Abstract
In the last decade, there has been an increase in online or digital technology-based training. Online training offers promising, accessible learning opportunities for everyone. However, few studies have specifically evaluated the scope of this training for adults with disabilities. The primary aim of this study is to conduct a systematic review of this topic. This involves evaluating the literature, including the methodology used, the variables analyzed, and the characteristics of the training program, as well as identifying gaps in the research. Our findings show that the number of publications is low, although there has been an increase in recent years. Furthermore, it is critical to highlight the importance of an intervention methodology grounded in scientific research and the evaluation of implementation fidelity. In general, online programs improve a variety of trained skills. Expanding interventions within this population, mainly targeting adult women with disabilities, is essential to promote equity and inclusivity in lifelong learning.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
The advancement of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) has greatly impacted society, transforming the way we live, work, and learn. In this last aspect, ICT has become a fundamental support, opening new possibilities and opportunities. Thus, in recent decades, online education has experienced significant growth (Karademir CoÅkun & Alper, 2019; Wallace-Spurgin, 2020). Educational platforms, online training courses, and digital resources are presented as globally accessible learning opportunities. However, is online education truly accessible to everyone, including adults with disabilities? And is the provision of this training sufficient for this group? Although ICTs offer significant opportunities, access to online training is not always equitable, presenting challenges particularly for adults with disabilities.
According to the World Health Organization (2023), it is estimated that approximately 1.3 billion people worldwide have some form of disability, accounting for 16% of the global population. In Europe, the Council of the European Union (2022) reports that 101 million adults are living with disabilities, representing 27% of the adult population. They further note that the age groups most affected are those between 45 and 64 years old, as well as those over 65. Additionally, within the European Union, the prevalence of disabilities is higher among women, at 29.5%, compared to 24.4% among men (Council of the European Union, 2022).
We must keep in mind that people with disabilities encounter a multitude of challenges. Compared to those without disabilities, they experience higher rates of unemployment, increased risk of poverty or social exclusion, greater susceptibility to violence and abuse, poorer academic performance, and a higher school dropout rate (Council of the European Union, 2022). In this context, online education could help mitigate some of these issues, potentially improving the quality of life for people with disabilities and fostering their social integration. Furthermore, Article 24.5 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Instrument of Ratification of the CRPC, December 13, 2006, April 21, 2008) explicitly recognizes the right to education for persons with disabilities:
States Parties shall ensure that persons with disabilities have general access to higher education, vocational training, adult education, and lifelong learning without discrimination and on an equal basis with others. To this end, States Parties will ensure that reasonable adjustments are made for persons with disabilities (Article 24.5, p. 96)
In this regard, online training could offer several advantages over face-to-face training for people with disabilities. For instance, its adaptability allows for training to be personalized based on the individualâs profile, learning style, and specific needs (Aeiadand & Meziane, 2019). Online training also provides flexibility in terms of when the training is accessed, enabling learners to set their own pace, and thereby fostering greater autonomy in learning. Another key feature of online education is its accessibility, both in terms of time and location, which allows learners to access training from any place (Herrera et al., 2015). Additionally, some studies (e.g., Biggs & Tang, 2011) have noted that for individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), asynchronous participation in discussions can reduce stress by allowing them to respond at their own pace.
Considering these advantages, there has recently been a considerable increase in online or virtual learning environments developed specifically for individuals with special educational needs (Ozdemir et al., 2019). These environments include a range of tools such as online learning platforms, collaborative learning environments, virtual classrooms, 3D simulators, and virtual environments, as well as virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR). These emerging technologies are being explored for their potential to enhance the educational experience by offering immersive simulations and more engaging learning environments. For instance, Contreras-Ortiz et al. (2023) note that the technologies like VR, AR, and mobile applications are particularly implemented with individuals with autism, alongside other utilized environments.
These educational environments are versatile, enabling the development of a broad range of skills, including academic, social, emotional, communication, personal autonomy, and cognitive skills, among others. For example, Howard and Gutworth (2020) emphasize the potential of virtual reality (VR) to enhance social and emotional skills in individuals with autism.
However, key questions remain: What components or elements should a learning environment include to ensure meaningful learning for people with disabilities? Additionally, what skills must individuals possess to effectively interact with online environments?
Research by Meyers and Bagnall (2015) and Downing (2014), which reflects the perceptions of students with autism, underscores the necessity for clear instructions and presentation of material. They recommend minimizing the number of resources and links available. In line with these findings, it is crucial to design simpler environments that feature clear, specific, simple, literal, and easy-to-follow instructions (Contreras-Ortiz et al., 2023).
