Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities (2021) 33:99–116

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-020-09735-z
ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Using a Virtual Number Line and Corrective Feedback

to Teach Addition of Integers to Middle School
Students with Developmental Disabilities

Emily C. Bouck 1 & Holly Long 1 & Jiyoon Park 1

Published online: 14 March 2020

# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020

Abstract
Mathematics education is important for students with developmental disabilities. Ad-
ditional research is needed that examines interventions to teach grade-level mathemat-
ics content to these students. In this single-case multiple probe across participants study,
researchers explored the functional relation for four middle school students with
intellectual disability and autism between the intervention package of a virtual number
line and corrective feedback and solving addition of integer problems. Students solved
more problems correctly with access to the virtual number line in comparison to
baseline. They also maintained higher levels of accuracy during the maintenance
probes when corrective feedback was withdrawn. Implications from this research
include the option of a virtual number line as a potential intervention to teach secondary
students with developmental disabilities grade-level mathematics content.

Keywords Mathematics . Single-case research . Secondary . Academic instruction

Mathematics education is important for all students, including students with developmen-
tal disabilities (Xin et al. 2005). At a fundamental level, individuals engage in mathemat-
ical thinking and practices throughout their daily lives, from purchasing groceries, to
budgeting, and doing taxes (Otten 2011; Saunders et al. 2018). A strong understanding of
mathematics supports not only functional—or daily living skills, including employment—
for students with developmental disabilities but also access to higher level mathematics, as
mathematics builds upon itself (Browder et al. 2011; Saunders et al. 2018).
For students with developmental disabilities, the debate about what to teach exists
(cf., Ayres et al. 2011; Collins 2013; Courtade et al. 2012), and mathematics education is
no different. Mathematics education can be academic (e.g., algebra) or functional (e.g.,
purchasing skills). However, academic mathematics can have a functional component

* Emily C. Bouck
[email protected]

1
Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA
100 Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities (2021) 33:99–116

and functional mathematics can be connected to academic standards (Bouck 2012;

Bouck et al. 2015; Collins et al. 2010). In other words, academic mathematics can aid
students with developmental disabilities with regard to real-life applications, such is the
case with integers (e.g., budgeting/money and temperature; Gagnon and Maccini 2001;
Maccini and Ruhl 2000; Stephan and Akyuz 2018).

Integers

Integers, when considering negative numbers, are generally taught in middle school in
the United States (Common Core State Standards 2019). It is in the sixth-grade
Common Core State Standards (2019) in which students are introduced formally to
negative numbers and operations involving such numbers. Integers are then used
increasingly in mathematics with regard to algebraic thinking and situations
(Nurnberger-Haag 2007). Further, the National Mathematics Advisory Panel (NMAP
2008) recommended that students should possess proficiency with integers by the
conclusion of sixth grade.
Educators are without consensus on teaching integers (Stephan and Akyuz 2018).
Educators teach integers through concrete objects, such as two-colored chips to
represent positive and negative numbers (Battista 1983) as well as number lines
(Heeffer 2011). Despite the allure of concrete manipulatives, such as the two-colored
chips, modeling addition and subtraction with regard to negative numbers poses
conceptual problems (Bishop et al. 2014). Number lines—often considered important
to the development of a number system in young children (Booth and Siegler 2008)—
are also used to support integer instruction (Stephan and Akyuz 2012). Number lines
can help support real-life applications of adding and subtracting integers, such as
temperature and money (Stephan and Akyuz 2012).
Limited research exists exploring integer instruction for students with disabilities.
Maccini and Hughes (2000) and Maccini and Ruhl (2000) explored integer instruction
with middle school students with learning disabilities with the concrete-
representational-abstract (CRA) instructional sequence. The CRA instructional se-
quence is an intervention in which students gradually shift from solving mathematical
problems involving concrete manipulatives to solving them with pictorial representa-
tions, to finally solving the problems with just numerical strategies (Agrawal and Morin
2016). With the CRA, instructors teach students how to solve problems with each form
of representation (i.e., concrete, pictorial, and numerical) via explicit instruction. For the
concrete manipulative in the CRA, Maccini and Hughes (2000) and Maccini and Ruhl
(2000) both used algebra tiles. In both studies, the researchers focused on word problems
and students’ representation of the problem in addition to finding the solution. In both of
these single-case studies, Maccini and Hughes (2000) and Maccini and Ruhl (2000)
found students were successful with representing and solving the problems with the
algebra tiles. More recently, Bouck and Park (App-based manipulatives and the system
of least prompts to support acquisition, maintenance, and generalization of adding
integers, unpublished manuscript) explored the use of a virtual two-color chip manip-
ulative and the system of least prompts for middle school students with developmental
disabilities to solve integer addition problems. All three students acquired the skill and
were generally independent, and two were able to maintain and generalize the skill.
Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities (2021) 33:99–116 101

Within the existing limited literature on instruction involving integers for students
with disabilities, students with intellectual and developmental disabilities are rarely the
target population. Although understanding integers is connected to success in algebra
(Riccomini and Witzel 2010), the lack of attention on integers for this population may
be connected to the limited attention to algebra for this population (Spooner et al.
2019). Yet, access to more advanced mathematics—including integer instruction which
supports prealgebraic ideas—is important for students with intellectual and develop-
mental disabilities as it provides access to problem-solving, access to algebraic ideas,
and sets high expectations for these students’ learning (Root et al. 2016).

