View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Training Young Adults with Intellectual Disability to Read Critically on the Internet

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Training Young Adults with Intellectual Disability to Read Critically on the Internet
Language: English
Authors: Delgado, Pablo, Ávila, Vicenta, Fajardo, Inmaculada, Salmerón, Ladislao (ORCID 0000-0002-4283-4279)
Source: Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities. May 2019 32(3):666-677.
Availability: Wiley-Blackwell. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. Tel: 800-835-6770; Tel: 781-388-8598; Fax: 781-388-8232; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 12
Publication Date: 2019
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Intellectual Disability, Critical Reading, Guides, Internet, Information Sources, Special Needs Students, Instructional Materials, Program Evaluation, Group Discussion, Pretests Posttests, Program Effectiveness, Decision Making, Self Determination, Web Sites, Controversial Issues (Course Content), Trust (Psychology)
DOI: 10.1111/jar.12562
ISSN: 1360-2322
Abstract: Background: Young people with intellectual disability (ID) are becoming frequent Internet users, but they present difficulties selecting reliable Internet sources. Methods: The present authors tested an instructional programme aimed at increasing skills to evaluate information from the Internet of 33 young adult students with intellectual disability enrolled in special needs education (19.4 years). The programme was composed of different web pages that provided conflicting views on a controversial topic. Students participated in small group discussions supported with Wh-question graphic organizers and contrasting cases during seven sessions. Results: Differences between pre- and post-tests indicated that the programme is effective in increasing students' ability to select trustworthy web pages, and to use source characteristics to justify such selection by means of supervised instruction. Conclusion: Promoting Internet use in a safe way might increase the opportunities of young people with intellectual disability to make choices and self-determined decisions about their life (Handbook of research-based practices for educating students with intellectual disability, 2016, New York, NY: Taylor & Francis).
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2019
Accession Number: EJ1211280
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGi5G0cRsFxHdDzyWRqIiQxAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDEQ9JqTxhH8QY8mN8AIBEICBmw6aGHM3ciN0fVH60f_K34i4XIINfzFYwTnXZyV-oxKP3_QVLm_oNPCPYVGFZ4S131JrmqJdmXEpAA_r52B49r-2LDGXJZUQQrF7uvTgGvFj1cI6KfA1xqfpXeaWHg-o5FNP1OFkgHauDnu2OIiwozY62kjbvsQBp_iYxy-2k2uNMInzRxKgl1kB9sFXYw2IrssYbcPiRtbetnkr
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0135775310;e0301may.19;2019Apr09.06:59;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0135775310-1">Training young adults with intellectual disability to read critically on the internet </title> <p>Background: Young people with intellectual disability (ID) are becoming frequent Internet users, but they present difficulties selecting reliable Internet sources. Methods: The present authors tested an instructional programme aimed at increasing skills to evaluate information from the Internet of 33 young adult students with intellectual disability enrolled in special needs education (19.4 years). The programme was composed of different web pages that provided conflicting views on a controversial topic. Students participated in small group discussions supported with Wh‐question graphic organizers and contrasting cases during seven sessions. Results: Differences between pre‐ and post‐tests indicated that the programme is effective in increasing students' ability to select trustworthy web pages, and to use source characteristics to justify such selection by means of supervised instruction. Conclusion: Promoting Internet use in a safe way might increase the opportunities of young people with intellectual disability to make choices and self‐determined decisions about their life (Handbook of research‐based practices for educating students with intellectual disability, 2016, New York, NY: Taylor & Francis).</p> <p>Keywords: intellectual disability; internet reading; intervention; media literacy</p> <p>People with intellectual disability (ID) are characterized by significant limitations both in intellectual functioning and in adaptive behaviour as expressed in conceptual, social and practical adaptive skills, which originates before age 18 (Schalock et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref1">41</reflink>]). Regardless of such limitations, there is a growing movement recommending that students with intellectual disability now be held to higher literacy standards (Browder et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref2">5</reflink>]; Copeland & Keefe, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref3">12</reflink>]; Lundberg & Reichenberg, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref4">24</reflink>]). Promoting individual literacy skills to satisfy personal interest and enjoyment, and to improve decision making in real life, may have positive consequences in students' self‐determination (Shogren & Wehmeyer, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref5">43</reflink>]). However, most research on reading instruction with students with intellectual disability has focused on training basic skills such as vocabulary and phonemics, while more advanced literacy instruction remains an under‐researched but essential area for this population (Afacan, Wilkerson, & Ruppar, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref6">1</reflink>]; Browder, Hudson, & Wood, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref7">6</reflink>]).</p> <p>In our current digital world, people with intellectual disability need increased literacy skills to benefit from the unprecedented access to information and communication on the Internet. Indeed, the Internet enables this population to participate actively in society to a greater level, because it reduces or even eliminates many barriers that limit their access to activities in daily life (Chadwick, Wesson, & Fullwood, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref8">10</reflink>]). For example, the Internet allows laypersons to access expert information that can inform them about relevant life decisions, such as the consequences linked to a particular diet. Still, people with intellectual disability have to deal with some risks and cognitive challenges inherent to the open editorial policy of the Internet, which means that anybody can post information regardless of their level of expertise or their motives. Consequently, on the Internet, expert information and neutral information stand hand in hand with dubious, biased and false information. Thus, to avoid misinformation, people need to take a critical stance while gathering information from the Internet, particularly when they want to learn about a topic for which there are several conflicting views (Salmerón, Kammerer, & Delgado, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref9">38</reflink>]).</p> <p>As it is next reviewed, people with intellectual disability have been traditionally defined as credulous (Greenspan, Loughlin, & Black, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref10">16</reflink>]; Lussier‐Desrochers et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref11">25</reflink>]), which makes them susceptible to fraud in daily life activities in general and prone to accept untrustworthy information in particular (Salmerón, Gómez, & Fajardo, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref12">37</reflink>]). In this study, the present authors tested an instructional programme to teach students with intellectual disability to read critically on the Internet. In the next sections, the present authors review the literature on source evaluation by people with intellectual disability, as well as previous instructional programmes aimed at improving evaluation skills. The present authors then present the results of our programme and discuss its implications in the light of the current social trend to raise the literacy threshold to students with intellectual disability.</p> <hd id="AN0135775310-2">Source evaluation by students with intellectual disability</hd> <p>During the last decade, several efforts from media studies and education have started to provide a comprehensive picture of the skills of students with intellectual disability, perceptions and use of Internet resources (e.g., Caton & Chapman, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref13">8</reflink>]; Chiner, Gómez‐Puerta, & Cardona‐Moltó, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref14">11</reflink>]). A general concern has been the potential digital divide between people with intellectual disability and typically developing ones (Chadwick et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref15">10</reflink>]; Lussier‐Desrochers et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref16">25</reflink>]). While in the past it has been reported that young adults with intellectual disability lack the basic skills to access Internet resources (Li‐Tsang, Yeung, Chan, & Hui‐Chan, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref17">23</reflink>]), more recent studies suggest that this population can master the technical skills to efficiently interact with some Internet resources. Rocha et al. ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref18">32</reflink>]) found that young adults with intellectual disability can efficiently search for specific pages in Web menus, especially if images are used to support textual information. They can still master to some extent Internet search with textual information after appropriate instruction (Zisimopoulos, Sigafoos, & Koutromanos, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref19">52</reflink>]). Molin, Sorbring, and Löfgren‐Mårtenson ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref20">26</reflink>]) reported that the young adults with intellectual disability they interviewed did not have major technical difficulties to interact with social network sites such as Facebook and that if they encountered a technical problem, they knew whom to consult to find a solution. Although young adults with intellectual disability tend to have a positive perception of the Internet and its potential, they are also aware of the dangers of interacting with non‐disabled peers, such as the risk of being hurt or ending up in undesirable situations. Young adults with intellectual disability are affected by several risks on the Internet, such as excessive frequency of use (Jenaro et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref21">18</reflink>]), being threatened on social media or accessing web pages with undesirable content (Chadwick, Quinn, & Fullwood, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref22">9</reflink>]; Chiner et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref23">11</reflink>]; Sallafranque‐St‐Louis & Normand, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref24">34</reflink>]). The effect of such risks can limit the positive effects of interacting with the Internet. For example, previous bad experiences, and not a lack of motivation, have been reported by young people with intellectual disability as the main reason to decrease their Internet use (Molin et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref25">26</reflink>]). Regarding the different uses, young people with intellectual disability tend to use the Internet more often for social and recreational than for educational tasks (Jenaro et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref26">18</reflink>]). Their ability to efficiently use Internet resources for learning purposes is the focus of the current study.