Adams et al. (2019) identified several barriers and facilitators in the learning experience of university students with autism. Among the barriers, notable issues include the overwhelming amount of information on a page, the need for immediate answers to their questions, difficulty planning the schedule, excessive workloads, and pressing deadlines. Conversely, facilitators include the ability to pause and replay videos, flexible scheduling, prompt responses to inquiries, availability of evaluation rubrics, and a detailed timetable. The authors emphasize the importance of interaction and creating collaborative learning communities. However, they caution that the nature and frequency of these interactions can either hinder or help students with autism, thus underscoring the need to establish a functional virtual community (Garrison, 2017). Additional studies (Contreras-Ortiz et al., 2023) highlight essential characteristics of an effective online environment. These environments should be dynamic, incorporating a variety of resources and a robust learning support system, and must adapt to meet individual needs and preferences (Brown, 2000). For individuals with ASD, it is crucial to include visual elements such as videos and images, utilize authentic images, provide specific instructions, and employ a natural voice in presentations. In addition, instructional strategies should incorporate positive reinforcements, gradually increase the difficulty of activities, and ensure thorough supervision and monitoring throughout the teaching-learning process (Contreras-Ortiz et al., 2023). Acosta et al. (2020) also provide recommendations for creating accessible and inclusive online content. These guidelines align with the Authoring Tools Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) 2.0 of the World Wide Web Consortium. They design online training programs for people of any age with disabilities. Ultimately, any intervention or training must be tailored to the specific needs of its target population.
Key skills necessary for successful online learning include self-regulation, self-discipline, time management, organization, and self-evaluation. These skills, crucial for engagement with learning content, are highlighted in a review by Kauffman (2015) and further supported by research from Serdyukov and Hill (2013). Additionally, digital competence is essential for effective interaction with online platforms and resources, particularly for adults with disabilities.
Despite a significant increase over the last decade in the number of publications on interventions and training through online environments, VR/AR, etc., across various population groups (e.g., Dechsling et al., 2020; Mesa-Gresa et al., 2018; Lorenzo et al., 2018), and the positive outcomes from the implementation of ICT in training processes (Contreras-Ortiz et al., 2023), a critical question remains: What do we really know about the online training of adults with disabilities?
Several review studies have investigated virtual and augmented reality (VR/AR) in educational interventions for individuals with autism. For example, studies conducted by Mesa-Gresa et al. (2018) and Lorenzo et al. (2018) have primarily focused on children with autism. Expanding this demographic scope, the research by Dechsling et al. (2022) reviewed the literature on autism interventions using VR/AR across different age groups. Their analysis of 49 articles found that only one study (Amaral et al., 2018) included participants over 31, with no studies involving individuals over 40. Similarly, Contreras-Ortiz et al. (2023) reviewed e-learning ecosystems for people with ASD, observing a notable gap in research focused on adults. An e-learning ecosystem integrates all essential components needed to implement an online learning system, as discussed in studies by Ezzahraa et al. (2020) and Luna-Encalada et al. (2021).
To our knowledge, no studies from previous reviews have specifically aimed to analyze online training for adults with disabilities. Given the rapid development of online learning and the notable lack of information about this demographic, there is a clear justification for conducting a review to systematically map and evaluate the existing research in this field.
The aim of this review is to provide a comprehensive summary of studies that have utilized online training formats for adults with disabilities. This involves evaluating the literature, including the methodologies used, the variables analyzed, and the characteristics of the training program. Additionally, this review seeks to identify any research gaps in the existing literature.
Material and methods
A systematic review was conducted following the protocol âPreferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysesâ PRISMA protocol version 2020 (Page et al., 2021). This protocol includes four phases: identification, selection, eligibility, and inclusion (Urrútia & Bonfill, 2010).
Procedure
Search strategy
We searched for relevant documents related to our object of study in two electronic databases: SCOPUS and WoS. The search was carried out by topic in the last ten years (January 2014 to January 2024). We conducted the search using a combination of keywords with different Boolean operators. Quotation marks (ââ) were used to find documents that contained the specific concept related to our study. Likewise, the operator âORâ expanded the search with synonyms for the keywords. We also used the asterisk (*) after the root of a word to search for all documents containing that word and its possible endings. Finally, to find only the documents containing the key concepts (or set of concepts simultaneously), the logical operator joined these âAND.â The first topic involved words related to online education. We use (âe-learningâ OR âonline educationâ OR âdistance learningâ OR âvirtual learningâ OR âdistance educationâ OR âonline learningâ OR âonline courseâ OR âremote educationâ OR âremote learningâ OR âvirtual educationâ OR âvirtual courseâ OR âweb-based learningâ OR âweb-based trainingâ OR âweb-based educationâ OR âonline training programâ). The second topic was related to the age or population that is the object of our study. The words used were (âadultsâ OR âadulthoodâ OR âElderlyâ OR âAge group: 18 and olderâ). The last topic referred to the disabled group. This dernier topic was as follows: (âdisabilitiesâ OR âdisabledâ OR âimpairmentsâ OR âspecial needsâ OR âneurodevelopmental disordersâ OR âintellectual disordersâ OR âintellectual disabilitiesâ OR âcommunication disordersâ OR âautism spectrum disorderâ OR âattention-deficit/hyperactivity disorderâ OR âspecific learning disordersâ OR âmotor disordersâ OR âphysically challengedâ OR âphysical disabilitiesâ OR âsensory impairmentsâ OR âchronic health conditionsâ OR âautis*â OR âsensory disabilitiesâ OR âsyndrome downâ).
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
For an article to be included, it had to: (1) address directly online training aimed at adults with disabilities; (2) the sample study had to be people with disabilities; (3) were published in the last ten years (from January 2014 to October 2023); (4) were studied from any country (published in English or Spanish). Exclusion criteria were: (1) Gray literature (dissertations, posters, etc.); and (2) studies not reporting results about the online program.
