










































Georgia Journal of Literacy 
2023, Vol. 45(2), pp. 66–72 
https://doi.org/10.56887/galiteracy.121 
ISSN: 2833-7611 

Teaching Tips 

 
 

 

CONTACT Heather S. Riddle, Graduate Student in Early Childhood Education with Autism Endorsement, University 
of North Georgia, Dahlonega, GA; email hsridd4220@ung.edu. 
 

Assessing Language and Literacy of Students 
with Developmental Disabilities and Complex 
Communication Needs 
 
Heather S. Riddle 
University of North Georgia, Dahlonega, GA 
 

ABSTRACT 

Students with developmental disabilities and complex communication needs are 
impacted by assessments that may not show their ability or address their needs. 
Multiple modes of assessment presentation and response formats, augmentative 
and alternative communication approaches, and assistive technology may help 
students engage more equitably in literacy assessment activities. The Nonverbal 
Literacy Assessment (NVLA) is an example of a tool used to assess the language 
and literacy skills of students with disabilities in various formats. Augmentative and 
Alternative Communication (AAC), eye-gazing, and speech-generating device 
(SGD) technology are also used to make assessment more accessible to students 
with developmental disabilities and speech difficulties. 

KEYWORDS 

assessment; 
developmental 
disabilities; 
communication 
needs; language 
and literacy skills 

 
s an educator of nearly thirty years, I place great importance on assessing students with 
reliability and validity. However, assessing students with developmental disabilities and 
complex communication needs in the general education setting can be especially tricky in 

day-to-day classroom operations. For example, while working in a publicly funded pre-
kindergarten classroom, I once taught a student who did not speak at school. According to the 
student’s caregiver, conversations occurred in the home, but they were non-existent in the 
classroom. The assessment system used by the school required me to record evidence of contingent 
conversation and rate the student on a developmental checklist. This created a challenge because 
I did not have enough evidence to determine whether she could communicate verbally. Instead, I 
had to record examples of times that she did not respond so I could justify a rating of not yet. 
Although documenting the absence of communication was probably not ideal, there was a positive 
result. By continuing to speak to the child (if only to document that she was not responding), there 
were multiple opportunities for social engagement, which eventually led to a one-word response 
near the end of the school year. I imagine many other teachers have had similar experiences. 

I wonder how much more progress could have been achieved if the assessment had been 
tailored to the student’s abilities. Perhaps the assessment would have been more valid had I 
considered other forms of non-verbal communication rather than relying exclusively upon vocal 
speech. Additionally, I might have incorporated visual supports or technology to elicit more 
opportunities for communicative exchanges. In hindsight, I would have been better able to 
document my student’s language development had I implemented a more expansive understanding 
of what constituted reciprocal communication, which might have been more in line with the spirit 
of the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA). 

A 

https://doi.org/10.56887/galiteracy.121
mailto:hsridd4220@ung.edu


Riddle 67 
 

IDEA is a U.S. federal law that protects the educational rights of children with disabilities. 
Since the law’s last reauthorization in 2004, updates have been made to serve students with 
disabilities more equitably. A 2016 revision addressed the over-representation of some children in 
special education programs, which could jeopardize their access to rigorous academic content in 
the least restrictive environment. Before IDEA, children with disabilities were often excluded from 
school. In the 2020–2021 school year, however, around two-thirds of students with disabilities 
spent at least 80% of their instructional day in the general education classroom (U.S. Department 
of Education, 2023). 

Since many students with disabilities are already in the mainstream classroom and there 
appears to be a move toward increasing inclusivity, accurate literacy assessment of students with 
developmental disabilities and complex communication needs is crucial to facilitate their 
reasonable participation in general reading instruction. Unfortunately, these students are currently 
underrepresented in reading assessment data as many cannot participate in testing due to 
behavioral challenges or limited verbal ability (Fleming et al., 2018). Therefore, educators must 
find more inclusive ways to assess students with developmental disabilities and delays. Current 
methods may help determine eligibility for special education services by identifying weaknesses 
and deficits; however, we must also be able to identify what students can do so they are placed in 
the least restrictive environments that allow them to develop their strengths and abilities. This will 
create a more equitable learning environment for students who have too often been assessed and 
labeled based solely on their inability to conform to modes of performance that do not consider 
how they can demonstrate skills and abilities. Students with developmental disabilities and 
complex communication needs deserve the same academic prospects as their peers to reach their 
highest potential. A more thoughtful, flexible approach to assessment could contribute to that 
outcome. 