</p> <p>Drawing upon this background, in this study the present authors analysed the ability of young adults with intellectual disability to critically identify information sources when learning about controversies on the Internet. Previous research has defined sourcing as attending to, evaluating and using available or accessible information about the sources of documents, such as who authored them and what kind of documents they are (Bråten, Stadtler, & Salmerón, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref27">4</reflink>]). Traditionally, such skills have been considered exclusive of academics (Wineburg, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref28">50</reflink>]), and therefore, not much attention has been paid to develop sourcing skills in primary and secondary education. To the extent that textbooks are edited and curated by experts, in a "print only World" there was no need to develop such skills to become literate. However, the emergence of the Internet as a main provider of information has rapidly changed this scenario. The Internet has brought to the main public an unprecedented access to controversial, dubious, biased and even false information. In such context, applying sourcing skills allow laypeople, as well as students, not only to filter relevant information (e.g., to identify and to evaluate potentially misleading or false information), but also to comprehend complex controversial topics (e.g., different sources may have different views according to their interests, preferences or expertise; Rouet & Britt, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref29">33</reflink>]). In sum, developing sourcing skills has become an essential aspect of digital literacy.</p> <p>Previous works have extensively documented that typically developing students from primary and secondary education will often fail to attend to source information (e.g., author and document type) when reading multiple web pages with the goal to learn about a topic (for a review, Bråten et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref30">4</reflink>]).</p> <p>Few recent studies have explored sourcing skills of students with intellectual disability in different Internet scenarios (Salmerón, Fajardo, & Gómez, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref31">35</reflink>]; Salmerón et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref32">37</reflink>]). Salmerón et al. ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref33">37</reflink>]) have studied to what extent a group of young adults with intellectual disability used source characteristics when selecting the best recommendation in a Web forum. In such scenarios, a fictitious friend had posted a request to solve a daily life problem (e.g., Should I bring my pet with me on vacation?), and she obtained responses from authors with different credentials (e.g., anonymous or experts on the topic). The results showed that adolescents with typical development selected more often recommendations from experts on the topic, while students with intellectual disability selected to the same extent anonymous and expert recommendations. In a follow‐up study, Salmerón, Fajardo, et al. ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref34">35</reflink>]) requested a group of students with intellectual disability to select the best web page to get information about a conflicting topic (e.g., Can a social network use my pictures for commercial purposes?) from a short list of results resembling a well‐known search engine. The URL provided relevant source information, while half of the web pages were hosted in trustworthy websites (e.g., police), and the other half were hosted in less trustworthy pages (e.g., students' blog). The results showed that while searching familiar topics (i.e., social networks), students with intellectual disability selected more relevant and trustworthy pages than irrelevant and less trustworthy ones. For the searches of less familiar topics (i.e., daily health), their selection of pages was rather random.</p> <p>In sum, the existing evidence suggests that students with intellectual disability struggle to evaluate information from texts, especially when faced with conflicting information about less familiar topics. The reasons for such ineffective processing are unclear, as it could be a lack of strategic knowledge or a deficit in prerequisite skills. For example, not using source information could be partially rooted in their deficits in social thinking, such as the inability to interpret the intentions of others (Leffert, Siperstein, & Widaman, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref35">22</reflink>]) or the lack of understanding of new social interaction rules and conventions on the Internet (Lussier‐Desrochers et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref36">25</reflink>]). Consequently, the extent to which evaluation skills can be promoted in people with intellectual disability by means of instruction remains an open question, which will be the educational challenge addressed in this study.</p> <hd id="AN0135775310-3">Instructional programmes to foster source evaluation</hd> <p>During the last decade, there have been several attempts to develop instructional programmes to enhance students' evaluation skills (for reviews, Brante & Strømsø, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref37">3</reflink>]; Jeong, Cho, & Hwang, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref38">19</reflink>]; Nordheim, Gundersen, Espehaug, Guttersrud, & Flottorp, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref39">28</reflink>]). Brante and Strømsø ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref40">3</reflink>]) have reviewed 18 intervention studies specifically focused on source evaluation skills in primary, secondary and graduate education. Most intervention programmes request students' to solve an inquiry task by using multiple web pages that provide different perspectives of the topic. Guidance to source is usually provided via scripts or prompts. Most interventions emphasize the need to identify the information source and to evaluate its credibility. Programmes addressing secondary and graduate students also focus on the need to link the information source to what is said in the text, to help students interpreting the message. Overall, students profit from instruction to a certain degree, with big variations between studies. Of note is that in a majority of studies, the effectiveness of the programmes is measured by using post‐tests that took place immediately after the intervention, and thus, the long time effects are still unclear (Brante & Strømsø, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref41">3</reflink>]; Nordheim et al, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref42">28</reflink>]).</p> <p>As evidenced in Brante and Strømsø's ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref43">3</reflink>]) review, all intervention programmes aimed at improving students' source evaluation have involved typically developing students, with the exception of the work by Stadtler, Scharrer, Macedo‐Rouet, Rouet, & Bromme ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref44">44</reflink>]). In that study, the authors explored a group of 20‐year‐old students from a vocational school, who had low levels of reading skills. Specifically, their average score in a standardized reading test corresponded to the 30th percentile. The intervention programme included pairs of texts about different controversies. Texts included author's occupation, which could be more or less pertinent for the topic discussed. For example, in the discussion about carbon dioxide storage the pertinent expert was a physicist, while the non‐pertinent expert was a businessman. The instructional group was trained during 90 min by means of direct instruction and group discussion. The major strategies emphasized at the programme were to identify texts' sources and to evaluate its credibility according to the correspondence between the authors' area of expertise and the topic. Results from an immediate post‐test revealed that the instructional group at the post‐test, compared to the pre‐test, agreed more often with the experts' account and referred more often to sources to justify their selection. No difference was found regarding memory for sources.</p> <p>The need of educational programmes or individualized support to people with intellectual disability aimed to prevent the deception risk on the Internet has been highlighted before (e.g., Lussier‐Desrochers et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref45">25</reflink>]), but, to our knowledge, it has been neither implemented nor tested. Programmes designed specifically for students with intellectual disability usually aim to train literacy skills in paper, but not evaluation skills applied to web pages (e.g., Lundberg & Reichenberg, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref46">24</reflink>]). In the absence of studies aimed at training sourcing skills to students with intellectual disability, the question arises as to what extent the present authors could use programmes developed for typically developing students to instruct students with intellectual disability. In their review of reading literacy interventions, Copeland & Keefe ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref47">12</reflink>]) have concluded that many of the research‐based strategies used in programmes with typically developing students are also effective with students with intellectual disability, such as strategy instruction. For this purpose, the authors conclude that students with intellectual disability need systematic direct instruction to acquire reading strategies.</p> <hd id="AN0135775310-4">The current study</hd> <p>The present intervention programme is aimed to train information evaluation on the Internet to a group of young adults with intellectual disability who were enrolled in special needs educational programmes of two secondary schools in Valencia, Spain. As it is described in Methods section, the programme is substantiated in recent theories of source evaluation (Bråten et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref48">4</reflink>]) and uses instructional methods that have been applied with success in different literacy programmes with students with intellectual disability (van den Bos, Nakken, Nicolay, & van Houten, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref49">48</reflink>]; Copeland & Keefe [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref50">12</reflink>]). The present authors expect that a seven‐session intervention will improve students' consideration of source information, which will lead them to select more trustworthy web pages. Specifically, the present authors expect that, as compared to the pre‐test, students receiving the instruction:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Hypothesis 1: will select more often trustworthy than untrustworthy web pages.