Selection process
The search identified 535 articles (105 from WoS and 430 from SCOPUS). All documents were exported to the Rayyan tool for subsequent classification and selection. Of the 535 papers found, we removed 54 duplicate documents. The titles and abstracts of the 481 papers found were then examined. To ensure fairness and improve the reliability of our selection process, we employed a method known as blind selection, as described by Ouzzani et al. (2016). This method allowed multiple judges to rank documents independently without being influenced by the ratings of others. Our selection process followed a structured approach inspired by Belur et al. (2021), which involves dividing screening into multiple stages. In line, each author screened the documents found in three different stages: in the first stage, each author reviewed 161 papers, and in the second and third stages, reviewed 160 articles, respectively. During this phase, disagreements arose that were discussed by the authors, reaching a justified agreement on selecting the article for the next phase. This iterative method allows judges to refine their understanding of the inclusion criteria and improve consensus at each stage, ultimately improving the reliability of the IRR index. After completing the blind selection, we collected the rankings of all judges and transferred them to a database. Subsequently, we calculated inter-rater reliability indices (IRR) to assess the consistency of the judgments. IRR indices were calculated using Coenâs Kappa, achieving 0.74 in the first stage, 0.80 in the second stage, and a perfect score of 1 in the last stage (see Table 1).
After screening, 408 records were eliminated for not meeting the inclusion criteria. The remaining 73 documents were assessed for the eligibility phase. For this purpose, the full texts were obtained. The process was carried out through a collaborative effort between the two authors, so the articles were distributed equally. Next, each author reviewed the work done by her colleague to check and verify that the articles met the criteria. If there was any disagreement, it was analyzed and discussed. Finally, 16 articles are selected for review once the inclusion and exclusion criteria have been examined and applied. Fifty-nine articles were excluded during this phase for the following reasons: (1) The purpose of the training in these studies was solely rehabilitative rather than educational. These interventions focused on recovering or improving skills and functions physically lost or impaired by illness or injury rather than educational interventions aimed at enhancing knowledge and skills in a health context or other contexts. For example, studies involving the use of a robot connected to an arm, intended to improve mobility after an injury, were excluded. (2) Some studies included both minors and adults in their sample, but presented the results without distinguishing between different age groups. (3) Despite targeting people with disabilities, certain training programs were tested on healthy individuals. (4) Some studies included diseases that could potentially lead to disabilities in the future, but did not necessarily involve individuals with current disabilities. (5) Studies lacking comprehensive explanations of their research design (including sampling methods, description of the sample, instruments, procedures, and data analysis) were excluded from consideration. This decision was made with the recognition that a thorough explanation of these aspects is crucial for maintaining rigor.
Figure 1 offers a visual representation of the process conducted in accordance with the PRISMA protocol.
Document coding
The 16 scientific articles underwent analysis and coding based on the following criteria: (1) Participant information, including age, number of participants, gender, and type of disabilities. (2) Study details, encompassing authors, year of publication, objectives, methodology, measurements, instruments, analysis, and principal findings. (3) Program specifics, covering objectives, methodology, and duration.
Results
Following the PRISMA protocol, 16 scientific articles were included and analyzed based on criteria encompassing the study participantsâ characteristics, characteristics of the studies, and program attributes, as previously mentioned.
About the characteristics of the study participants (see Table 2), most studies provide specific details on age, sex, and type of disability. The studies encompass a range of age groups, with some focusing on specific development stages (Arachchi et al., 2021; Bruce et al., 2017; Garcia et al., 2023; Mead et al., 2023). Participant numbers vary significantly, from a single participant in the study by Silva de Souza et al. (2018) to 5586 participants in Mead et al. (2023), bringing the total number of participants across all studies to 6129. Generally, the sample sizes are small, with most studies involving no more than 128 participants, except for Mead et al. (2023), which analyzed institutional accommodations for students with disabilities using existing registered data. The gender distribution across the studies appears relatively balanced, although some studies show slight variations toward one gender. Now, if we narrow our focus to the subset of individuals with disabilities within the sample under consideration, excluding the study by Mead et al. (2023), where the large sample skews the overall statistics, we find that 55.83% of participants are male, while 44.15% are female among those with disabilities. The studies also cover various types of disabilities: two concentrate on intellectual disabilities (Arachchi et al., 2021; St. John et al., 2022), two on autism spectrum disorder (De Felice et al., 2023; Garcia et al., 2023), two on Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (Bruce et al., 2017; Moëll et al., 2015) and two on visually impairments (Güdül Ãz & Yangın, 2021; Silva de Souza et al., 2018), with others addressing additional disabilities.