This article presents a variety of tools that could be used to assess the language and literacy 
of students with developmental disabilities and complex communication needs. The section below 
describes how multiple assessment formats enhance student participation in literacy assessment, 
followed by a discussion of augmentative and alternative communication technologies that could 
increase access to literacy instruction and assessment if incorporated into mainstream classroom 
settings. 
 
Multiple Assessment Formats 
One way to make assessment more available to students with developmental disabilities and 
complex communication needs is to provide multiple assessment formats. Presenting content in 
various ways and providing different response-type options can allow these students more 
opportunities to show what they know rather than merely display their inability to access content 
and/or communicate their understanding of it. Multiple assessment formats provide alternative 
ways for students to show what they have learned so that they can use a communication venue that 
works best for them. 

One such assessment is the Nonverbal Literacy Assessment (NVLA), designed to evaluate 
the reading ability of students who utilize alternative augmentative communication or means of 
expressing themselves. This assessment includes six components: phonemic awareness, phonics, 
reading comprehension, listening comprehension, text awareness, and vocabulary. Answer choices 
are arranged in rows of two to four options, and students can respond by pointing, choosing cards, 
or eye-gazing (Ahlgrim-Delzell et al., 2011). The NVLA proposal document contains tables with 
some of the student performance tasks. It also provides the contact information of the 



68 Georgia Journal of Literacy 45(2)  
 

corresponding author. One of the authors of NVLA is also associated with the Early Reading Skills 
Builder (ERSB), which is available for purchase with other curriculum materials for students with 
disabilities at attainmentcompany.com/curriculum/ersb. 

Multi-format assessment for students with developmental disabilities is supported by 
research. A pilot study at Baylor University used multiple methods to investigate the validity of 
norm-referenced language and literacy assessment for children with Down syndrome (DS). As 
with the NVLA, students could show their knowledge in multiple ways (Prahl & Shuele, 2022). 
Four parallel response measures of listening and reading comprehension were evaluated: non-
verbal, cloze, passage with closed questions, and passage with open-ended questions. To address 
typically low performance on norm-referenced tests by individuals with DS, the researchers used 
multiple content presentations and answer formats to ensure participants with limited reading 
ability and speech articulation difficulties could respond to some items at the beginning of the 
assessment. This study lays the groundwork for creating and assessing reading interventions for 
children with DS through varied assessment types. It also sets the stage for learning the most 
effective ways to assess listening and reading comprehension of students with DS. If assessments 
are modified to match the communicative modes accessible to individuals with disabilities, 
children who have previously had limited participation in literacy assessment may be more fairly 
included in data that could impact the quality and appropriateness of education they receive (Prahl 
& Shuele, 2022). 

Aidonopoulou-Read (2020) examined the impact of a differentiated approach with an 
adapted formative assessment for students with autism and significant learning challenges. This 
assessment considered both formative and summative assessments so that the relationship between 
the two could be used to assess whether students were learning. To establish the relationship, two 
checklists were created: one to measure academic progress and another to evaluate behavioral 
engagement. For example, the academic checklist contained literacy objectives, such as watching 
the teacher point to pictures or matching images to tangible items. The behavioral engagement 
checklist showed evidence, such as seeing a student turn toward a stimulus or observing a student’s 
pleasant facial expression. The results indicated customized interventions were needed based on 
the differing motivations and needs observed through formative assessments. This modified 
assessment supports the simultaneous recording of formative and summative assessment data, 
which can be incorporated into daily classroom instruction. This is important because it creates 
more opportunities for students with different academic, social, and communication needs to 
participate in the classroom (Aidonopoulou, 2020). A modified assessment that evaluates both 
academic achievement and motivation would be useful to teachers for planning differentiated 
instruction based on students’ needs and interests. 
 