Number Lines

Although limited research exists examining students with developmental disabilities

ascertainment of mathematical skills and knowledge relative to positive and negative
numbers, research does exist exploring these students use of a number line (Bowman
et al. 2019). As noted, number lines are consistently used in teaching integers (Stephan
and Akyuz 2012). Cihak and Foust (2008) compared the use of a number line—
focused on positive numbers—to TouchMath (i.e., a multisensory approach in which
an Arabic number is the manipulative through adding touch points or dots to the
number) when teaching addition to three elementary students with autism. Although
Cihak and Foust (2008) concluded the dot notation (i.e., TouchMath) was more
effective than the number line in supporting students’ acquisition of positive integer
addition skills, two of the students were able to use a number line to solve problems. In
a replication and extension study, Fletcher et al. (2010) found similar results in terms of
the efficacy of TouchMath as compared to a number line for middle school students
with moderate intellectual disability. Dot notation strategies (e.g., TouchMath) can
work for positive integers. However, when considering grade-level content such as
positive and negative numbers as well as more age-appropriate mathematical options,
researchers should consider number lines and virtual number lines (Satsangi and Bouck
2015; Satsangi and Miller 2017). One existing study comparing app-based and paper-
based number lines with regard to teaching three secondary students with intellectual
disability number comparison suggested students were slightly more accurate and
completed the task slightly faster with the app-based number line as compared to the
paper-based number-line (Weng and Bouck 2016).

Apps

As suggested, one more age-appropriate—and socially-desirable—tool to aid in learn-

ing mathematics is the use of apps (Bouck et al. 2018b; Satsangi and Miller 2017).
Virtual—or app-based—manipulatives represent one type of app increasingly used in
mathematics for students with disabilities (Bouck et al. 2018b; Satsangi and Miller
2017; Shin et al. 2017). The existing research to date on virtual manipulative apps in
mathematics is positive with regard to students with disabilities (Bouck and Park 2018;
Peltier et al. 2019). App-based manipulatives, representing a virtual or digital version of
concrete manipulatives—including a number line—provide students with disabilities
102 Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities (2021) 33:99–116

access to supports that can be considered more age-appropriate (Satsangi and Bouck
2015). App-based manipulatives also provide access to mathematical content that is
challenging to do with concrete manipulatives (Sarama and Clements 2016).
In this study, researchers sought to explore if a functional relation existed between
the intervention package consisting of a virtual number line (i.e., app-based number
line) and corrective feedback and the accuracy of middle school students with intellec-
tual disability and autism in solving combinations of addition of integer problems (i.e.,
positive + negative, negative + positive, negative + negative). Through this study,
researchers pursued answering the following research questions: (a) Will an interven-
tion package, which includes a virtual number line and corrective feedback, improve
student accuracy in solving addition of integer problems?, (b) Are students able to
generalize solving addition of integer problems without access to the virtual number
line?, and (c) Are students able to maintain solving addition of integer problems after a
period of 2 weeks?

Method

Participants

Four students participated in the study. Three of the students were sixth-graders
educated in the same self-contained middle school classroom; the other was a
seventh-grader educated in a separate self-contained middle school classroom. Partic-
ipants were selected for participation based on teacher recommendation for students
who could benefit from working one-on-one with someone on mathematical concepts.
All participants were able to add and subtract positive integers but were unable to add
positive and negative integers. Problems involving negative numbers were not routine-
ly part of any of the student’s curriculum and students had limited-to-no prior exposure.
All participants had parental consent to participate in the research study.

Jim The first participant in the study was Jim. Jim was a White, 12-year-old, sixth-
grade student. Jim was eligible for special education services under the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) category of autism. From his file, Jim’s IQ was 81
on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children—fourth edition (WISC-IV; Wechsler
2003). On the Woodcock Johnson III Tests of Achievement (WJ-III-ACH), as written
in his file, (Woodcock et al. 2001), Jim’s numerical operations was a 4.2 grade
equivalency, 3.2 grade equivalency for math problem solving, and 4.0 grade equiva-
lency for math fluency addition. Per the KeyMath-3 Diagnostic Assessment (Connolly
2007) administered by researchers, Jim’s grade equivalency for addition and subtrac-
tion was 5.2, and 4.5 for mental computation and estimation. Jim was verbal, generally
independent throughout his day, and participated in the highest math group within his
self-contained class. Jim verbally assented to participate in the study.

Pam Pam, the second student in the study, was a White, 13-year-old, sixth-grade
student. Pam was eligible for special education services under the IDEA category of
autism. From her file, Pam’s IQ was 72 on the WISC-IV (Wechsler 2003). Also, from
her file, Pam’s numerical operations grade equivalency was 5.0, math problem solving
Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities (2021) 33:99–116 103

a 2.6, and math fluency addition a 3.7 on the Weschler Individual Achievement Test III
(WIAT-III; Wechsler 2009). Per the researcher-administered KeyMath-3 Diagnostic
Assessment (Connolly 2007), Pam’s scores for addition and subtraction were much
higher (4.8 grade equivalency for addition and subtraction) than for mental computa-
tion and estimation (2.5 grade equivalency). Pam was verbal, although quite soft-
spoken. She alternated between the highest and middle math groups in her self-
contained class. Pam verbally assented to participate and stated she enjoyed working
with the researchers.

Andy The third participant in the study was Andy. Andy was a White, 13-year-old,
sixth-grade student. Per his file, Andy was identified as a student with an intellectual
disability. From the WISC-IV (Wechsler 2003), Andy’s IQ was 67. Based on his file,
Andy’s math composite score was 59 on the Kaufman Test of Educational Achieve-
ment III (KTEA-III; Kaufman and Kaufman 2004). Andy’s researcher-administered
KeyMath-3 Diagnostic Assessment (Connolly 2007) grade equivalency was 4.5 for
addition and subtraction and 3.1 for mental computation and estimation. Andy partic-
ipated in the highest math group within this self-contained class with Jim. Andy
verbally assented to participate in the research and verbally stated that he enjoyed
working with the researchers.

Ryan Ryan, the fourth and final participant in the study was a White, 14-year-old,
seventh-grade student. Per his file, Ryan was identified as a student with an intellectual
disability. Also, from this file, Ryan’s IQ was 60, per the Wechsler Preschool and
Primary Scale of Intelligence III (WPPSI-III; Wechsler 2002). Ryan’s grade equivalen-
cy on the researcher-administrated KeyMath-3 Diagnostic Assessment (Connolly
2007) was 3.6 for addition and subtraction and 2.9 for mental computation and
estimation. Per his teacher’s comments and researcher observation, Ryan was a reluc-
tant math student and participant, although he verbally assented to participate.