</item> <p></p> <item> Hypothesis 2: will base their selection of web pages more often on source characteristics.</item> <p></p> <item> Hypothesis 3: will show better memory for source information.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0135775310-5">METHOD</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0135775310-6">Participants</hd> <p>Fifty young adults with moderate to mild intellectual disability (22 females, mean chronological age = 19 years) participated in the study. Participants were students from two educational centres from Valencia, a large city in Spain. Seventeen students came from a centre that hosts a special needs programme, within a regular high school. The remaining thirty‐three students came from a vocational training centre for people with special needs, addressed to people that have completed the mandatory 10 years of schooling in Spain. To access both programmes, students must have an official diagnosis of intellectual disability and enough personal and social autonomy to follow different training modules. The study was approved by the pedagogical team of both centres, and the intervention programme was included as a training activity aimed at training students' digital literacy. The study was approved by the Ethical Committee of Experimental Research of the University of Valencia (procedure H1443008998347), and it was conducted according to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. The final sample included those participants who attended the pre‐ and immediate post‐tests, as well as the 75% of the training sessions (<emph>n = </emph>33). Both the results of baseline assessment (Table 1) and experimental tasks are only provided for this final sample of 33 students.</p> <p>Descriptive results of the baseline assessment of the final sample (n = 33)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><tbody><tr><td align="left">Age in years (<italic>M</italic>, <italic>SD</italic>, range)</td><td align="left">19.4 (40.63) [16–25]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Gender (number and % of females)</td><td align="left">18 (55%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">IQ (<italic>M</italic>, <italic>SD</italic>, range)</td><td align="left">50.72 (19.69) [40–84]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Sentence comprehension score (<italic>M</italic>, <italic>SD</italic>, range)</td><td align="left">11.82 (3.23) [3–16]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Results of the questionnaire on internet use (number of participants and %)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">They use a computer, tablet or smartphone regularly</td><td align="left">33 (100%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">They have a computer, tablet or smartphone at home</td><td align="left">33 (100%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">They have Internet connection at home</td><td align="left">33 (100%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">They use the Internet regularly</td><td align="left">31 (94%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">They use the Internet (<italic>n</italic> = 31)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Everyday</td><td align="left">21 (64%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">5–6 days a week</td><td align="left">3 (9%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">3–4 days a week</td><td align="left">1 (3%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">2 days a week</td><td align="left">5 (5%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">A few days a month</td><td align="left">1 (3%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">In the Internet, they usually</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Read emails</td><td align="left">15 (45%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Send emails</td><td align="left">8 (24%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Read news</td><td align="left">6 (18%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Watch TV/listen to radio</td><td align="left">0</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Read social media</td><td align="left">13 (39%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Post in social media</td><td align="left">2 (6%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Watch videos to have fun</td><td align="left">8 (24%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Watch videos to learn</td><td align="left">28 (85%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Listen to/download music</td><td align="left">10 (30%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Watch/download movies</td><td align="left">25 (76%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Gather information for my studies</td><td align="left">11 (33%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Gather information about my interests/worries</td><td align="left">22 (67%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Read Internet forums</td><td align="left">15 (45%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Post in Internet forums</td><td align="left">0</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Read blogs</td><td align="left">0</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Post in blogs</td><td align="left">4 (12%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Chat</td><td align="left">1 (3%)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Play videogames</td><td align="left">26 (79%)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0135775310-7">Baseline measures</hd> <p>Participant's intelligence quotient (IQ, Table 1) was determined by their scores on the Spanish versions of the Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test (KBIT; Kaufman & Kaufman, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref51">21</reflink>]) or the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (Wechsler, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref52">49</reflink>]).</p> <p>Sentence reading comprehension was assessed by means of the sentence comprehension subtest of the PROLEC‐R (Spanish standardized reading battery of Cuetos, Rodríguez, Ruano, & Arribas, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref53">13</reflink>]). This subtest asks participants to read a sentence and, afterwards, perform the action described at the sentence (e.g., Hit the table three times) or select the picture that best matches the meaning of it (out of 3 or 4). The average direct scores of the participants (Table 1) were more than two standard deviations below the mean of sixth grade, the higher schooling age for which the PROLEC‐R provides scales for this subtest.</p> <p>Additionally, participant's use of Internet was assessed by means of an ad hoc questionnaire (Appendix 1), which was orally applied by evaluators and self‐reported by participants. Most of the participants had Internet connection at home, were active Internet users and use it in an everyday basis, especially for watching videos and looking for information about their interests and worries and reading Internet forums (for a full report of these results, Table 1). This profile of Internet uses confirms that the sample was a suitable target for the intervention programme.</p> <hd id="AN0135775310-8">Training programme</hd> <p>The training programme was adapted from previous intervention works (Pérez et al.., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref54">31</reflink>]; Stadtler et al., [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref55">44</reflink>]) and was inspired by theoretical accounts that conceive sourcing as attending to, evaluating and using information about the sources of documents (Bråten et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref56">4</reflink>]). The training consisted of seven modules. Modules 1 to 4 aimed to sensitize and to train participants to identify the existence of four main factors that affect the trustworthiness and validity of claims they can meet on the Internet: (a) It is possible to find different statements about the same issue; (b) web pages vary in restrictions on who can publish on them; (c) expertise of the author of the text in regard to the issue; and (d) the intention of the author or the web page. Modules 5–7 tried to teach participants how to globally attend to the factors affecting the trustworthiness of information and how to evaluate it by means of what they learnt during the four first sessions. These seven modules were organized around three Wh‐questions: (a) What it is said? (b) Who said it? and (c) Where it is said?</p> <p>The programme used a combination of instructional methods, including elements of direct instruction, group discussions, Wh‐question graphic organizers, modelling and contrasting cases, all of them adapted to guide and group oral reading. Such methods have proved to be effective in previous intervention studies aimed to promote reading and social skills to students with intellectual disability (Copeland & Keefe [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref57">12</reflink>]; Hetzroni & Banin, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref58">17</reflink>]; Lundberg & Reichenberg [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref59">24</reflink>]; van den Bos, et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref60">48</reflink>]). In particular, van den Bos et al. ([<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref61">48</reflink>]) tested the effectiveness of two reading comprehension intervention programmes to a group of adults with mild intellectual disabilities. One programme used mostly elements of direct instruction, in which an expert explained and modelled comprehension strategies. Another programme used reciprocal teaching (Brown & Palincsar, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref62">7</reflink>]), which started with direct instruction and gradually introduced dialogues and discussion with and between peers. Results indicated that participants improved their comprehension level equally in both programmes (van den Bos et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref63">48</reflink>]).</p> <p>Specifically, in our programme modules 1–4 started with the researcher directly instructing and modelling the use of the strategies using the module's conflicting texts (see below). Following Browder et al. ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref64">6</reflink>]), a graphic organizer was used to teach the Wh‐questions (What, Who and Where) to the students during these modules (one Wh‐question per module). Then, participants were encouraged to discuss in group to respond to the conflict raised during the session. Finally, modules 5–7 used contrasting cases, an instructional method in which students compare cases about the information or procedure to be learned (Braasch, Bråten, Strømsø, Anmarkrud, & Ferguson, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref65">2</reflink>]; Salmerón & Llorens [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref66">39</reflink>]). Our programme provided participants with descriptions of the steps taken by two fictitious students to evaluate the trustworthiness of a web page. While one of the students applied correct strategies, as the ones identified in modules 2 to 4, the other student used incorrect strategies. Participants were required to discuss which of the fictitious students will solve the task correctly, and to explain why. Again, a graphic organizer was used to help readers to make a decision and to explain it accordingly to the answers to the Wh‐questions.</p> <p>The present authors designed eight pairs of conflicting texts (one pair per module) with different socio‐scientific controversies. Topics were selected in a pilot study, following the interests of a different group of eleven students with intellectual disability enrolled in a vocational school. This was done in order to promote students' engagement and to facilitate comprehension (Copeland & Keefe [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref67">12</reflink>]). Topics included the following: Consumption of pills "for learning," Dangers of diets to lose weight, Diesel or gasoline car, which is better? Are zoos suitable? Mineral or tap water, which is better? Texts were drawn out from actual websites and simplified linguistically following the recommendations of the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (Nomura, Nielsen, & Tronbacke, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref68">27</reflink>]). Simplification was aimed to support comprehension of students with intellectual disability, who usually present deficits in reading comprehension skills (Fajardo et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref69">14</reflink>]; Fajardo, Tavares, Ávila, & Ferrer, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref70">15</reflink>]).</p> <p>Texts were presented to the whole group using a video projector. Texts were presented as web pages that included the <emph>url</emph>, a Web logo and some information about the author (i.e., name and profession) at the bottom (Figure 1). In each session, the web pages were presented as part of a narrative in which two fictitious characters wanted to learn about the controversies. Each web page presented a different view on the controversy. They also differed on their degree of trustworthiness. More trustworthy web pages were written by an expert and benevolent author, or they were published in a website with strict editorial policies (e.g., Web of a medical journal). By contrast, less trustworthy web pages were written by laypersons, web pages had clear vested interests (e.g., a commercial company), or they were published in websites without editorial policies (e.g., Web forum; cf. Paul, Macedo‐Rouet, Rouet, & Stadtler, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref71">30</reflink>]).</p> <p>Graph: Screenshot of one web page used in one of the scenarios, in Spanish. Note that source information is available on top of the page ("science magazine"), embedded in the test ("study by Born Free Association") and at the bottom ("Biologist from the University of Barcelona") [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com ]</p> <hd id="AN0135775310-9">Intervention measures: Measures of internet sourcing</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0135775310-10">Selection and justification task</hd> <p>The present authors developed three multiple document tasks for the pre‐, immediate and delayed post‐tests. In all three tasks, participants saw two web pages, one more trustworthy and another less trustworthy, that provided different views on a controversy (Table 2 for an overview of the web pages). Participants had to orally indicate which of the two web pages they would recommend and to justify their decision. Responses were videotaped and later transcribed for analysis. Justifications were first divided between ideas, and each idea was coded to the extent that (a) justification used their prior knowledge (e.g., "Because Vodafone [participant refers to this company as an agent] and my mother tell me that WiFi is not bad"), (b) justification was a paraphrase of an idea from the text or an elaboration, and (c) justifications cited an information source (author's occupation, Web provider or embedded source, Table 2). When a source was cited, the present authors also coded the extent to which they specified authors' expertise (i.e., occupation) or intentions. Forty‐two per cent of the transcriptions were coded by two trained researchers, yielding an average reliability score of Cohen's <emph>kappa</emph> = 0.88 (ranging from 0.71 to 1).</p> <p>Overview of the web pages used in the pre‐, immediate and delayed tests</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Phase</th><th align="left">Controversy</th><th align="left">Credibility</th><th align="left">Web page</th><th align="left">Author occupation</th><th align="left">Web provider</th><th align="left">Embedded source</th><th align="left">Number of words</th><th align="left">Readability (Flesch)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left">Pre‐test or immediate post‐test</td><td align="left">Possible health damage of mobile phone screens</td><td align="left">Untrustworthy</td><td align="left">Smartphones are not bad for your eyes</td><td align="left">Sales manager</td><td align="left">Samsung</td><td align="left">Study by the Complutense University of Madrid</td><td align="left">164</td><td align="left">75.46</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Trustworthy</td><td align="left">Your smartphone screen hampers your sight</td><td align="left">Optometrist</td><td align="left">El Mundo (Spanish newspaper)</td><td align="left">Study by the Hospital of California</td><td align="left">141</td><td align="left">68.27</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Pre‐test or immediate post‐test</td><td align="left">Possible health damage of Wi‐Fi</td><td align="left">Untrustworthy</td><td align="left">Wi‐Fi networks do not harm health</td><td align="left">Marketing director</td><td align="left">Vodafone</td><td align="left">World Health Organization</td><td align="left">167</td><td align="left">68.17</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Trustworthy</td><td align="left">Are Wi‐Fi networks harmful?</td><td align="left">Medical doctor</td><td align="left">El País (Spanish newspaper)</td><td align="left">Report by the University of Washington</td><td align="left">141</td><td align="left">74.01</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Delayed post‐test</td><td align="left">Effectiveness of toothpastes</td><td align="left">Untrustworthy</td><td align="left">The benefits of toothpaste</td><td align="left">Chemist</td><td align="left">Colgate</td><td align="left">Study by the University of Paris</td><td align="left">103</td><td align="left">76.24</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Trustworthy</td><td align="left">Toothpastes are useless</td><td align="left">Dentist</td><td align="left">Hospital Quirón Valencia</td><td align="left">Study by consumers organization</td><td align="left">112</td><td align="left">80.40</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0135775310-11">Memory for sources</hd> <p>The present authors measured students' memory for sources with a recognition task that included six correct source names from the web pages (the name of two author occupations, two Web providers and two embedded sources) together with six distractors (the same number of different kinds of sources not mentioned at the web pages). For each participant, the present authors calculated <emph>A'</emph> as a discrimination index. <emph>A'</emph> is a non‐parametric statistic appropriate for calculating outcomes from <emph>yes/no</emph> tasks. Its formula takes into account hits rate, false alarm rate and response bias (Stanislaw & Todorov, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref72">46</reflink>]). The <emph>A'</emph> index yields a minimum value of 0 and a maximum of 1, where 0.5 represents performance at chance level.</p> <hd id="AN0135775310-12">Source‐to‐content link task</hd> <p>For each scenario, students were given four statements that paraphrased ideas included at the two web pages (two statements per web page), together with three distracting statements. They were requested to link each statement to one out of three web pages (represented by their logo), or to the statement "This is not said in any of the web pages." The present authors considered the total number of statements correctly linked to the corresponding web page (max = 7). This task has been used as a measure of source evaluation in previous studies (Kammerer, Meier, & Stahl, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref73">20</reflink>]; Stang Lund et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref74">45</reflink>]; Strømsø et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref75">47</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0135775310-13">Design and procedure</hd> <p>The training programme included seven sessions and took place after the pre‐test. Each session lasted between 50 and 60 min and took place at the regular students' classroom. Classes were composed of small groups of five to six students. Groups participated in one session per day, with 1–2 days between sessions.</p> <p>All students participated in a pre‐ and an immediate post‐test. In both cases, a fictitious character requested help to decide which web page, out of 2, was the best to learn about a controversy. The information of the two web pages was read aloud by the researcher to the group. Then, each participant selected individually the web page they considered to be the best, by using a coloured card, and explained verbally their decision. Finally, each participant responded to the source‐to‐content links and memory for sources tasks in an individual booklet. The immediate post‐test was administered between 1 and 2 days after the end of the intervention programme. To control for potential effects of topics, 50% of participants completed the controversy "Possible health damage of mobile phone screens" at the pre‐test, and "Possible health damage of Wi‐Fi" at post‐test, whereas the other 50% received the scenarios in reversed order.</p> <p>A subsample of the students (<emph>n</emph> = 12) participated in a delayed post‐test that was used as an indicator of long‐term effect of the intervention, as recommended by Brante and Strømsø ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref76">3</reflink>]). This took place approximately three weeks after the end of the intervention programme. This phase differed from the immediate post‐test in two relevant ways: At the delayed post‐test, students were tested individually in a regular classroom, and they read the web pages on their own on a laptop. They could ask the researcher if they had any comprehension difficulty while reading. Besides, the researcher ensured that participants understood the main claims of the texts.</p> <p>Participants completed the tasks with the teacher's guidance, who read aloud the tasks, clarified its requirements and helped participants to provide the responses, with special attention to those with higher difficulties and those who explicitly expressed doubts or demanded help.