Augmentative and Alternative Communication Technologies 
Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) systems are another method to increase 
participation of students with developmental disabilities and complex communication needs. 
These systems typically use labeled visual representations, such as pictures and photographs, to 
depict concepts. While traditional, motionless AAC supports may possibly interfere with the 
acquisition of sight words, proposed enhancements to AAC technology would incorporate 
research-based transition-to-literacy (T2L) features that would include a more interactive, 
animated presentation focusing on sight words and student interests. A study by Caron and 
colleagues in 2018 found that after an intensive intervention using the T2L feature, five school-
aged students with autism spectrum disorder made gains of between 45% and 69% in sight-word 

https://www.attainmentcompany.com/curriculum/ersb


Riddle 69 
 

accuracy and were able to use the words they had learned to make comments about images shown 
to them. The study concluded that when AAC supports are incorporated into literacy instruction, 
people with communication challenges can better integrate into a community that often requires 
literacy to participate (Caron et al., 2018). 

Some examples of AAC technology used in the Caron et al. (2018) study include software 
programs like News-2-You, PixWriter, and Writing with Symbols, which match or substitute 
written words with symbolic images (Table 1). 

 
Table 1: Software Programs that Match or Substitute Written Words with Symbolic Images 

Software Description Link  
News2You Content is available online for purchase and includes news 

stories at four different reading levels with visual supports. 
Samples and demonstrations can also be accessed by 
following the link provided. 

n2y.com/news2you/differentiation
-accessibility 

PixWriter Uses voice output and pictures to help children struggling to 
read words learn to write by choosing illustrated buttons in a 
word bank. Documents created with this technology can be 
saved, printed, or emailed. Software subscriptions can be 
purchased and downloaded from the website of the Attainment 
Company or from the Apple App Store. 

attainmentcompany.com/pixwriter
-software 

Writing with 
Symbols 

A system produced by Widgit, has pictorial symbols in multiple 
languages and can be used to create differentiated flashcards, 
worksheets, and books. Templates are also available. Widgit 
products can be purchased through the link provided. 

widgit.com/writing-with-symbols 

 
Eye-gazing technology and mechanical switches may also support more reliable 

assessment of students with disabilities that involve complex communication needs. Eye-gazing 
technology enhances participation by providing a response mode for students with cerebral palsy, 
who may not be able to answer verbally, use a pencil-paper bubble sheet, manipulate a mouse, or 
push buttons on a keyboard. Mechanical switches access devices that can produce digital or 
synthetic speech. The switches allow students to visually scan the options on a computerized 
multiple-choice test and then linger at the answer they wish to select. Buttons can also be added to 
allow students to indicate that they would like to change or confirm an answer choice. Researchers 
from Australia and the U.S. conducted a study with school-age students in Australia comparing 
standardized assessment results for typical children who took traditional tests with those of 
students who took assessments modified for use with mechanical switches or eye-gazing 
technology (Karlsson et al., 2022). The study’s authors hypothesized that the two groups would 
not have a significant variation in test scores. Findings have not yet been published but are 
expected to be shared in peer-reviewed journals (Karlsson et al., 2022). 

Equipment used in the Karlsson et al. (2022) study included Switch Access, Tobii PCEye 
mini eye-gaze control technology, and Grid 3 software: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

https://www.n2y.com/news2you/differentiation-accessibility
https://www.n2y.com/news2you/differentiation-accessibility
https://www.attainmentcompany.com/pixwriter-software
https://www.attainmentcompany.com/pixwriter-software
https://www.widgit.com/writing-with-symbols/index.htm


70 Georgia Journal of Literacy 45(2)  
 

Table 2: Eye-Gazing Technology and Mechanical Switches 

Item Description Link  

Switch Access These interface products, such as eyewear and remote-
control buttons, are available at online stores that serve 
individuals with disabilities. Google also provides 
instructions for Switch Access on Android devices. 

shorturl.at/oqMSW 

Tobii PCEye The Tobi PCEye mini has been discontinued, but Tobii 
Dynavox’s latest eye-tracking products and accessories 
can be purchased through the first link provided on the 
right. The second link listed provides information about how 
to fund a device. 