Setting

Jim, Pam, and Andy all attended the same school; Ryan attended a different school. The
first school was located in a suburban community. The district enrolled 2765 students,
of which 326 were identified as students receiving an Individualized Education Pro-
gram (IEP). The school itself reported an enrollment of 651 students in grades six
through eight. Almost 80% of the student population at the first school was White
(79.4%), followed by Hispanic, Asian, Black, two or more races, and American Indian.
Slightly under one-fourth of the students in the middle school qualified for free or
reduced lunch. The second school was located in a small town, whose community was
more rural. The student enrollment of this district was 2007 students, of which 10.9%
were students identified with an IEP. The middle school itself had an enrollment of 453
students, of which 24.1% qualified for free or reduced lunch. The school was predom-
inantly White (93.8%); less than 7% were students who were Hispanic, two or more
races, Black, or Asian.
At the first school, the researchers worked with the students at a table in the self-
contained program classroom. The teacher and paraprofessionals worked with students in
104 Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities (2021) 33:99–116

small groups at tables spread throughout the classroom. The researchers worked with the
participating students one-on-one at a separate table. At the second school, the researchers
worked with Ryan at a table in the hallway outside of the self-contained classroom. In
both settings, the space was reasonably quiet and distractions were minimal.

Materials

Researchers employed the following materials in the study: an iPad, the Brainingcamp
(2019) Number Lines app, and probes. Each probe, presented on a standard 8 in. by 11-
in. piece of white paper, consisted of five problems and reflected addition of integer
problems. All problems were printed on the paper. Each problem contained at least one
negative number—either addend, although problems could contain two negative num-
bers. Examples of problems included −9 + 10, −2 + − 7, and 4 + − 9. Researchers
developed the probes by listing all possible addition problems involving integers from
−10 to 10 and then randomly assigning them to probes. While individual questions
were repeated, each probe was unique. Students had the probes in front of them for all
phases of the study and wrote answers on the paper with a pencil.
The app—Number Lines (Brainingcamp 2019)—depicted a horizontal number line
with numbers represented by ticks and labels (e.g., 0, 1, −4; see Fig. 1). When first
opened, the app defaulted to showing 0 to 20, but right and left arrows allowed a user to
move left (i.e., showing increasing lower negative numbers) and to move right (i.e.,
showing increasing higher positive number). The default was also set to integers,
although a user could switch to decimals or fractions. For this study, the app was

Fig. 1 Screenshot of the Number Line App from Brainingcamp (2019)

Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities (2021) 33:99–116 105

always left on integers. On the left-hand side of the app were elements a user could drag
onto the number line screen, including a circle marker, which tells the user the number
they placed it on and green and red arrows or blocks. The green arrows move to the
right and the red to the left.

Independent and Dependent Variables

Researchers examined the following independent variable: an intervention package

consisting of a virtual number line to solve addition of integer problems and corrective
feedback on problems answered incorrectly. The dependent variable was students’
accuracy in solving the addition of integer problems. The researchers represented
accuracy as a percentage of problems answered correctly out of the possible five
problems for each probe.

Procedures

The study procedures were developed to align with the quality indicators for
single case research as stipulated by Cook et al. (2015). Researchers collected
all data working one-on-one with students. Students, depending on their order
of participation, completed three to eight baseline probes, one or two training
sessions, five to seven intervention probes, seven generalization probes without
access to the virtual number line, and two maintenance probe, with the virtual
number line 2 weeks after intervention ended. Two researchers implemented the
study—the first and third authors. The first author was a faculty member who
conducted research regarding mathematical interventions for students with dis-
abilities and taught a mathematics methods course to pre-service special edu-
cation teachers. The third author was an advanced doctoral student whose own
research focused on mathematical interventions for students with disabilities.
Both had previously conducted similar studies involving single-case design and
mathematical apps for students with disabilities. The first author trained the
third author regarding the study.

Baseline During baseline, each student completed at most one probe per session, when
a probe was given. Students were provided access to the virtual number line, but
instruction as to how to use the app was not provided. Consistent with the probes for
other phase, five addition of integer problems comprised each probe.

Training Immediately after the baseline phase and proceeding the intervention
phase, researchers provided students training in how to use the virtual number
line app (Brainingcamp 2019). Researchers employed explicit instruction to
teach students how to use the app to solve addition of integer problems.
Explicit instruction consisted of the researcher modeling two problems, provid-
ing prompts and feedback on two problems as students worked to independent-
ly solve, and students solving five problems independently (Doabler and Fien
2013). Students needed to achieve 80% or higher accuracy on the training
probe to move into intervention. If the student achieved less than 80% accura-
cy, researchers repeated the training the next session.
106 Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities (2021) 33:99–116

Researchers initiated training by explaining that the number line on the app was
similar to number lines on paper, including ones we could draw. The researchers
highlighted the features of the Brainingcamp (2019) Number Line app, including
arrows to move to the right (i.e., higher numbers) and left (i.e., lower numbers), as
well as markers to indicate a number and arrows—curved or straight—to indicate
direction. When modeling, the researcher demonstrated how to use the virtual
number line to solve a problem, such as with the problem −3 + 8. The researcher
began by moving a marker onto the first number of the problem, in this case
negative three. The author then modeled noting that she was adding a positive
number and hence was moving to the right on the number line. The researcher
moved out a green arrow facing the right. The researcher stated the arrow needed
to span over eight, as the problem asked her to add eight. The researchers then
placed the green arrow representing adding eight onto the number line, ending at
5. The researcher noted, hence, −3 + 8 equals five. Researchers used similar
procedures regardless of the problem, but tailored as appropriately. For example,
when adding a negative integer, a red arrow represented the move that many
spaces to the left on the number line.

Intervention Intervention consisted of a minimum of five intervention probes, which

occurred across a minimum of five intervention sessions. Students who failed to
achieve at least 80% accuracy on an intervention probe, repeated the probe the next
session. Researchers provided corrective feedback for any problems during intervention
sessions students answered incorrectly. Specifically, for each problem on the interven-
tion probe answered incorrectly by the student, the researcher physically demonstrated
how to solve it via the virtual number line as well as verbally discussed what she was
doing. During intervention, students were provided with the virtual number line, which
was open when students began the session.