</p> <hd id="AN0135775310-14">RESULTS</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0135775310-15">Baseline measures</hd> <p>To gain a better understanding of how students with intellectual disability critically—or uncritically—read web pages about conflicting topics, the present authors first assessed their performance at the pre‐test. Results revealed that 54.5% of students selected the trustworthy web page (Table 3). Most students referred to the web page content to justify their selection (69.7%), whereas they seldom used prior knowledge (21.2%) or source information (15.1%). Please note that each participant could refer to more than one criterion in their justifications, and therefore, the sum of percentages exceeds 100%. Finally, students' performance at the source‐recognition task yielded an <emph>A' Mdn</emph> = 0.77 (<emph>IQR </emph>= 0.59–0.90), and they correctly linked <emph>Mdn</emph> =3 ideas to its corresponding web page at the content‐to‐source link task (<emph>IQR</emph> = 2–4). In sum, the results indicate that students from our study, even if they are frequent Internet users, do not consider source information to select the best web page of a controversy. Nevertheless, they remember a relatively high number of source parameters, and they are able to link ideas to the corresponding source to some degree. All things considered, they could benefit from an intervention aimed to foster evaluation source. Next, the present authors report the effects of such intervention.</p> <p>Results of the intervention at the immediate post‐test (n = 33)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left">Pre‐test</th><th align="left">Immediate post‐test</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><italic>N</italic></td><td align="left">33</td><td align="left">33</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Selection of trustworthy web page</td><td align="left">45.5%</td><td align="left">75.8%</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Justifications based on<xref ref-type="fn" rid="jar12562-note-0003" /></td></tr><tr><td align="left">Text content</td><td align="left">69.7%</td><td align="left">45.5%</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Prior knowledge</td><td align="left">21.2%</td><td align="left">24.2%</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Source information</td><td align="left">15.2%</td><td align="left">57.6%</td></tr><tr><td align="left">When mentioning source, they referred<xref ref-type="fn" rid="jar12562-note-0004" /></td></tr><tr><td align="left">Web provider</td><td align="left">3</td><td align="left">2</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Author</td><td align="left">1</td><td align="left">11</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Embedded source</td><td align="left">1</td><td align="left">0</td></tr><tr><td align="left">They specified<xref ref-type="fn" rid="jar12562-note-0005" /></td></tr><tr><td align="left">Provider or author's intention<xref ref-type="fn" rid="jar12562-note-0006" /></td><td align="left">1</td><td align="left">11</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Provider or author's expertise<xref ref-type="fn" rid="jar12562-note-0006" /></td><td align="left">2</td><td align="left">5</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Media quality<xref ref-type="fn" rid="jar12562-note-0006" /></td><td align="left">1</td><td align="left">1</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Results from sourcing tasks</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Memory for sources, Mdn(IQR)</td><td align="left">0.77 (0.59–0.80)</td><td align="left">0.76 (0.62–0.81)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Source‐to‐content link, Mdn(IQR)</td><td align="left">3 (2–4)</td><td align="left">3 (2–4)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>125620003 Note that each participant's justification could be based on more than one factor, so the sum of percentages exceeds 100% in each testing session.</item> <item>125620004 Number of mentions to each source dimension.</item> <item>125620005 Number of mentions to each specific source feature.</item> <item>125620006 Note that participants could specify any of these features but not explicitly mention a Web provider, an author or an embedded source (e.g., "Because it tries to help you").</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0135775310-16">Intervention measures: Measures of internet sourcing</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0135775310-17">Immediate effects of the intervention</hd> <p>The present authors compared the extent to which students selected the trustworthy or less trustworthy web page (number of students who selected each one), as a function of time (pre‐ vs. immediate post‐test) by means of a Pearson chi‐squared test. As it can be seen in Table 3, results showed a significant effect, <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref77">1</reflink>) = 6.35, <emph>p</emph> = 0.01. At the immediate post‐test, more students selected the trustworthy web page (75.8% of students) than at pre‐test (45.5%).</p> <p>Next, several Pearson's chi‐squared tests were performed to compare the type of justifications used by students to support their selection of a particular web page pre‐ and post‐test. Specifically, the present authors compared the use of justifications based on students' prior knowledge, on text content and on text source, as a function of time (pre‐ vs. immediate post‐test; for descriptive data, Table 3). Justifications based on students' prior knowledge did not change after the instruction, <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups> < 1, as it remained infrequent in both times. Justifications based on text content differed after the intervention, <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref78">1</reflink>) = 3.97, <emph>p</emph> = 0.04. More students at the pre‐test than at the immediate post‐test used text content to justify their selection. Finally, justifications based on the web page's source also changed after the intervention, <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref79">1</reflink>) = 20.18, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001. While almost no students referred to sources to justify their selection of web pages at pre‐test, a majority of them cited source information at the immediate post‐test. From those who cited sources, most of them referred to authors' occupation and mostly ignored the Web provider or the embedded sources. They mostly referred to the source's benevolence (as measured by references to the provider's or author's intention) and to some degree to their level of expertise.</p> <p>Finally, the present authors further explored the effect of our intervention on students' sourcing by comparing students' scores at the memory for sources and source‐to‐content links tasks, as a function of time (pre vs. post‐test). Results from Wilcoxon signed‐rank test indicated that our intervention did not improve memory for sources, <emph>Z </emph>= 0.38, <emph>p</emph> = 0.70, nor the source‐to‐content links scores, <emph>Z </emph>= −1.69, <emph>p</emph> = 0.09 (see also Table 3).</p> <hd id="AN0135775310-18">Delayed effects of the intervention</hd> <p>Delayed effects of the intervention were analysed by testing a subsample of the participants (<emph>n</emph> = 12) in a 3‐week delayed post‐test (see Design and Procedure section) by means of several Pearson's chi‐squared tests. Regarding the selection of web pages, even though more participants within this subsample selected the trustworthy web page at the delayed post‐test than at the pre‐test, this difference was not significant (<emph>p</emph> = 0.22). On the other hand, differences between delayed post‐test and immediate post‐test were not significant either (<emph>p</emph> = 0.35).</p> <p>Results regarding the justifications provided to support their selections resulted in significant differences between the pre‐ and delayed post‐test. The number of participants that supported their selection based on their prior knowledge was only marginally higher at the pre‐test (three participants) than at the delayed post‐test (none of the participants, <emph>p</emph> = 0.06). In addition, justifications based on text content were given more often at the pre‐test than at the delayed post‐test (<emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref80">1</reflink>) = 4.80, <emph>p</emph> = 0.03). More important, while none of this subsample of participants referred to the source of the web page at the pre‐test, six participants did it at the delayed post‐test, <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref81">1</reflink>) = 8.00, <emph>p</emph> < 0.01. At the delayed post‐test, students referred to a similar degree to the authors' occupation and to the web page provider. While they barely qualified the sources, those who did so mentioned the source's expertise, but not its benevolence (Table 4). Neither justifications nor the criteria used differed between the immediate and delayed post‐test (all <emph>ps </emph>> 0.08).</p> <p>Results of the intervention for the subsample that participated at the delayed post‐test (n = 12)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left">Pre‐test</th><th align="left">Immediate Post‐test</th><th align="left">Delayed post‐test</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><italic>n</italic></td><td align="left">12</td><td align="left">12</td><td align="left">12</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Selection of trustworthy web page</td><td align="left">41.7%</td><td align="left">83.3%</td><td align="left">66.7%</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Justifications based on<xref ref-type="fn" rid="jar12562-note-0009" /></td></tr><tr><td align="left">Text content</td><td align="left">100%</td><td align="left">50%</td><td align="left">80%</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Prior knowledge</td><td align="left">25%</td><td align="left">8.3%</td><td align="left">0%</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Source information</td><td align="left">0%</td><td align="left">83.3%</td><td align="left">50%</td></tr><tr><td align="left">When mentioning source, they referred<xref ref-type="fn" rid="jar12562-note-0010" /></td></tr><tr><td align="left">Web provider</td><td align="left">0</td><td align="left">1</td><td align="left">4</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Author</td><td align="left">0</td><td align="left">7</td><td align="left">5</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Embedded source</td><td align="left">0</td><td align="left">0</td><td align="left">1</td></tr><tr><td align="left">They specified<xref ref-type="fn" rid="jar12562-note-0011" /></td></tr><tr><td align="left">Provider or author's intention<xref ref-type="fn" rid="jar12562-note-0012" /></td><td align="left">0</td><td align="left">5</td><td align="left">1</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Provider or author's expertise<xref ref-type="fn" rid="jar12562-note-0012" /></td><td align="left">0</td><td align="left">1</td><td align="left">2</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Media quality<xref ref-type="fn" rid="jar12562-note-0012" /></td><td align="left">0</td><td align="left">1</td><td align="left">1</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Results from sourcing tasks</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Memory for sources, Mdn(IQR)</td><td align="left">0.68 (0.52−0.80)</td><td align="left">0.79 (0.71−0.84)</td><td align="left">0.78 (0.71−0.85)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Source‐to‐content link, Mdn(IQR)</td><td align="left">3</td><td align="left">3.5</td><td align="left">3.5 (2–3)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>125620009 Note that each participant's justification could be based on more than one factor, so the sum of percentages exceeds 100% in each testing session.