tobiidynavox.com/products/pceye  
 
tobiidynavox.com/pages/funding 

Grid 3 Software packages with switches and eye-gazing devices 
can be purchased at the Smartbox website following the 
provided link. Some functions include environmental 
control, school and work tools, and interactive learning 
activities. 

thinksmartbox.com/product/grid-3 

 
Speech-generating devices (SGD) are another form of technology that can increase 

participation for students who are not able to vocalize communication. These devices produce 
speech by recording the human voice and creating digitized or synthesized speech. Researchers 
from several American universities collaboratively performed a scoping review of how SGD 
technology affects communication outcomes for people with developmental disabilities. Results 
indicated that these devices might effectively support word identification, syntax, literacy, and 
beginning communication skills of people with developmental disabilities (Chavers et al., 2022). 
This technology would help assess students who cannot respond verbally to test prompts. 

Three of the many SGD products used in the Chavers et al. (2022) study are Easy Chat, 
NOVA Chat, and Vantage Lite with Unity (Table 3).  
 
Table 3: Speech-Generating Devices 

Device Description Link  
Easy Chat A trademark of Zygo USA, Easy Chat is a digital recording 

device with a static picture overlay. Messages and vocabulary 
can be stored in multiple languages. The provided link 
provides a  product-description flyer with pricing and contact 
information. 

zygo-usa.com/usa/images/
chatter/EasyTalk Description.pdf 

NOVA Chat Trademarked by Saltillo, NOVA Chat can be used with wired 
and wireless switches for scanning and includes a variety of 
voices in English and Spanish. Messages can also be sent to 
social media platforms. More information about the 
specifications of this product and how to purchase it is 
available through the link provided 

store.prc-saltillo.com/novachat 

Vantage Light A Prentke Romich Company trademark. The company’s latest 
SGD and other AAC technology can be purchased through the 
first link listed on the right. There is a tab leading to information 
about requesting Medicaid and other insurance funding is 
available.  
 
A Vantage Light with Unity user manual with a detailed 
description, visuals, and company contact information can be 
accessed by selecting the second link listed on the right.  

prentrom.com/products 
 
 
 
 
file.prentrom.com/104/Vantage-
Lite-Unity-Manual.pdf 

https://shorturl.at/oqMSW
https://us.tobiidynavox.com/products/pceye
https://us.tobiidynavox.com/pages/funding
https://thinksmartbox.com/product/grid-3/
http://www.zygo-usa.com/usa/images/chatter/EasyTalk%20Description.pdf
http://www.zygo-usa.com/usa/images/chatter/EasyTalk%20Description.pdf
https://store.prc-saltillo.com/novachat-8-active-f19015-30
https://www.prentrom.com/products
http://file.prentrom.com/104/Vantage-Lite-Unity-Manual.pdf
http://file.prentrom.com/104/Vantage-Lite-Unity-Manual.pdf


Riddle 71 
 

Conclusion 
Multiple assessment formats and assistive technologies are becoming more available to schools. 
Some of the products described in this article can be found on Amazon or eBay. Easy access creates 
additional opportunities to make assessment more inclusive for students with developmental 
delays and complex communication needs. Assessing literacy skills is imperative to be able to 
provide an appropriate education based on students’ identified needs and abilities. Using multiple 
presentation and response types and incorporating AAC technology allows students to show their 
literacy skills, so that instruction can be tailored to their ability and lead to positive outcomes and 
gains in literacy. Literacy is essential for academic achievement, community involvement, 
personal autonomy, and meaningful interactions with others (Caron et al., 2018). Without accurate 
assessment, children with physical and cognitive difficulties may experience delays in receiving 
early intervention or be denied sufficient instructional support and academic opportunities at 
school (Karlsson et al., 2022). As educators, we must assess our students with disabilities in ways 
that allow them to show us more than deficits. It is also important to document their abilities so 
they can continue to make gains that will lead to both independence and community 
connectedness, which the ability to read and write sustains. 

Had I known about alternative assessments with multiple presentation and response types 
or had access to technology that helped with communication, I may have been able to gather much 
more information to guide instruction for my student who did not speak at school. With more data, 
I may have been able to either help her speak more or to be able to communicate in alternative 
ways that showed how smart she truly was! If I could go back in time and take these resources 
with me, I believe there would have been better outcomes. Since there is no technology available 
at this time to go back in time, I will have to move forward with new knowledge to create a better 
future for students with developmental disabilities and complex communication needs. Steps 
literacy teachers can take to improve assessment for students with developmental disabilities and 
complex communication needs are listed in Table 4. 
 