Regarding the characteristics of the studies (see Table 3), it is observed that while the aims of the studies are diverse, some common themes emerge. For instance, St. John et al. (2022) and Rimmer et al. (2022) focus on evaluating programs aimed at improving well-being, while Curtiss et al. (2023) and Güdül Ãz and Yangın (2021) evaluate educational programs centered on sexuality education. Additionally, Fjellström et al. (2022) and Rimmer et al. (2022) both involve programs related to physical activity. All these articles commonly evaluate training programs designed for adults with disabilities. The methodologies employed across these studies vary, with 50% utilizing quantitative methods (e.g., Bruce et al., 2017; De Felice et al., 2023; Mead et al., 2023; Moëll et al., 2015; Worobey et al., 2018), 37.5% using mixed methods, and 12.5% adopting qualitative approaches. These studies assess the effectiveness of ICT-based training by analyzing improvements in various domains, including cognitive (e.g., Chiu et al., 2023; Moëll et al., 2015 and Worobey et al., 2018), physiological and physical activity (e.g., Busse et al., 2022; Fjellström et al., 2022; Rimmer et al., 2022; Silva de Souza et al., 2018), educational and behavioral (v.gr., Ayuso & Santiago, 2022; Bruce et al., 2017; Curtiss et al., 2023; GarcÃa et al., 2023; Güdül Ãz & Yangın, 2021; Moëll et al., 2015) and performance variables (Arachchi et al., 2021; De Felice et al., 2023; Mead et al., 2023). Additionally, several studies assess the feasibility, usability, satisfaction, and participantsâ perception of their experiences (e.g., Busse et al., 2022; Fjellström et al., 2022; Garcia et al., 2023; Güdül Ãz & Yangın, 2021; Rimmer et al., 2022; St. John et al., 2022), while a few analyze implementation fidelity (e.g., Busse et al., 2022; Chiu et al., 2023; Garcia et al., 2023). A variety of tools, including scales, questionnaires, observations, and interviews, are employed, and analyses such as ANOVA and regression are commonly used (e.g., De Felice et al., 2023; Fjellström et al., 2022; Mead et al., 2023; Rimmer et al., 2022, Worobey et al., 2018). In qualitative studies, thematic and content analyses are prevalent (e.g., Curtiss et al., 2023; GarcÃa et al., 2023; Silva de Souza et al., 2018; St. John et al., 2022).
Concerning the characteristics of the programs (see Table 4) and the main objectives pursued in the interventions, various focuses are evident. Some programs aim to improve specific skills such as danger perception and driving ability (Bruce et al., 2017) or cognitive skills (Chiu et al., 2023). Others provide knowledge on diverse topics, like effective web search techniques (Arachchi et al., 2021) or a broad range of content (De Felice et al., 2023). Regarding the intervention methodologies, many studies report that the programs often include support from professionals, researchers, or teachers who help reinforce learning, address questions, or resolve technical issues (Arachchi et al., 2021; Ayuso & Santiago, 2022; Busse et al., 2022; Chiu et al., 2023; De Felice et al., 2023; Fjellström et al., 2022; Moëll et al., 2015; Rimmer et al., 2022; Silva de Sousa et al., 2018; St. John et al., 2022; Worobey et al., 2018). Some studies highlight a structured sequence of instruction grounded in empirical evidence (Busse et al., 2022; Garcia et al., 2023). Additionally, the modalities of delivery vary, with some programs featuring real-time video calls and interactive sessions between teachers and students (De Felice et al., 2023), while others utilize platforms that offer pre-recorded content alongside messaging systems for communication (Garcia et al., 2023). The duration of these programs also varies considerably. Some are conducted in a single session lasting 40â60âmin (De Felice et al., 2023; Silva de Souza et al., 2018) whereas others consist of multiple weekly sessions, each lasting 45â60âmin, over several weeks (Ayuso & Santiago, 2022; Fjellström et al., 2022).
In general, the findings from multiple studies underscore the benefits of web tools and online learning for people with disabilities, presenting overall positive results. However, when comparing in-person to online learning, the results are mixed. For example, Ayuso and Santiago (2022) observed better outcomes with online formats, whereas Mead et al. (2023) noted that face-to-face settings offer more adaptations beneficial to students with disabilities. Worobey et al. (2018) found that both in-person and web-based training groups showed improvement, with web-based training proving as effective as in-person training. Furthermore, several authors (Curtiss et al., 2023; St. John et al., 2022) emphasize the importance of co-creating learning environments with people with disabilities. They advocate for involving these individuals in the planning and design processes to ensure the environments meet their specific needs and preferences.
Discussion
This review aimed to identify studies focused on training adults with disabilities through electronic means. We adopted the staged selection procedure outlined by Belur et al. (2021) to enhance the accuracy and precision in document selection and minimize observer bias. From this rigorous selection process, we identified 16 studies with diverse characteristics.
In analyzing the gender distribution within these studies, we found no consistent pattern indicating a higher proportion of male or female participants across the entire sample. However, when focusing specifically on the disabled adults within these studies, a higher rate of male participation emerged. This finding aligns with Dechsling et al. (2022), where only 7.4% of participants were women. In our analysis, the gender difference was 11 percentage points, which is somewhat less pronounced than in the Dechsling study. It is important to note that this analysis excluded three of the 16 selected studies due to their lack of gender-specific data (Curtiss et al., 2023; Rimmer et al., 2022) or because they were not focused on a direct intervention program at the time but rather on analyzing accommodations for students with disabilities in online programs over an extended period (Mead et al., 2023). Given the observed gender discrepancies and considering that some reports indicate a higher incidence rate of disabilities among women (Council of the European Union, 2022), future online training initiatives should strive for greater representation of women to ensure equity and inclusiveness.