Generalization Researchers administered generalization probes during and after

the intervention phase. The generalization probes focused on students solving
the addition of integer problems without the virtual number line. Starting with
each student’s first intervention session, researchers administered a generaliza-
tion probe prior to the intervention probe in sessions where an intervention
probe was given to said student. A generalization probe was not provided when
students repeated an intervention probe. During the generalization probes,
students were not given access to the virtual number line, nor was corrective
feedback provided. Two weeks after the last intervention probe, researchers also
administered two generalization probes. These generalization probes in the
maintenance phase occurred each session prior to students completing the
maintenance probes.

Maintenance Two weeks after the last intervention probe, students entered the main-
tenance phase. In the maintenance phase, students each completed two maintenance
probes. For each maintenance probe, students were provided access to the virtual
number line. Note, during maintenance sessions, each student also completed one
generalization probe (i.e., without access to the virtual number line) prior to completing
each maintenance probe (i.e., with access to the virtual number line).
Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities (2021) 33:99–116 107

Experimental Design

The researchers used a multiple probe across participants single case design to explore
the functional relation between the intervention package consisting of the virtual
number line and corrective feedback and student accuracy in solving addition of integer
problems (Gast et al. 2018). All four participants began baseline simultaneously. The
first student (i.e., Jim) completed three baseline probes and subsequent participants
completed six to eight baseline probes. Students entered intervention if their baseline
data were stable (i.e., 80% of data fell within 25% of median; Gast and Spriggs 2014)
and had zero-celerating or decelerating trend in baseline. Consistent with the multiple
probe across participants design (Gast et al. 2018), students entered intervention in a
staggered fashion. Hence, students two through four entered the intervention phase
after meeting the previous conditions (e.g., level and trend) and the previous student
completed at least three intervention probes and obtained a minimum of 80% accuracy
on said probes. Students completed the intervention phase after obtaining 80–100%
accuracy for five sessions.

Inter-Observer Agreement and Procedural Fidelity

Researchers collected accuracy inter-observer agreement (IOA) data for a minimum of

20% of baseline, intervention, generalization, and maintenance phase data. As such, the
researcher and one independent observer each calculated student accuracy for the
aforementioned 20% of probes for each phase. To calculate accuracy IOA, the
researchers summed the total possible opportunities for each of them to score the
probes (i.e., 5 problems multiplied by the number of sessions equating 20% for each
phase). Then, the researchers divided that number into the number of times they agreed
on their opportunities to do so. Researchers converted the quotient to a percentage by
multiplying by 100. IOA for all students for accuracy was 100%. The researchers who
delivered the intervention sessions assessed procedural fidelity during 40% of the
intervention sessions. Researchers used a checklist to determine if students were given
the iPad, used the app, and then if corrective feedback was given for each incorrect
response. Procedural fidelity as 100% for each student.

Social Validity

Researchers interviewed each participating student to determine social validity. At the end of
the study, the researchers asked each student a few questions regarding the virtual number
line and learning to add integers. Specifically, the researchers asked each student if she or he
liked learning about adding integers and why, if they liked using the virtual number line to
add integers and why, if they would like to use a virtual number line in the future, and if there
was anything else they wanted to say about working on math with the researchers. The
social validity interviews were conducted one-on-one.

Data Analysis

Researchers analyzed the data visually as well as calculated stability, trend, and effect
size. Researchers visually analyzed the immediacy of the intervention effect, meaning
108 Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities (2021) 33:99–116

they compared each student’s last baseline session to their first intervention session.
Researchers computed stability by determining if 80% of the data within each phase fell
within 25% of the median for that phase’s data (Gast and Spriggs 2014). Researchers
employed the split-middle technique to determine trend (White and Haring 1980).
Using the split-middle technique, researchers found the mid-rate, middle, and mid-date
points for each phase for each student and then drew a line between the mid-rate and
mid-date. For lines the sloped upwards, the trend was accelerating, downwards nega-
tive, and straight zero-celerating. Researchers used an online calculator to calculate
Taunovlap as a measure of effect size (Parker et al. 2011a, b; Vannest et al. 2016). Using
the online calculator, a Taunovlap less than .20 was a small effect, between .20 and .60
represented a moderate effect, between .60 and .80 a large, and greater than .80 a very
large (Vannest and Ninci 2015).

Results

Researchers determined a functional relation existed between the accuracy dependent

variable and the intervention package of the virtual number line and corrective feed-
back (see Fig. 2). The students improved their accuracy in adding integers when
provided access to the virtual number line but struggled more to solve the problems
when access to the virtual number line was not provided.

Jim

Jim answered one question correctly for each of his three baseline probes (refer to Fig.
2). His baseline data were stable with a zero-celerating trend. Jim achieved 100%
during his first training session and entered intervention. Jim experienced an immediate
effect when entering intervention, in which he had access to the virtual number line
(80% accuracy) as compared to his last baseline session (20% accuracy). Jim completed
five intervention sessions, ending his last three intervention sessions at 100% accuracy.
His first two intervention sessions resulted in 80% accuracy, hence, he received
corrective feedback on one problem per probe. His intervention data were stable with
an accelerating trend. Jim’s generalization data during intervention were also stable but
with a zero-celerating trend. His accuracy on his first generalization probe during
intervention was 20% and his last generalization probe during intervention was 100%
accuracy. During the maintenance phase, Jim’s average accuracy on both the mainte-
nance and generalization probes was 70%. The Taunovlap between Jim’s baseline and
intervention was 1.0, representing a very large effect. Between baseline and generali-
zation, the Taunovlap was 0.80, representing a large effect.