</item> <item>125620010 Number of mentions to each source dimension.</item> <item>125620011 Number of mentions to each specific source feature.</item> <item>125620012 Note that participants could specify any of these features but not explicitly mention a Web provider, an author or an embedded source (e.g., "Because it tries to help you").</item> </ulist> <p>Finally, as indicated by Wilcoxon signed‐rank tests, performance did not vary between the pre‐ and delayed post‐test (<emph>Z</emph> = −1.60, <emph>p</emph> = 0.11 for memory for sources and <emph>Z</emph> = −1.44, <emph>p</emph> = 0.15 for source‐to‐content link tasks) or between the immediate and delayed post‐tests (<emph>Z</emph> = −0.13, <emph>p</emph> = 0.89 for memory for sources and <emph>Z</emph> = −0.85, <emph>p</emph> = 0.40 for source‐to‐content link tasks; Table 4).</p> <hd id="AN0135775310-19">DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS</hd> <p>Our study tested the effectiveness of an instructional programme to improve the ability of young adults with intellectual disability to evaluate controversial information from the Internet. Specifically, the present authors tested its effectiveness in two scenarios in which students with intellectual disability saw two web pages that provided conflicting views on a controversial topic. Results indicate that immediately after the instruction, participants select more often the most trustworthy web page and they justify their selection to a higher extent on source characteristics, as compared to their performance at the pre‐test. Such immediate effects are in line with previous results of intervention studies conducted with students from vocational schools with low reading skills (Stadtler et al., [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref82">44</reflink>]). Of note is that this pattern of results remained at a delayed post‐test conducted three weeks after the instruction. As such, our study constitutes a unique contribution by demonstrating that the instructional programme developed can have a long‐term impact of literacy skills on students with intellectual disability (Brante & Strømsø, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref83">3</reflink>]) and can be transferred to different study settings (i.e., from group researcher‐led oral reading during the intervention to individual student reading at the delayed post‐test; Schwartz & Bransford, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref84">42</reflink>]).</p> <p>Partially supporting our hypotheses, the ability to remember source‐to‐content links (i.e., who said what) is marginally improved with the instructional programme only immediately after the programme, but not after a 3‐week delay. Finally, memory for sources is not significantly improved by the instruction. Surprisingly, source memory of young adults with intellectual disability proved to be rather high even at pre‐test. Therefore, there may have been a ceiling effect with such task. In any case, such lack of effect of instruction on source memory is in line with previous studies (Stadtler et al., [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref85">44</reflink>]) and suggests that students tended to focus on how to use source information rather than on memorizing sources. In sum, the results suggest that the instructional programme implemented in our study helps young adults with intellectual disability to improve their ability to use critically information sources to resolve controversies from the Internet.</p> <p>Our results also indicate that the relationship between Internet frequency of use and students' evaluation skills is not straightforward (Salmerón, García, & Vidal‐Abarca, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref86">36</reflink>]). Results reveal that young adults with intellectual disability following a special needs education programme are frequent Internet users, especially for social, entertainment and informational purposes, a pattern that concurs with recent results (Chiner et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref87">11</reflink>]; Jenaro et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref88">18</reflink>]; Sallafranque‐St‐Louis & Normand, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref89">34</reflink>]). However, frequent access to the Internet does not necessarily improve students' skills to critically read on the Internet, as is indicated by the fact that before the instruction few students consider source characteristics to justify their selection of web pages. Thus, schools must be aware of the risks of unsupervised access to Internet for students with intellectual disability. In that sense, specific training on how to evaluate information on the Internet, together with other reading intervention programmes (Afacan et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref90">1</reflink>]), must be promoted in both special education programmes and ordinary classrooms where students with intellectual disability could be enrolled.</p> <hd id="AN0135775310-20">Limitations</hd> <p>Our study comes with limitations, some of which are common in intervention studies with students with intellectual disability. First, attrition in some of the intervention groups has been high, which has resulted in substantial changes in group configuration. For example, in one of the groups five students participated in most of the sessions, but only two of them attended the immediate post‐test session. This could have changed the group dynamics in unobserved ways.</p> <p>Second, even though the intervention small groups have been organized to be comparable in regard to non‐verbal IQ, there is strong variability related to cognitive characteristics within groups. Regarding the non‐verbal IQ, it is also worthy to note that the average standard score was 50.72, which corresponds to moderate intellectual disability. The present authors could question if students with this cognitive profile can even face abstract decisions to evaluate information. But a key point of our programme was to emphasize the use of basic source knowledge (profession and benevolence) to support students' evaluation and selection of web pages. Such knowledge is acquired early in primary school, as revealed in recent research with fourth‐grade students (Paul, Cerdán, Rouet, & Stadtler, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref91">29</reflink>]).</p> <p>Third, given that the immediate post‐test is conducted as a group discussion, participants could influence each other when orally justifying their selection of the web page they considered trustworthy. However, in order to minimize this bias, participants had to raise the voting cards at the same time and to justify their decision accordingly. This limitation is not present at the delayed post‐test, where students read the web pages on their own and responded individually.</p> <p>Finally, the lack of significance for some effects at the delayed post‐test might have been due to a substantial attrition rate which were significant at the immediate post‐test might have been due to the smaller sample size used at delayed post‐test. Attrition was due to the fact that during the delayed post‐test, some of the participants were attending courses in other centres and could not be reached by our research group. Future research should be planned in order to ensure that the same sample size is used in each assessment time to prevent a similar loss of statistical power. To be fair, including a delayed post‐test should be considered as a strong point of our design, and not as a limitation, as most previous research has simply used immediate post‐tests (Brante & Strømsø, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref92">3</reflink>]; for an exception see Pérez et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref93">31</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0135775310-21">Educational implications</hd> <p>In our study, the present authors have focused on one particular challenge faced by young adults with intellectual disability while they access the Internet, specifically the risk of accepting unsupported or even untrue claims due to students' difficulties to evaluate information sources. Reading comprehension on the Internet involves at least two additional competencies: efficient navigation using hyperlinks and integration of information from different sources (Salmerón et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref94">40</reflink>]). Future research could explore ways to improve safe and efficient Internet access skills by mastering such competencies, in programmes that could complement our intervention. Our study suggests that young adults with intellectual disability are capable of acquiring the media literacy skills to read on the Internet in an advanced way, provided that they get the appropriate training. Such programmes would contribute to lessen the digital divide of young adults with intellectual disability and could ultimately provide the necessary literacy skills to support their inclusion in ordinary classrooms (Wood, Browder, & Flynn, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref95">51</reflink>]).</p> <p>Finally, as long as making choices is an essential component of self‐determination (Shogren & Wehmeyer, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref96">43</reflink>]), the training of Internet source evaluation skills should have a positive effect of determination on young people with intellectual disability. The skills they acquire during such instruction could support their decisions and choices in real life, as they allow them to access and confront Internet sources about complex and conflicting topics, such post‐secondary education options or different political views.</p> <hd id="AN0135775310-22">1 APPENDIX</hd> <p>Questionnaire on Internet use (designed ad hoc for the present study)</p> <p>Graph</p> <ref id="AN0135775310-23"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref6" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> All authors contributed equally to this work.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref65" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Funding information This research was funded by a grant from the Spanish Secretaría General de Universidades (EDU2014‐59422). We thank the students and schools for their participation, and Prof. Marc Stadtler for sharing the materials used in their intervention program and for providing useful insights into the program.