Table 4: Steps Literacy Teachers Can Take to Improve Assessment  

Step 1 Look for what your students can do and use that as valuable data. 

Step 2 Find out what limitations keep your students from communicating all that they know. Overcome 
the limitations with alternative presentation and response formats.  

Step 3 Explore what technology is already available at your school that would help your students better 
communicate their knowledge. Discuss any needs with your school administrators to see if 
funding is available to purchase additional technology. Also, check with vendors to see what 
other funding might be available through Medicare or private insurance. 

Step 4 Collaborate with administrators, special educators, service providers, and caregivers to find 
alternative assessments that could be used or to brainstorm different ways to formatively assess 
children each day. 

Step 5 Decide how you will equitably assess your students with developmental disabilities and complex 
communication needs. Implement your plan right away! 

 
 
 
 
 



72 Georgia Journal of Literacy 45(2)  
 

References 
Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Browder, D., Flowers, C., & Baker, J. (2011). Proposal for the Nonverbal 

Literacy Assessment (NVLA): An assessment of early literacy skills for students with 
significant developmental disabilities who are nonverbal. https://access.charlotte.edu/sites/
access.charlotte.edu/files/media/PDFlinks/NVLA%20whitepaper%2011-27.pdf 

Aidonopoulou-Read, R. T. (2020). The conceptualisation of a modified formative assessment 
model for non‐verbal students with autism and severe learning difficulties. British Journal 
of Special Education, 47(1), 88–109. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8578.12290  

Caron, J. G., Light, J., Holyfield, C., & McNaughton, D. (2018). Effects of dynamic text in an 
AAC app on sight word reading for individuals with autism spectrum disorder. 
Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 34(2), 143–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/
07434618.2018.1457715 

Chavers, T. N., Schlosser, R. W., Cheng, C., & Koula, R. (2022). Effects of interventions involving 
speech output technologies on communication outcomes for individuals with 
developmental disabilities: A scoping review. American Journal of Speech-Language 
Pathology, 31(5), 2248–2268. https://doi.org/10.1044/2022_AJSLP-22-00039  

Fleming, D., Wilson, M., & Ahlgrim-Delzell, L. (2018). Using item response theory to describe 
the Nonverbal Literacy Assessment (NVLA). Psychology in the Schools, 55(4), 341–349. 
https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22110 

Karlsson, P., Honan, I., Warschausky, S., Kaufman, J. N., Henry, G., Stephenson, C., Webb, A., 
McEwan, A., & Badawi, N. (2022). A validation and acceptability study of cognitive 
testing using switch and eye-gaze control technologies for children with motor and speech 
impairments: A protocol paper. Frontiers in Psychology, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fpsyg.2022.991000  

Prahl, A., & Schuele, C. M. (2022). A pilot study assessing listening comprehension and reading 
comprehension in children with down syndrome: Construct validity from a multi-method 
perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.
905273  

U.S. Department of Education. (2023, January 11). A history of the Individuals with Disabilities 
Education Act. https://sites.ed.gov/idea/IDEA-History#Pre-EHA-IDEA 

 
Received: May 1, 2023 | Accepted: July 16, 2023 | Published: November 13, 2023 

https://access.charlotte.edu/sites/access.charlotte.edu/files/media/PDFlinks/NVLA%20whitepaper%2011-27.pdf
https://access.charlotte.edu/sites/access.charlotte.edu/files/media/PDFlinks/NVLA%20whitepaper%2011-27.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8578.12290
https://doi.org/10.1080/07434618.2018.1457715
https://doi.org/10.1080/07434618.2018.1457715
https://doi.org/10.1044/2022_AJSLP-22-00039
https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22110
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.991000
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.991000
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.905273
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.905273
https://sites.ed.gov/idea/IDEA-History#Pre-EHA-IDEA

	Multiple Assessment Formats
	Augmentative and Alternative Communication Technologies
	Conclusion
	References