Pam

Pam answered zero questions correctly across her six baseline probes; her
baseline data were stable with a zero-celerating trend (refer to Fig. 2). Pam
completed two training sessions. Her accuracy was 40% on her first session and
80% on her second session. On her first intervention session, Pam achieved
100% accuracy. However, she completed seven intervention sessions as on her
Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities (2021) 33:99–116 109

Baseline T I&G Maintenance & Generalization

Jim

100
80
Accuracy

60
Training
40
With App
20
0 Without App
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233
Sessions

Pam

100
80
Accuracy

60
Training
40
20 With app
0 Without app
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233
Sessions

Andy

100
80
Accuracy

60
Training
40
With App
20
0 Without App
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233
Sessions

Ryan

100
80
Accuracy

60
Training
40
With App
20
Without App
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
Sessions
Fig. 2 Accuracy of Solving Addition of Integers Problems; T = Training; I & G = Intervention and
Generalization

second intervention session Pam’s accuracy was 0% and then 60% on her third.
She scored 80% on her last four intervention sessions. Pam received corrective
feedback on each problem answered incorrectly on each intervention session.
Her intervention data were stable with an accelerating trend. Pam’s generaliza-
tion data during intervention were variable and zero-celerating, and her accura-
cy did not reach over 20%. During the maintenance phase, Pam scored 100%
with access to the virtual number line for both sessions (i.e., maintenance
110 Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities (2021) 33:99–116

probes) but only 60% and 40% on the generalization probes without access to
the virtual number line. The Taunovlap between Pam’s baseline and intervention
was 0.857, a very large effect. The Taunovlap was 0.60 between baseline and
generalization, a moderate effect.

Andy

Andy answered zero questions correctly during his seven baseline probes (refer to Fig.
2). His baseline data were stable and zero-celerating. Andy completed two training
sessions. On the first Andy’s independent accuracy was 60% and on the second 100%.
Andy achieved 100% accuracy on all his intervention sessions with the exception of the
second session (60%). He was provided corrective feedback on the two problems
answered incorrectly on the second probe. His intervention data were stable and
accelerating. Andy’s accuracy on his generalization probes during intervention were
generally 0%, although his last one was 20% accuracy. However, during the mainte-
nance phase, Andy’s average accuracy on generalization probes without access to the
virtual number line was 50%. With the virtual number line during maintenance, Andy’s
accuracy was 100% and 80%. The Taunovlap between Andy’s baseline and intervention
was 1.0, representing a very large effect. The Taunovlap between Andy’s baseline and
generalization was 0.20, a moderate effect.

Ryan

Ryan’s accuracy during baseline was 0% on any of the eight probes (refer to
Fig. 2). His baseline data were stable and zero celerating. Ryan completed two
training sessions, achieving 60% accuracy on the first and 80% on the second.
After Ryan’s first intervention session of 0% accuracy, he was provided cor-
rective feedback on all five problems. His accuracy ranged from 80% to 100%
for the last five sessions. Ryan’s intervention data were stable and accelerating.
Ryan’s generalization data during intervention were also accelerating. His first
generalization probe resulted in 0% accuracy, but his accuracy on the four
remaining sessions ranged from 60 to 100%. During the maintenance phase,
Ryan’s accuracy both with (i.e., maintenance probes) and without (i.e., gener-
alization probes) access to the virtual number line were 60% and 80%, respec-
tively. The Taunovlap between Ryan’s baseline and intervention as 0.833% and
between baseline and generalization was 0.80, representing very large and large
effects, respectively.

Social Validity

The students indicated that they liked using the virtual number line. In fact, Pam would
question during generalization sessions about using the app. They also indicated they
felt the virtual number line helped them to solve the problems. Jim and Ryan both,
however, felt that each would not use the tool in the future to solve problems or to solve
different types of problems as each one wanted to do it with just paper and pencil as it
was quicker. Pam and Andy both stated they would use the virtual number line or other
apps to help them in solving mathematical problems.
Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities (2021) 33:99–116 111

Discussion

In this study, researchers explored the existence of a functional relation between an

intervention package consisting of a virtual (i.e., app-based) number line and corrective
feedback and the accuracy of middle school students with intellectual disability and
autism in solving addition of integer problems. From the single-case study, a functional
relation was found between the independent variable (i.e., intervention package) and
the dependent variable for all four participants. Each of the students’ accuracy was
higher during the intervention than during baseline. However, the data on student
generalization probes, when access to the virtual number line and corrective feedback
was not provided, were more idiosyncratic.
Although the students, aside from Jim, experienced a session with less than 80%
accuracy when using the virtual number line, students were more successful with the
tool than without. During baseline, no one aside from Jim answered any questions
correctly. Yet, after one or two training sessions and use of the virtual number line,
student accuracy was generally 80–100%. However, student success with adding
integers via the virtual number line did not automatically transfer to solving similar
problems without the tool for all students. Jim and Ryan were more successful on
intervention probes in solving the addition of integer problems than during generaliza-
tion probes when access to the virtual number line and corrective feedback was not
provided. Pam and Andy struggled on generalization probes, never answering more
than one problem correctly when access to the virtual number line and corrective
feedback was not provided during the intervention phase. However, it should be noted
that the data for all students for probes with the virtual number line and without it
during the maintenance phase were higher than their baseline accuracy.
This study extends the literature of mathematics education for students with autism
and intellectual disability, not only with regard to the use of app-based manipulatives to
support students but also with regard to integer instruction. For students with develop-
mental disabilities, limited research exists which examines integer instruction, when
considering negative integers (Bouck and Park 2018). While researchers increasingly
explore algebraic instruction for students with developmental disabilities (Spooner et al.
2019), more research is still needed. This is particularly so when considering the use of
technology to support algebraic instruction (Spooner et al. 2019). While algebra was
not explored in this study and we are not suggesting students could generalize their
skills of adding integers to solving algebraic equations, researchers do suggest opera-
tions with integers represent pre-algebra and prepare students for algebraic concepts
(Gallardo 2002; Stephan and Akyuz 2018; Tillema et al. 2017). This study builds upon
a current focus in mathematics research for students with developmental disabilities—
providing interventions that support teaching grade-level standards to students with
developmental disabilities (e.g., Jimenez et al. 2008; Spooner et al. 2019).

