Cited by 172Assistive Technology in Communication and MobilityDisability Education and EmploymentDigital Accessibility for Disabilities

Assistive technology interventions for adolescents and adults with learning disabilities: An evidence-based systematic review and meta-analysis

Open access
Perelmutter, Bogi, McGregor, Karla K., Gordon, Katherine R.·2017·Computers & Education

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.compedu.2017.06.005

Cites

88 of 88 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Our pattern of results on reading comprehension is consistent with current evidence that coupling written text with read-aloud solutions might benefit reading comprehension in students with reading difficulties.

    “our pattern of results is consistent with current evidence showing that coupling written text with read-aloud solutions might benefit reading comprehension in students with reading difficulties”

    From Text‐to‐speech applications to reduce mind wandering in students with dyslexia (2022) · cites this paper as Perelmutter et al., 2017

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Roberts KD 2003 The use of voice recognition software as a compensatory strategy for postsecondary education students receiving services under the category of learning disabled Ph.D. thesis University of Hawaii at Manoa

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Perelmutter, B., McGregor, K. K., & Gordon, K. R.
Affiliations
University of Iowa (US)
Corresponding author
Perelmutter, Bogi
Venue
Computers & Education
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-11
Volume
114
Pages
139-163
ISSN
0360-1315 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2675328778
Cited by
172
References
88
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 8 · 2016: 1
FWCI
3.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Computers & Education (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • University of Iowa Presidential Graduate Research Fellowship
  • NIH (R01DC011742-02)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Assistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Disability Education and Employment
  • Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Digital Accessibility for Disabilities
Keywords
assistive technology, learning disabilities, adolescents, adults, intervention effectiveness, word processing, multimedia, hypertext, smart pen, text-to-speech, speech-to-text, user attitudes, lived experience

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review