As noted earlier, with the exception of the study by Mead et al. (2023), most studies we reviewed have small sample sizes, ranging from 1 to 128 participants. This underscores the need for research involving larger sample sizes to enhance the validity and transferability of the findings.
Despite having identified only 16 studies that analyze online training for people with disabilities, our review indicates a rapid growth in research within this field, as 81.3% of the included studies were published after 2021. This surge in research activity is promising and reflects a growing interest in this area of study.
Furthermore, it is noteworthy that half of the studies employed quantitative methodologies, including four controlled trials. Interestingly, 37.5% of the studies utilized mixed methods, an approach that can offer a more comprehensive understanding of the nuances of online training for adults with disabilities. The methodological diversity observed in these studies represents a significant strength, enhancing our understanding of the fieldâs complexities.
Studies have employed various metrics to assess the effectiveness and viability of online training. Aligning with the evaluation model proposed by Kirkpatrick (2006), the analyzed variables correspond to the first level (reaction), focusing on participantsâ satisfaction with the training, and the second level (learning), which examines changes in the skills taught. Notably, several studies have delved into participantsâ perceptions of their learning experiences, which is an essential aspect of the reaction level. For instance, in the study by Güdül Ãz and Yangın (2021), participants suggested enhancements to the learning environment, such as the inclusion of more images and videos. This feedback aligns with findings from Contreras-Ortiz et al. (2023), who emphasized the significance of incorporating visual elements like videos and images in the design of educational environments.
Additionally, several of the reviewed studies have focused on implementation fidelity within training programs, an aspect critical to their success. Implementation fidelity refers to the extent to which training is executed as originally designed (Jiménez & Crespo, 2019). This ensures that any shortcomings in the training outcomes are not due to deviations from the planned instruction. Davis Bianco (2010) notes that deviations can significantly diminish the effectiveness of a program. Evaluating implementation fidelity, therefore, not only supports the validity of the trainingâs theoretical and methodological foundations but also substantiates the observed intervention effects. This aspect was notably addressed in the studies by Busse et al. (2022), Chiu et al. (2023), and Garcia et al. (2023) included in our review.
The limited number of studies that employ an evidence-based learning methodology supported by a robust pedagogical framework is noteworthy. According to Murray et al. (2012), practices and interventions for people with disabilities should provide ample learning opportunities, clearly define intended outcomes, offer models, and include guided practices and feedback. Several studies in our review, including those by Busse et al. (2022), Chiu et al. (2023), Garcia et al. (2023), and Worobey et al. (2018), have incorporated these critical elements. Additionally, it is essential for educational platforms and resources to embrace inclusive design principles from the outset, ensuring that accessibility needs are considered during content creation and technology implementation. Contreras-Orticz et al. (2023) emphasize that learning environments should be dynamic and feature a variety of resources along with a robust learning support system. This approach is mirrored in studies like Moël et al. (2023) and Rimmer et al. (2022), which provide structured guidance and support, aligning with best practices for creating effective online learning environments.
Finally, another crucial consideration in creating online learning environments is addressing the specific needs of the intended participants. Studies included in our review, such as those by Arachchi et al. (2021), Curtiss et al. (2023), and St. John et al. (2022), highlight the benefits of this approach.
In general, online programs have been shown to enhance many of the skills being trained, corroborating findings from other research, such as that of Odom et al. (2015). Moreover, some studies, such as Ayuso and Santiago (2022), report improvements using online formats over in-person methods, although other studies present conflicting results. Thus, there is a clear need for further research comparing in-person and online formats to derive more definitive conclusions.
Despite the recent surge in publications related to our research objectives, significant improvements are still needed to enhance access to online training. Digital accessibility remains a paramount challenge, particularly for people with disabilities and older adults who may encounter barriers when engaging with online platforms and digital content not tailored to their specific needs. Compliance with accessibility standards, such as the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), is essential to ensure that online platforms are universally accessible. Additionally, when designing online training programs for adults with disabilities, it is crucial to adopt an interdisciplinary approach. This should involve collaboration among technology experts, pedagogy specialists, and the program recipients themselves. Such collaboration ensures that the programs are responsive to the needs and interests of the users, as highlighted by Curtiss et al. (2023) and St. John et al. (2022). This comprehensive approach not only enhances the effectiveness of the training but also ensures inclusivity and accessibility in the learning process.
As previously discussed, the design of the virtual environment is crucial, yet equally important is the attention to the specific needs of people with disabilities. Supporting these individuals in how to use ICT can significantly enhance their online learning opportunities and success in interaction (Ellis & Goodyear, 2019). This was a key goal of the study by Arachchi et al. (2021), which focused on training individuals in information skills and information literacy to boost their digital competence (Jin et al. 2019).
Moreover, it is essential to recognize that older adults also require targeted support when engaging with ICT. Studies such as those by Briones and Meijering (2021) have highlighted the critical role of social support provided by âtechnology expertsâ and the educational resources available through community centers. These supports are vital to ensuring that older individuals can successfully navigate and benefit from technology. Such inclusive approaches are fundamental to making digital education accessible and effective for all learners, regardless of age or disability.