Implications for Practice

An implication for practice stemming from this research is the potential for virtual
number lines to support students with disabilities. Although students are able to use
paper-based number lines to solve addition of integer problems (e.g., Fletcher et al.
2010), the virtual number lines inherently include features to further support and
112 Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities (2021) 33:99–116

scaffold student engagement with the tool and learning (Johnson et al. 2012; Moyer-
Packenham and Westenskow 2013, 2016; Satsangi and Miller 2017; Shin et al. 2017).
The app-based number line allowed students to easily move from negative to positive
numbers and vice versa as well as provided visual prompts as to the first addend and the
second addend. This research suggests technology-based options exist to support
students with disabilities—via built-in features—when solving mathematics via a
number line. For example, a virtual number line affords students the ability to have a
number line that adds −20 + 14 for one problem and then 4 + −13 on the next problem,
without taking the time to redraw, extend, or relabel. To that end, pre-service and in-
service teachers who teach or support secondary students with disabilities in mathe-
matics should be potentially exposed to this technology and intervention.
This research does not, however, suggest the lack of effectiveness or inappropriateness of
concrete manipulatives. Nor does this research seek to minimize the potential challenges
with virtual manipulatives (e.g., less experience, resulting in more training as well as issues
of access to technology). An emerging research-base on virtual manipulatives for students
with disabilities—including students with developmental disabilities—suggests the potential
for virtual manipulatives (Bouck and Park 2018; Peltier et al. 2019). Researchers also note
that generally students with disabilities benefit from both types of manipulatives (cf., Bouck
et al. 2017, 2018a). Bouck et al. (2017) suggested middle school students with develop-
mental disabilities were similarly accurate when using virtual base 10 blocks as compared to
concrete base 10 blocks in solving multi-digit subtraction problems. In this study, however,
the students were more independent (i.e., needed fewer prompts from researchers to solve
the problems) with the virtual base 10 blocks and completed the probes in less time with the
virtual manipulatives. In Bouck et al. (2018a), researchers compared virtual and concrete
fraction tiles in supporting middle school students with developmental disabilities to add
fractions with unlike denominators. The researchers found both types of manipulatives
effective, but independence data and task completion data were idiosyncratic.
Another implication of this study was the overall success in teaching grade-
level content (i.e., middle school mathematics standards) to middle school students
with intellectual disability and autism. The participating students were engaging in
grade-level content that supports further academic mathematical concepts (e.g.,
algebra), but also has a functional—or life skills—implication (i.e., money;
Gagnon and Maccini 2001; Maccini and Ruhl 2000; Nurnberger-Haag 2007;
Stephan and Akyuz 2018). While not every student was 100% accurate on each
intervention or generalization probe, all achieved 80% or 100% accuracy on at
least five intervention probes. The lack of 100% accuracy on each probe may not
be surprising given the focus of their teacher-delivered current classroom mathe-
matics education was reviewing past mathematical content coverage (e.g., place
value, addition of just positive whole numbers, multiplication of single-digit
numbers). In this study, the students were all exposed to new mathematical
content. In this regard, the virtual number line was able to act as a cognitive
prothesis for the students, granting access to academic mathematics (Edyburn
2005, 2006). While a calculator may have been similarly successful with regard
to the solution or computation, it would not have provided the visual supports for
gaining conceptual understanding of the addition of integers (Johnson et al. 2012;
Litster et al. 2019).
Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities (2021) 33:99–116 113

Limitations and Future Directions

This study possesses multiple limitations, which offer suggestions for future research.
For one, the mastery for training was not set at 100%, but rather 80%. In future
replication or extension studies, researchers should set training mastery at 100%.
Requiring a higher level of mastery in training may result in more consistent interven-
tion results including the need to repeat fewer sessions due to scores of less than 80%.
While generalization to solving problems without the virtual number line was exam-
ined, transfer to using other tools to solve problems was not. Researchers should seek to
conduct a systematic replication in which generalization to a paper-based number line is
examined. Another potential future direction is to generalize the addition of integers to
real-world context problems, such as money or temperature. Related, researchers may
also seek to explore the difference between a paper-based and virtual number line.
Previous researchers suggested an app-based number line was more effective for
secondary students with intellectual disability than a paper-based one with regard to
functional mathematics (Weng and Bouck 2016). A related future direction is to extend
maintenance. Researchers should seek to determine maintenance after a more extended
period than 2 weeks to determine student’s ability to maintain and, if needed, provide
booster sessions to help students apply the skills (Kellems et al. 2016). Lastly, a
limitation worth noting is that researchers delivered the intervention in a setting outside
of the typical mathematics instruction. Researchers should seek to extend this research
into typical classroom settings and interventions delivered by students’ teachers. The
intervention was effective when delivered in a one-on-one setting outside of typical
instruction. However, researchers need to determine the efficacy and feasibility of using
these tools and intervention approaches during typical mathematics instruction and
when working with small groups.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest All authors declare no conflict of interest. None of the authors are affiliated in any way
with the technology explored in this study.

Ethical Approval All procedures performed in the study involving human participants were in accordance
with the ethical standards of the institutional committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later
amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent Parental informed consent was obtained for all individual participants included in the
study. Verbal student assent was also obtained from all participants.

