Mapping Literacy Practices in Bilingual Contexts for Individuals With Intellectual Disabilities: A Scoping Review
Open accessAbstract
Literacy is crucial for academic, social, and personal development, yet individuals with intellectual disabilities (ID) often face significant cognitive, linguistic, and educational barriers. This may be exacerbated within bilingual contexts. This scoping review focused on mapping recent literature on literacy practices for bilingual learners with ID. The scope was to identify effective instructional strategies and possible barriers to literacy intervention. The search included empirical studies on literacy practices in ID within bilingual/multilingual settings, published between 2020 and 2025. Eighteen studies met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed descriptively. The analysis revealed six thematic areas: family-driven bilingual literacy, educator experiences, cross-linguistic learning, evidence-based literacy instruction, innovation in literacy tools, and inclusive bilingual education settings. Findings indicated the benefits of bilingual literacy instruction, specifically in cross-linguistic transfer effects in phonological awareness and decoding. However, systemic barriers were also identified. These included inadequate educator preparation and over-reliance on monolingual assessments. The review highlights the potential for inclusive, linguistically diverse interventions. Future research should explore holistic, collaborative, and methodologically diverse evidence-based approaches to stimulate better skills and implement effective practices for multilingual learners with ID.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., et al. (2021) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.n71 · Cited by 108,283 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
- Authors
- Muscat, L., & Grech, H.
- Affiliations
- University of Malta (MT)
- Corresponding author
- Muscat, Loredana
- Venue
- Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2026-07-15
- ISSN
- 0147-4375 (ISSN-L)
- 1540-7969
- 2169-2408
- OpenAlex
- W7168426831
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- Funders
- Reach High II scholars Programme (MEYR 408.2024/3)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Down syndrome and intellectual disability research
- Social Sciences › Linguistics and Language › Multilingual Education and Policy
- Keywords
- literacy education, intellectual disability, bilingual education, multilingual learners, language transfer, phonological awareness, decoding, educator preparation, inclusive education, literacy assessment, evidence-based teaching
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