Limitations
While this systematic review provides valuable insights, the scope of information gathered could be broadened through a scoping review. Such a review would allow for the inclusion of additional research and findings from the gray literature, which might offer more comprehensive perspectives on the subject.
Furthermore, future searches should extend beyond the databases currently used, to include specific psychology and education databases such as PsycINFO and ERIC. Expanding the search to these databases could uncover more nuanced and detailed studies relevant to the intersection of online learning, disabilities, and educational outcomes.
Implications for practice
The favorable outcomes observed across all studies in our review, concerning skills such as academic prowess, instrumental abilities, social interaction, personal autonomy, and physical activity, underscore the effectiveness of online and electronic device-based training for adults with disabilities. Nonetheless, there is a clear need to ensure greater representation of women in studies and to expand sample sizes to enhance the robustness and generalizability of the findings.
Furthermore, as suggested by Gorski (2009), there is a critical need to design collaborative digital learning spaces that involve a range of professionals. Such collaboration ensures that the learning environments are not only technologically advanced but also pedagogically sound.
Additionally, assessing implementation fidelity must be prioritized in training programs. This practice is essential to ensure that the training adheres to its intended design, thereby improving the validity and reliability of the results.
Conclusion
Despite the limited number of studies initially identified, the notable increase in research post-2021 reflects a growing interest in online training for adults with disabilities. This trend suggests a burgeoning concern in this field, though significant gaps remain that require further exploration.
The methodological diversity observed in the studies is viewed as a strength, underscoring the value of mixed-method approaches. These methodologies provide deeper insights into the complexities of online training, enabling a more nuanced understanding.
While the studies generally report positive outcomes in skill enhancement, the variability in results between in-person and online formats underscores the necessity for more targeted and detailed research. This will help to fully comprehend the impacts and effectiveness of different training modalities.
A recurring issue in the analyzed studies is the lack of a clear theoretical foundation and a supportive pedagogical framework. It is crucial for future research and practice to incorporate evidence-based theories and pedagogical strategies. This would ensure that training programs are not only technologically sound but also educationally effective.
Moreover, the studies highlight the importance of training and raising awareness among educators and content developers. Future training initiatives should prioritize interdisciplinary collaboration, involving technology developers, researchers in special educational needs and educational technology, and, importantly, people with disabilities themselves.
The objectives of the programs analyzed are diverse, covering a wide array of skills and knowledge areas. The methodologies employed are specifically tailored to meet these varied objectives and include participatory approaches, learning transfer models, and the use of online platforms. Although basic technology underpins these interventions, the duration of the programs varies significantly, reflecting the complexity and specific goals of each rather than a uniform approach.
Despite the surge in related publications, there remains a pressing need to broaden the scope of online interventions and training for adults with disabilities. This expansion is crucial to fully ascertain the potential and limits of such training. As we advance, it is imperative to maintain a steadfast commitment to ensuring that online education is accessible and advantageous to all, irrespective of individual capabilities or limitations. Such inclusivity is essential for achieving equity in training, thereby enhancing the quality of life and fostering social integration for all individuals.
Data availability
Data sharing does not apply to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study. However, the files with the selected articles from the WoS and SCOPUS databases and the link to the RYYAN platform are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
References
Acosta T, Zambrano-Miranda J, Lujan-Mora S (2020) Techniques for the publication of accessible multimedia content on the web. IEEE Access 8:55300â55322. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2981326
Adams D, Simpson K, Davies L, Campbell C, Macdonald L (2019) Online learning for university students on the autism spectrum: a systematic review and questionnaire study. Australas J Educ Technol 35(6):111â131. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.5483
Aeiadand E, Meziane F (2019) An adaptable and personalized e-learning system applied to computer science programmes design. Educ Inf Technol 24:1485â1509. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9836-x
Amaral C, Mouga S, Simões M, Pereira HC, Bernardino I, Quental H, Playle R, McNamara R, Oliveira G, Castelo-Branco M (2018) A feasibility clinical trial to improve social attention in autistic spectrum disorder (ASD) using a brain computer interface Front Neurosci 12:477. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2018.00477
*Arachchi TK, Sitbon L, Zhang J, Gamage R, Hewagamage P (2021) Enhancing internet search abilities for people with intellectual disabilities in Sri Lanka. ACM Trans Accessible Comput (TACCESS) 14:1â36. https://doi.org/10.1145/3460202
*Ayuso A, Santiago RB (2022) Análisis de la aplicación presencial y online de la lectura dialógica en personas con discapacidad intelectual y recomendaciones para llevarla a cabo Aula Abierta 51:375â383 https://doi.org/10.17811/rifie.51.4.2022