References

Agrawal, J., & Morin, L. L. (2016). Evidence-based practices: Applications of concrete representational
abstract framework across math concepts for students with disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research &
Practice, 31, 34–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12093.
Ayres, K. M., Lowrey, K. A., Douglas, K. H., & Sievers, C. (2011). I can identify Saturn but I can’t brush my
teeth: What happens when the curricular focus for students with severe disabilities shifts. Education and
Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 46, 11–21.
114 Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities (2021) 33:99–116

Battista, M. T. (1983). A complete model for operations on integers. Arithmetic Teacher, 30(9), 26–31.
Bishop, J. P., Lamb, L. L., Philipp, R. A., Whitacre, I., Schappelle, B. P., & Lewis, M. L. (2014). Obstacles and
affordances for integer reasoning: An analysis of children’s thinking and the history of mathematics.
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 45, 19–61.
Booth, J. L., & Siegler, R. S. (2008). Numerical magnitude representations influence arithmetic learning. Child
Development, 79, 1016–1031.
Bouck, E. C. (2012). Secondary curriculum and transition. In P. Wehman (Ed.), Life beyond the classroom:
Transition strategies for young people with disabilities (5th ed., pp. 215–233). Baltimore: Paul H.
Brookes Publishing Co., Inc..
Bouck, E. C., & Park, J. (2018). Mathematics manipulatives to support students with disabilities: A systematic
review of the literature. Education and Treatment of Children, 41, 65–106.
Bouck, E. C., Taber-Doughty, T., & Savage, M. (2015). Footsteps toward the future: A real-world focus for
students with intellectual disability, autism spectrum disorder, and other developmental disabilities.
Arlington: Council for Exceptional Children.
Bouck, E. C., Chamberlain, C., & Park, J. (2017). Concrete and app-based manipulatives to support students
with disabilities with subtraction. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 52,
317–331.
Bouck, E. C., Shurr, J., Bassette, L., Park, J., Kerr, J., & Whorley, A. (2018a). Adding it up: Comparing
concrete and app-based manipulatives to support students with disabilities with adding fractions. Journal
of Special Education Technology, 33, 194–206.
Bouck, E. C., Working, C., & Bone, E. (2018b). Manipulative apps to support students with disabilities in
mathematics. Intervention in School and Clinic, 53, 177–182.
Bowman, J. A., McDonnell, J., Ryan, J. H., & Fudge-Coleman, O. (2019). Effective mathematics instruction
for students with moderate and severe disabilities: A review of the literature. Focus on Autism and Other
Developmental Disabilities. [Advanced Online Publication]. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088357619827932.
Brainingcamp. (2019). Number line manipulative. Retrieved from, https://apps.apple.com/us/app/number-line-
manipulative/id805013846
Browder, D. M., Spooner, F., & Trela, K. (2011). Mathematics. In D. M. Browder & F. Spooner (Eds.),
Teaching students with moderate and severe disabilities (pp. 168–200). New York: The Guilford Press.
Cihak, D. F., & Foust, J. L. (2008). Comparing number lines and touch points to teach addition facts to
students with autism. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 23, 131–137. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1088357608318950.
Collins, B. C. (2013). What happened to functional curriculum? In W. L. Heward (Ed.), Exceptional children:
An introduction to special education (10th ed., pp. 436–437). Upper Saddle River: Pearson.
Collins, B. C., Karl, J., Riggs, L., Galloway, C. C., & Hager, K. D. (2010). Teaching core content with real-life
applications to secondary students with moderate and severe disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children,
43(1), 52–59.
Common Core State Standards. (2019). Common Core state Standards. Retrieved from, http://www.
corestandards.org/
Connolly, A. J. (2007). KeyMath-3 diagnostic assessment. Boston: Pearson.
Cook, B. G., Buysse, V., Klingner, J., Landrum, T. J., McWilliam, R. A., Tankersley, M., & Test, D. W.
(2015). CEC’s standards for classifying the evidence base of practices in special education. Remedial and
Special Education, 36, 220–234. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932514557271.
Courtade, G., Spooner, F., Browder, D., & Jimenez, B. (2012). Seven reasons to promote standards-based
instruction for students with severe disabilities: A reply to Ayres, Lowrey, Douglas, & Sievers (2011).
Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 47(1), 3–13.
Doabler, C. T., & Fien, H. (2013). Explicit mathematics instruction: What teachers can do for teaching
students with mathematics difficulties. Intervention in School and Clinic, 48, 276–285. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1053451212473151.
Edyburn, D. L. (2005). Assistive technology and students with mild disabilities: From consideration to
outcomes measurement. In D. Edyburn, K. Higgins, & R. Boone (Eds.), Handbook of special education
technology research and practice (pp. 239–270). Whitefish Bay: Knowledge by Design.
Edyburn, D. L. (2006). Cognitive prostheses for students with mild disabilities: Is this what assistive
technology looks like? Journal of Special Education Technology, 21, 62–65.
Fletcher, D., Boon, R. T., & Cihak, D. F. (2010). Effects of the TOUCHMATH program compare to a number
line strategy to teach addition facts to middle school students with moderate intellectual disabilities.
Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 45, 449–458.
Gagnon, J. C., & Maccini, P. (2001). Preparing students with disabilities for algebra. Teaching Exceptional
Children, 34(1), 8–15.
Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities (2021) 33:99–116 115

