://www.mext.go.jp/b̲menu/shingi/chukyo/
chukyo3/046/siryo/attach/1313585.htm. Accessed, 10, 26, 2021.
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology (2019). Aatarashii Jidai no
Tokubetsushienkyouiku no Arikata nikansuru Yuushikisyakaigihoukoku [Report of the Expert Council on
Special Needs Education in the New Era]. https://www.mext.go.jp/b̲menu/shingi/chousa/shotou/154/
─ 16 ─

Journal of Developmental Disabilities Research No. 1

mext̲00644.html. Accessed, 5, 1, 2023.
Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Social Welfare and War Victimsʼ Relief Bureau, & Department
of Health and Welfare for Persons with Disabilities. (2008). Hattatsusyougai no Rikai notameni [For theunderstanding of the developmental disabilities]. https://www.mhlw.go.jp/bunya/shougaihoken/hattatsu/
dl/01.pdf. Accessed, 10, 26, 2021.
National Institute of Vocational Rehabilitation (2015). Hattatsusyougaisya no Syokugyouseikatujyou no
Kadai to Sonotaiou nikansuru Kenkyu [Research on challenges in the professional lives of persons with
developmental disabilities and how to respond to them] ． National Institute of Vocational Rehabilitation
resource series，84.
National Institute of Vocational Rehabilitation (2009). Hattatsusyougaisya no Syuuroushien no Kadai nikansuru
Kenkyu [Research on issues of employment support for persons with developmental disabilities]． National
Institute of Vocational Rehabilitation research report, 88.
Rello, L., Kanvinde, G. & Baeza‑Yates, R. (2012). Layout guidelines for web text and a web service toimprove accessibility for dyslexics. Proceedings of the International Cross‑Disciplinary Conference on Web
Accessibility. https://doi.org/10.1145/2207016.2207048. France: Lyon.
Scupin, R. (1997). The KJ method: A technique for analyzing data derived from Japanese ethnology. Human
Organization, 56(2), 233‒237. DOI: 10.17730/humo.56.2.x335923511444655
Seki, Y. (1997). Tekisuto no Naiyohaaku nitaisuru Kajyogaki to Kīwādokyouchou no Eikyo [Effects ofitemization and highlighting key words on text comprehension], Japan Society for Educational Technology,
21, 17‒20.
Shimada, H. (2016). Kyozai no Kouseiyouso ga Dokkai heno Doukizuke niataeru Eikyo [Eﬀects of components
of educational materials on motivation for reading]. Japanese Journal of Educational Psychology, 64, 296‒306.
Shimada, H. & Kitajima, M. (2008). Sashie ga Manual no Rikai wo Sokushin suru Ninchiprosesu [Why doillustrations promote comprehension of manuals? Eﬀects of motivation and elaboration]. Japanese Journal of
Educational Psychology, 56, 474‒486.
Singh, B. D., Moore, D. W., Furlonger, B. E., Anderson, A., Fall, R. & Howorth, S. (2021). Reading
comprehension and autism spectrum disorder: A systematic review of interventions involving single‑
case experimental designs. Review Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 8(1), 3‒21. https://doi.
org/10.1007/S40489‑020‑00200‑3
Stringﬁeld, S. G., Luscre, D. & Gast, D. L. (2011). Eﬀects of a story map on accelerated reader postreading testscores in students with high‑functioning autism. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities,
26(4), 218‒229. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088357611423543
Terada, Y. (2006). Tokubetsushienkyouiku no Jyouhougen toshiteno Handobukku ni Kyouin no Jyuyou wo
Hanei saserutameno Chiekkurisuto no Sakusei [Making of checklists to reflect teacherʼs demand in thehandbook as the source of the Special Support Education]. Bulletin of the Graduate School of Education,
Hiroshima University, 55, 91‑98.
Waight, M, & Oldreive, W. (2020). Investigating accessible information formats with people who have learning
disabilities. Learning Disability Practice, 23(2), 23‒30. https://doi.org/10.7748/ldp.2020.e2031ʼ
Wechsler, D. (1997). WAIS ‐ III administration and scoring manual. San Antonio, TX, United States:
Psychological Corporation.

─ 17 ─