Belur J, Tompson L, Thornton A, Simon M (2021) Interrater reliability in systematic review methodology: exploring variation in coder decision-making. Socio Methods Res 50(2):837â865. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124118799372
Biggs J, Tang C (2011) Teaching for quality learning at university. McGraw- Hill, Maidenhead, UK
Briones S, Meijering L (2021) Using everyday technology independently when living with forgetfulness: experiences of older adults in Barcelona. Gerontol Geriatr Med 7:1â8. https://doi.org/10.1177/2333721421993754
Brown JS (2000) Growing up: digital: how the web changes work, education, and the ways people learn. Change 32(2):11â20. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091380009601719
*Bruce CR, Unsworth CA, Dillon MP, Tay R, Falkmer T, Bird P, Carey LM (2017) Hazard perception skills of young drivers with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) can be improved with computer-based driver training: an exploratory randomised controlled trial Accid Anal Prev 109:70â77 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2017.10.002
*Busse M, Playle R, Latchem-Hastings J, Button K, Lowe R, Barlow C, Jones F (2022) A web-based lifestyle, exercise, and activity intervention for people with progressive multiple sclerosis: results of a single-arm feasibility study. Mult Scler Relat Disord 57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msard.2021.103388
*Chiu HM, Hsu MC, Ouyang WC (2023) Effects of incorporating virtual reality training intervention into health care on cognitive function and wellbeing in older adults with cognitive impairment: a randomized controlled trial. Int J Human Comput Stud 170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2022.102957
Contreras-Ortiz MS, Marrugo PP, RodrÃguez Ribón JC (2023) E-learning ecosystems for people with autism spectrum disorder: a systematic review. IEEE Access 2023:49819â49832. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3277819
Council of the European Union (2022). Disability in the EU: facts and figures. Accessed Dec. 21, 2023. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/es/infographics/disability-eu-facts-figures/
*Curtiss SL, Myers K, DâAvella M, Garner S, Kelly C, Stoffers M, Durante S (2023). Sex. Ed. Agram: Co-created Inclusive Sex Education on Instagram. Sex Disab 1â20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11195-023-09794-y
Davis Bianco S (2010) Improving student outcomes: Data-driven instruction and fidelity of implementation in a response to intervention (RTI) model. Teach Child 6(5):1. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ907036.pdf
*De Felice S, Hatilova A, Trojan F, Tsui I, Hamilton AFDC (2023) Autistic adults benefit from and enjoy learning via social interaction as much as neurotypical adults do Mol Autism 14:33https://doi.org/10.1186/s13229-023-00561-6
Dechsling A, Sütterlin S, Nordahl-Hansen A (2020) Acceptability and normative considerations in research on autism spectrum disorders and virtual reality. In: Schmorrow D, Fidopiastis C (eds) Augmented cognition. Human cognition and behavior. HCII 2020. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, Cham, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50439-7_11
Dechsling A, Orm S, Kalandadze T, Sütterlin S, Ãien RA, Shic F, NordahlâHansen A (2022) Virtual and augmented reality in social skills interventions for individuals with autism spectrum disorder: a scoping review. J Autism Dev Disord 52:4692â4707. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-021-05338-5
Downing J (2014) âObstacles to my learningâ: a mature-aged student with autism describes his experience in a fully online course. Int Stud Widening Particip 1(1):15â27. https://novaojs.newcastle.edu.au/ceehe/index.php/iswp/article/view/4/pdf_1
Ellis R, Goodyear P (2019) The education ecology of universities: Integrating learning, strategy and the academy. Routledge
Ezzahraa EHF, Mohamed C, Abdelhamid B (2020) Towards e-learning ecosystem model based on cloud computing. in Proc. 10th Int. Conf. Virtual Campus (JICV), 1â4. https://doi.org/10.1109/JICV51605.2020.9375724
*Fjellström S, Hansen E, Hölttä J, Zingmark M, Nordström A, Lund Ohlsson M (2022) Web-based training intervention to increase physical activity level and improve health for adults with intellectual disability J Intellect Disabil Res 66:967â977 https://doi.org/10.1111/jir.12984
*Garcia JM, Shurack R, Leahy N, Brazendale K, Lee E, Lawrence S (2023) Feasibility of a remote-based nutrition education and culinary skills program for young adults with autism spectrum disorder. J Nutr Educ Behav 55(3):215â223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneb.2022.11.002
Garrison DR (2017) E-learning in the 21st century: a community of inquiry framework for research and practice (3rd ed.). Routledge
Gorski P (2009) Insisting on digital equity: reframing the dominant discourse on multicultural education and technology. Urban Educ 44:348â364. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085908318712
*Güdül Ãz H, Yangın HB (2021) Evaluation of a web-based sexual health education program for individuals with visual impairments Sex Disabil 39:715â730 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11195-021-09692-1
Herrera M, Xochitl A, Cervantes F, Parra Cervantes P (2015) The role of the information and communication technologies in social development. The case of San Felipe Orizatlan, México, in EDULEARN15: 7th International Conference On Education And New Learning Technologies, 8062â8072
Howard MC, Gutworth MB (2020) A meta-analysis of virtual reality training programs for social skills development. Comput Educ 144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103707
INSTRUMENT of Ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, done in New York on December 13, 2006. (April 21, 2008). Official State Gazette, 096, 20648-20659
Jiménez JE, Crespo P (2019) Modelo de respuesta a la intervención: definición y principales componentes. In J.E. Jiménez (coord.), Modelo de respuesta a la intervención: un enfoque preventivo para el abordaje de las dificultades especÃficas de aprendizaje, p 35â84. Pirámide