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0135775310-24"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibtext> Afacan, K., Wilkerson, K. L., & Ruppar, A. L. (2018). Multicomponent reading interventions for students with intellectual disability. Remedial and Special Education, 39, 229 – 242. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932517702444</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Braasch, J. L., Bråten, I., Strømsø, H. I., Anmarkrud, Ø., & Ferguson, L. E. (2013). Promoting secondary school students' evaluation of source features of multiple documents. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38, 180 – 195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2013.03.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref37" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Brante, E. W., & Strømsø, H. I. (2018). Sourcing in text comprehension: A Review of interventions targeting sourcing skills. Educational Psychology Review., 30, 773 – 799. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-017-9421-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref27" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bråten, I., Stadtler, M., & Salmerón, L. (2018). The role of sourcing in discourse comprehension. In M. Schober, D. N. Rapp, & M. A. Britt (Eds.), Handbook of Discourse Processes (pp. 141 – 166). New York, NY : Taylor & Francis.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref2" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Browder, D. M., Gibbs, S., Ahlgrim‐Delzell, L., Courtade, G. R., Mraz, M., & Flowers, C. (2009). Literacy for students with severe developmental disabilities: What should we teach and what should we hope to achieve? Remedial and Special Education, 30, 269 – 282. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932508315054</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref7" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Browder, D. M., Hudson, M. E., & Wood, A. L. (2013). Teaching students with moderate intellectual disability who are emergent readers to comprehend passages of text. Exceptionality, 21, 191 – 206. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2013.802236</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref62" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Brown, A. L., & Palincsar, A. S. (1989). Guided, cooperative learning and individual knowledge acquisition. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning and instruction. Essays in Honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 393 – 451). Hillsdale, NJ : Erlbaum.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref13" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Caton, S., & Chapman, M. (2016). The use of social media and people with intellectual disability: A systematic review and thematic analysis. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 41, 125 – 139. https://doi.org/10.3109/13668250.2016.1153052</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref22" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Chadwick, D. D., Quinn, S., & Fullwood, C. (2017). Perceptions of the risks and benefits of Internet access and use by people with intellectual disabilities. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 21 – 31. https://doi.org/10.1111/bld.12170</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chadwick, D., Wesson, C., & Fullwood, C. (2013). Internet access by people with intellectual disabilities: Inequalities and opportunities. Future Internet, 5, 376 – 397. https://doi.org/10.3390/fi5030376</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chiner, E., Gómez‐Puerta, M., & Cardona‐Moltó, M. C. (2017). Internet use, risks and online behaviour: The view of internet users with intellectual disabilities and their caregivers. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 190 – 197. https://doi.org/10.1111/bld.12192</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Copeland, S. R., & Keefe, E. B.. (2016). Teaching reading and literacy skills to students with Intellectual Disability. In M. L. Wehmeyer, & K. A. Shogren (Eds.), Handbook of research‐based practices for educating students with intellectual disability (pp. 320 – 342). New York, NY : Taylor & Francis.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cuetos, F., Rodríguez, B., Ruano, E., & Arribas, D. (2014). Prolec-r. Batería de evaluación de los Procesos lectores, revisada [Prolec-r. Assessment test of Reading processes]. Madrid : TEA Ediciones.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fajardo, I., Ávila, V., Tavares, G., Ferrer, A., Gómez, M., & Fernández, A. (2014). Easy‐to‐read texts for students with intellectual disability: Linguistic Factors affecting comprehension. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 27, 212 – 225. https://doi.org/10.1111/jar.12065</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fajardo, I., Tavares, G., Ávila, V., & Ferrer, A. (2013). Towards text simplification for poor readers with Intellectual disability: When do connective enhance text cohesion? Research in Developmental Disabilities, 34, 1267 – 1279.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Greenspan, S., Loughlin, G., & Black, R. S. (2001). Credulity and gullibility in people with developmental disorders: A framework for future research. International Review of Research in Mental Retardation, 24, 101 – 135.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hetzroni, O. E., & Banin, I. (2017). The effect of educational software, video modelling and group discussion on social‐skill acquisition among students with mild intellectual disabilities. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 30, 757 – 773. https://doi.org/10.1111/jar.12271</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jenaro, C., Flores, N., Cruz, M., Pérez, M. C., Vega, V., & Torres, V. A. (2018). Internet and cell phone usage patterns among young adults with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 31, 259 – 272. https://doi.org/10.1111/jar.12388</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jeong, S. H., Cho, H., & Hwang, Y. (2012). Media literacy interventions: A meta‐analytic review. Journal of Communication, 62, 454 – 472. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01643.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kammerer, Y., Meier, N., & Stahl, E. (2016). Fostering secondary‐school students' intertext model formation when reading a set of websites: The effectiveness of source prompts. Computers & Education, 102, 52 – 64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.07.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaufman, A., & Kaufman, N. (1997). K‐BIT Test Breve de Inteligencia [K‐BIT brief intelligence test]. Madrid, Spain : TEA.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leffert, J. S., Siperstein, G. N., & Widaman, K. F. (2010). Social perception in children with intellectual disabilities: The interpretation of benign and hostile intentions. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 54, 168 – 180. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2788.2009.01240.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Li‐Tsang, C., Yeung, S., Chan, C., & Hui‐Chan, C. (2005). Factors affecting people with intellectual disabilities in learning to use computer technology. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research, 28, 127 – 133. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004356-200506000-00005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lundberg, I., & Reichenberg, M. (2013). Developing reading comprehension among students with mild intellectual disabilities: An intervention study. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 57, 89 – 100. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2011.623179</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lussier‐Desrochers, D., Normand, C. L., Romero‐Torres, A., Lachapelle, Y., Godin‐Tremblay, V., Dupont, M., ... Bilodeau, P. (2017). Bridging the digital divide for people with intellectual disability. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 11, article, 666.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Molin, M., Sorbring, E., & Löfgren‐Mårtenson, L. (2017). New Em@ ncipatory landscapes? Young people with intellectual disabilities, Internet use and identification processes. Advances in Social Work, 18, 645 – 662.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nomura, M., Nielsen, G. S., & Tronbacke, B. I. (2010). Guidelines for easy‐to‐read materials. The Hague : Internat. Federation of Library Assoc. and Inst.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nordheim, L. V., Gundersen, M. W., Espehaug, B., Guttersrud, Ø., & Flottorp, S. (2016). Effects of school‐based educational interventions for enhancing adolescents' abilities in critical appraisal of health claims: A systematic review. PLoS ONE, 11, e0161485. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0161485</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Paul, J., Cerdán, R., Rouet, J. F., & Stadtler, M. (2018). Exploring fourth graders' sourcing skills/Un análisis de la capacidad de escrutinio sobre las fuentes de información de los estudiantes de cuarto grado. Infancia Y Aprendizaje, 41, 536 – 580. https://doi.org/10.1080/02103702.2018.1480458</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Paul, J., Macedo‐Rouet, M., Rouet, J. F., & Stadtler, M. (2017). Why attend to source information when reading online? The perspective of ninth grade students from two different countries. Computers & Education, 113, 339 – 354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.05.020</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pérez, A., Potocki, A., Stadtler, M., Macedo‐Rouet, M., Paul, J., Salmerón, L., & Rouet, J.‐F. (2018). Fostering teenagers' assessment of information reliability: Effects of a classroom intervention focused on critical source dimensions. Learning & Instruction, 58, 53 – 68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.04.006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rocha, T., Bessa, M., Gonçalves, M., Cabral, L., Godinho, F., Peres, E., ... Chalmers, A. (2012). The recognition of web pages' hyperlinks by people with intellectual disabilities: An evaluation study. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 25, 542 – 552. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-3148.2012.00700.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rouet, J.‐F., & Britt, M. A. (2011). Relevance processes in multiple document comprehension. In M. T. McCrudden, J. P. Magliano, & G. Schraw (Eds.), Text relevance and learning from text (pp. 19 – 52). Charlotte, NC : Information Age Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sallafranque‐St‐Louis, F., & Normand, C. L. (2017). From solitude to solicitation: How people with intellectual disability or autism spectrum disorder use the internet. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 11, 7.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Salmerón, L., Fajardo, I., & Gómez, M. (2018). Selection and evaluation of Internet information by adults with intellectual disabilities. European Journal of Special Needs Education, in press. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2018.1468634</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Salmerón, L., García, A., & Vidal‐Abarca, E. (2018). The development of adolescents' comprehension‐based Internet reading skills. Learning and Individual Differences, 61, 31 – 39.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Salmerón, L., Gómez, M., & Fajardo, I. (2016). How students with intellectual disabilities evaluate recommendations from Internet forums. Reading and Writing, 29, 1653 – 1675. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-016-9621-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Salmerón, L., Kammerer, Y., & Delgado, P. (2018). Non‐academic multiple source use on the Internet. In J. L. G. Braasch, I. Bråten, & M. T. McCrudden (Eds.), Handbook of Multiple Source Use (pp. 285 – 302). New York : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Salmerón, L., & Llorens, A. (2018). Instruction of digital reading strategies based on eye‐movements modeling examples. Journal of Educational Computing Research, in press. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633117751605</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Salmerón, L., Strømsø, H. I., Kammerer, Y., Stadtler, M., & van den Broek, P. (2018). Comprehension processes in digital reading. In M. Barzillai, J. Thomson, S. Schroeder, & P. van den Broek (Eds.), Learning to read in a digital world (pp. 91 – 120). Amsterdam : John Benjamins.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schalock, R. L., Borthwick‐Duffy, S. A., Bradley, V. J., Buntinx, W. H., Coulter, D. L., Craig, E. M., ... Shogren, K. A. (2010). Intellectual disability: Definition, classification, and systems of supports. Washington, DC : American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schwartz, D. L., & Bransford, J. D. (1998). A time for telling. Cognition & Instruction, 16, 475 – 522. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1604_4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shogren, K. A., & Wehmeyer, M. L. (2016). Self‐determination and goal attainment. In M. L. Wehmeyer, & K. A. Shogren (Eds.), Handbook of research‐based practices for educating students with intellectual disability (pp. 255 – 273). New York, NY : Taylor & Francis.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stadtler, M., Scharrer, L., Macedo‐Rouet, M., Rouet, J. F., & Bromme, R. (2016). Improving vocational students' consideration of source information when deciding about science controversies. Reading and Writing, 29, 705 – 729. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-016-9623-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stang Lund, E., Bråten, I., Brante, E. W., & Strømsø, H. I. (2017). Memory for textual conflicts predicts sourcing when adolescents read multiple expository texts. Reading Psychology, 38, 417 – 437. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2016.1278417</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stanislaw, H., & Todorov, N. (1999). Calculation of signal detection theory measures. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 31, 137 – 149. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03207704</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Strømsø, H. I., Bråten, I., & Britt, M. A. (2010). Reading multiple texts about climate change: The relationship between memory for sources and text comprehension. Learning and Instruction, 18, 513 – 527.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> van den Bos, K. P., Nakken, H., Nicolay, P. G., & Van Houten, E. J. (2007). Adults with mild intellectual disabilities: Can their reading comprehension ability be improved? Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 51, 835 – 849. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2788.2006.00921.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wechsler, D. (2005). Escala de Inteligencia de Wechsler para niños [Wechsler intelligence scale for children]. Madrid, Spain : Pearson.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wineburg, S. S. (1991). Historical problem solving: A study of the cognitive processes used in the evaluation of documentary and pictorial evidence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 73 – 87. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.83.1.73</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wood, L., Browder, D. M., & Flynn, L. (2015). Teaching students with intellectual disability to use a self‐questioning strategy to comprehend social studies text for an inclusive setting. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 40 (4), 275 – 293. https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796915592155</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zisimopoulos, D., Sigafoos, J., & Koutromanos, G. (2011). Using video prompting and constant time delay to teach an internet search basic skill to students with intellectual disabilities. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 46, 238 – 250.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Pablo Delgado; Vicenta Ávila; Inmaculada Fajardo and Ladislao Salmerón</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref95"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1211280
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Training Young Adults with Intellectual Disability to Read Critically on the Internet
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Delgado%2C+Pablo%22">Delgado, Pablo</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ávila%2C+Vicenta%22">Ávila, Vicenta</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Fajardo%2C+Inmaculada%22">Fajardo, Inmaculada</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Salmerón%2C+Ladislao%22">Salmerón, Ladislao</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4283-4279">0000-0002-4283-4279</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Applied+Research+in+Intellectual+Disabilities%22"><i>Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities</i></searchLink>. May 2019 32(3):666-677.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley-Blackwell. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. Tel: 800-835-6770; Tel: 781-388-8598; Fax: 781-388-8232; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 12
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2019
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Intellectual+Disability%22">Intellectual Disability</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Critical+Reading%22">Critical Reading</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Guides%22">Guides</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Internet%22">Internet</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Information+Sources%22">Information Sources</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Special+Needs+Students%22">Special Needs Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Instructional+Materials%22">Instructional Materials</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Program+Evaluation%22">Program Evaluation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Group+Discussion%22">Group Discussion</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Pretests+Posttests%22">Pretests Posttests</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Program+Effectiveness%22">Program Effectiveness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Decision+Making%22">Decision Making</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Self+Determination%22">Self Determination</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Web+Sites%22">Web Sites</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Controversial+Issues+%28Course+Content%29%22">Controversial Issues (Course Content)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Trust+%28Psychology%29%22">Trust (Psychology)</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/jar.12562
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1360-2322
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Background: Young people with intellectual disability (ID) are becoming frequent Internet users, but they present difficulties selecting reliable Internet sources. Methods: The present authors tested an instructional programme aimed at increasing skills to evaluate information from the Internet of 33 young adult students with intellectual disability enrolled in special needs education (19.4 years). The programme was composed of different web pages that provided conflicting views on a controversial topic. Students participated in small group discussions supported with Wh-question graphic organizers and contrasting cases during seven sessions. Results: Differences between pre- and post-tests indicated that the programme is effective in increasing students' ability to select trustworthy web pages, and to use source characteristics to justify such selection by means of supervised instruction. Conclusion: Promoting Internet use in a safe way might increase the opportunities of young people with intellectual disability to make choices and self-determined decisions about their life (Handbook of research-based practices for educating students with intellectual disability, 2016, New York, NY: Taylor & Francis).
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2019
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1211280
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1211280
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/jar.12562
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 12
        StartPage: 666
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Intellectual Disability
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Critical Reading
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Guides
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Internet
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Information Sources
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Special Needs Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Instructional Materials
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Program Evaluation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Group Discussion
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Pretests Posttests
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Program Effectiveness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Decision Making
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Self Determination
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Web Sites
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Controversial Issues (Course Content)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Trust (Psychology)
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Training Young Adults with Intellectual Disability to Read Critically on the Internet
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Delgado, Pablo
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ávila, Vicenta
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Fajardo, Inmaculada
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Salmerón, Ladislao
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 05
              Type: published
              Y: 2019
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1360-2322
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 32
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities
              Type: main
ResultId 1