Gallardo, A. (2002). The extension of the natural-number domain to the integers in the transition from
arithmetic to algebra. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 49, 171–192. https://doi.org/10.1023
/A:1016210906658.
Gast, D. L., & Spriggs, A. D. (2014). Visual analysis of graphic data. In D. L. Gast (Ed.), Single subject
research methodology in behavioral sciences (pp. 176–210). New York: Routledge.
Gast, D. L., Lloyd, B. P., & Ledford, J. R. (2018). Multiple baseline and multiple probe designs. In J. R.
Ledford & D. L. Gast (Eds.), Single case research methodology: Applications in special education and
behavioral sciences (pp. 239–282). New York: Routledge.
Heeffer, A. (2011). Historical objections against the number line. Science & Education, 20, 863–880.
https://doi.org/10.1007/211191-011-9349-0.
Jimenez, B. A., Browder, D. M., & Courtade, G. R. (2008). Teaching an algebraic equation to high school
students with moderate developmental disabilities. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities,
43, 266–274.
Johnson, P. E., Campet, M., Gaber, K., & Zuidema, E. (2012). Virtual manipulatives to assess understanding.
Teaching Children Mathematics, 19, 202–206.
Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (2004). Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement, Second Edition
(KTEA™-II). Boston: Person.
Kellems, R. O., Frandsen, K., Hansen, B., Gabrielsen, T., Clarke, B., Simons, K., & Clements, K. (2016).
Teaching multi-step math skills to adults with disabilities via video prompting. Research in
Developmental Disabilities, 58, 31–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2016.08.013.
Litster, K., Moyer-Packenham, P. S., & Reeder, R. (2019). Base-10 blocks: A study of iPad virtual
manipulative affordances across primary-grade levels. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 31,
349–365. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-019-00257-2.
Maccini, P., & Hughes, C. A. (2000). Effects of a problem-solving strategy on the introductory algebra
performance of secondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice,
15, 10–21.
Maccini, P., & Ruhl, K. L. (2000). Effects of a graduated sequence on the algebraic subtraction of integers by
secondary students with learning disabilities. Education and Treatment of Children, 23, 465–489.
Moyer-Packenham, P. S., & Westenskow, A. (2013). Effects of virtual manipulatives on student achievement
and mathematics learning. International Journal of Virtual and Personal Learning Environments, 4(3),
35–50.
Moyer-Packenham, P. S., & Westenskow, A. (2016). Revisiting the effects and affordances of virtual
manipulatives for mathematics learning. In K. Terry & A. Cheney (Eds.), Utilizing virtual and personal
learning environments for optimal learning (pp. 186–215). Hershey: IGI Global.
National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the National
Mathematics Advisory Panel. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from,
http://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/mathpanel/report/final-report.pdf.
Nurnberger-Haag, J. (2007). Integers made easy: Just walk it off! Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School,
13, 118–121.
Otten, S. (2011). Cornered by the real world: A defense of mathematics. The Mathematics Teacher, 105(1),
20–25.
Parker, R. I., Vannest, K. J., & Davis, J. L. (2011a). Effect size in single-case research: A review of nine
nonoverlap techniques. Behavior Modification, 35, 303–322. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445511399147.
Parker, R. I., Vannest, K. J., Davis, J. L., & Sauber, S. B. (2011b). Combining nonoverlap and trend for single-
case research: Tau-U. Behavior Therapy, 42, 284–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2010.08.006.
Peltier, C., Morin, K. L., Bouck, E. C., Lingo, M. E., Pulos, J. M., Scheffler, F. A., …, & Deardorff, M. E.
(2019). A meta-analysis of single-case research using mathematics manipulatives with students at risk or
identified with a disability. The Journal of Special Education. [Advanced Online Publication]. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0022466919844516.
Riccomini, P. J., & Witzel, B. S. (2010). Computation of integers: Math intervention for elementary and
middle grade students. Boston: Pearson.
Root, J., Browder, D. M., & Jimenez, B. (2016). Access to algebra for students with moderate and severe
developmental disabilities. In B. S. Witzel (Ed.), Bridging the gap between arithmetic and algebra (pp.
171–193). Arlington: Council for Exceptional Children.
Sarama, J., & Clements, D. H. (2016). Physical and virtual manipulatives: What is “concrete?”. In P. S.
Moyer-Packenham (Ed.), International perspectives on teaching and learning mathematics with virtual
manipulatives (pp. 71–93). Basel: Springer International.
Satsangi, R., & Bouck, E. C. (2015). Using virtual manipulative instruction to teach the concepts of area and
perimeter to secondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 38, 174–186.
116 Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities (2021) 33:99–116

Satsangi, R., & Miller, B. (2017). The case for adopting virtual manipulatives in mathematics education for
students with disabilities. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and youth, 61,
303–310. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2016.1275505.
Saunders, A. F., Spooner, F., & Davis, L. L. (2018). Using video prompting to teach mathematical problem
solving of real-world video simulation problems. Remedial and Special Education, 29, 53–64. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0741932517717042.
Shin, M., Bryant, D. P., Bryant, B. R., McKenna, J. W., Hou, F., &. Ok, M. W. (2017). Virtual manipulatives:
Tools for teaching mathematics to students with learning disabilities. Intervention in School and Clinic,
52, 138–153. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451216644830.
Spooner, F., Root, J., Saunders, A. F., & Browder, D. M. (2019). An updated evidence-based practice review
on teaching mathematics to students with moderate and severe developmental disabilities. Remedial and
Special Education, 40, 150–165. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932517751055.
Stephan, M., & Akyuz, D. (2012). A proposed instructional theory for integer addition and subtraction.
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 43, 428–464. https://doi.org/10.5951
/jresematheeduc.43.4.0428.
Stephan, M., & Akyuz, D. (2018). Teaching integers to students with disabilities: Three case studies. In L.
Bofferding & N. M. Wessman-Enzinger (Eds.), Exploring the integers addition and subtraction land-
scape: Perspectives on integer thinking (pp. 75–108). Cham: Springer.
Tillema, E., Gatza, A., & Ulrich, C. (2017). Playing your cards right: Integers for algebra. Australian
Mathematics Teacher, 73(4), 21–28.
Vannest, K. J., & Ninci, J. (2015). Evaluating intervention effects in single-case research designs. Journal of
Counseling & Development, 93, 403–411. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcad.12038.
Vannest, K. J., Parker, R. I., Gonen, O., & Adiguzel, T. (2016). Single case research: Web-based calculator for
SCR analysis. (version 2.0) [web-based application]. College Station, TX: Texas a&M University.
Retrieved July 23, 2018, from singlecaseresearch.org.
Wechsler, D. (2002). Wechsler preschool and primary scale of intelligence—Third edition technical and
interpretive manual. San Antonio: Psychological Corporation.
Wechsler, D. (2003). Wechsler intelligence scale for children (4th ed.). San Antonio: The Psychological
Corporation.
Wechsler, D. (2009). Wechsler individual achievement Test (3rd ed.). San Antonio: The Psychological
Corporation.
Weng, P.-L., & Bouck, E. C. (2016). An evaluation of app-based and paper-based number lines for teaching
number comparison. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 51, 27–40.
White, O. R., & Haring, N. G. (1980). Exceptional teaching (2nd ed.). Columbus: Merrill.
Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson® III. Itasca: Riverside.
Xin, Y. P., Jitendra, A. K., & Deatline-Buchman, A. (2005). Effects of mathematical word problem-solving
instruction on middle school students with learning problems. The Journal of Special Education, 39, 181–
192.

Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.