Jin B, Kim J, Baumgartner LM (2019) Informal learning of older adults in using mobile devices: a review of the literature. Adult Educ Q 69(2):120â141. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741713619834726
Karademir CoÅkun T, Alper A (2019) Use of digital learning materials in special education. Ank Univ Fac Educ Sci J Spec Educ 20(1):119â142. https://doi.org/10.21565/ozelegitimdergisi.423349
Kauffman H (2015) A review of predictive factors of student success in and satisfaction with online learning. Res Learn Technol 23:1â13. https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v23.26507
Kirkpatrick D (2006) Evaluating training programs: the four levels. Berrett-Koehler
Lorenzo G, Lledó A, Arráez-Vera G, Lorenzo-Lledó A (2018) The application of immersive virtual reality for students with ASD: a review between 1990â2017. Educ Inf Technol 24:127â151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9766-7
Luna-Encalada W, Guaiña-Yungan J, Molina-Granja F (2021) E-learning ecosystemâs to implement virtual computer labs. Commun Comput Inf Sci 1428:77â89. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-81350-5_7
*Mead C, Price C, Gin LE, Anbar AD, Collins JP, LePore P, Brownell SE (2023) A comparative case study of the accommodation of students with disabilities in online and in-person degree programs. PLoS ONE 18(10):1â19. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288748
Mesa-Gresa P, Gil-Gómez H, Lozano-Quilis J, Gil-Gómez J-A (2018) Effectiveness of virtual reality for children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorder: an evidence-based systematic review. Sensors 18:2486. https://doi.org/10.3390/s18082486
Meyers CA, Bagnall RG (2015) A case study of an adult learner with ASD and ADHD in an undergraduate online learning environment. Australas J Educ Technol 31(2):208â219. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1600
*Moëll B, Kollberg L, Nasri B, Lindefors N, Kaldo V (2015) Living smart - a randomized controlled trial of a guided online course teaching adults with ADHD or sub-clinical ADHD to use smartphones to structure their everyday life Internet Interv 2:24â31 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.invent.2014.11.004
Murray C, Coleman M, Vaughn S, Wanzek J Roberts, G (2012) Designing and delivering Intensive Interventions: a teacherâs toolkit. RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction
Odom SL, Thompson JL, Hedges S, Boyd BA, Dykstra JR, Duda MA, Bord A (2015) Technology-aided interventions and instruction for adolescents with autism spectrum disorder J Autism Dev Disord 45(12):3805â3819. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-014-2320-6
Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A (2016) Rayyan-a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev 5(1):1â10. https://doi.org/10.1186/S13643-016-0384-4/FIGURES/6
Ãzdemir O, ErbaÅ D, Yücesoy Ãzkan Å (2019) Virtual reality applications in special education. Ank Univ J Fac Educ Sci Spec Educ 20(2):395â420. https://doi.org/10.21565/ozelegitimdergisi.448322
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, Shamseer L, Tetzlaff JM, Akl EA, Brennan SE, Chou R, Glanville J, Grimshaw JM, Hróbjartsson A, Lalu MM, Li T, Loder EW, Mayo-Wilson E, McDonald S, Moher D (2021) The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Br Med J 372. https://doi.org/10.1136/BMJ.N71
*Rimmer JH, Wilroy J, Galea P, Jeter A, Lai BW (2022) Retrospective evaluation of a pilot eHealth/mHealth telewellness program for people with disabilities: mindfulness, exercise, and nutrition to optimize resilience (MENTOR). Mhealth 8. https://doi.org/10.21037/mhealth-2022-1
Serdyukov P, Hill R (2013) Flying with clipped wings: are students independent in online college classes? J Res Innov Teach 6(1):52â65. https://www.nu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/journal-of-research-in-innovative-teaching-volume-6.pdf
*Silva de Souza E, Cardoso A, Lamounier E (2018) A virtual environment-based training system for a blind wheelchair user through use of three-dimensional audio supported by electroencephalography Telemed e-Health 24:614â620 https://doi.org/10.1089/tmj.2017.0201
*St. John L, Volpe T, Jiwa MI, Durbin A, Safar Y, Formuli F, Lunsky Y (2022) More together than apartâ: The evaluation of a virtual course to improve mental health and well-being of adults with intellectual disabilities during the COVID-19 pandemic J Appl Res Intellect Disab 35:1360â1369 https://doi.org/10.1111/jar.13024
The asterisk in the reference list denotes the publications that are incorporated and detailed in Table 2
Urrútia G, Bonfill X (2010) Declaración PRISMA: una propuesta para mejorar la publicación de revisiones sistemáticas y metaanálisis. Med ClÃn 135(11):507â511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medcli.2010.01.015
Wallace-Spurgin M (2020) Implementing technology: measuring student cognitive engagement. Int J Technol Educ 3(1):24â38. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijte.v3i1.13
World Health Organization (2023). Disability. Accessed Dec. 21, 2023. https://www.who.int/es/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/disability-and-health
*Worobey LA, Rigot SK, Hogaboom NS, Venus C, Boninger ML (2018) Investigating the efficacy of web-based transfer training on independent wheelchair transfers through randomized controlled trials Arch Phys Med Rehabil 299:9â16 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2017.06.025
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Ethical approval
This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.
Informed consent
This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.
Additional information
Publisherâs note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the articleâs Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the articleâs Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
González, D., Del Prete, A. Online training programs for adults with disabilities: a systematic review. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 11, 831 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03342-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03342-5