Beyond Disability Labels: A Conceptual Framework for Educational Planning in Multiple Disabilities

Abstract

Terminology used to describe learners with multiple disabilities varies across countries, policy traditions, and professional disciplines, reflecting different purposes for disability identification, descriptions of functioning, participation, and individualized support. This conceptual variation becomes consequential for educational planning when information generated from these perspectives is treated as interchangeable or is not systematically related to educational decision-making. This conceptual article examines categorical, functional, participation-oriented, and support-based perspectives and proposes the Synergistic Impact and Support Needs Model (SISNM) as a framework for organizing their relationships in educational planning. SISNM connects five analytically distinct but interrelated components: Diagnosis, Synergistic Impact, Functioning, Participation, and Support Needs, with Educational Planning serving as the integrative decision-making process through which information across these components is translated into priorities, supports, and learning opportunities. A distinctive feature of the model is the positioning of Synergistic Impact as an explicit assessment question concerning whether and how the educational consequences of co-occurring disability conditions operate additively or interactionally. SISNM does not replace existing frameworks, establish a new disability classification, or prescribe a standardized assessment procedure.

Keywords

• multiple disabilities
• educational planning
• support needs
• synergistic impact
• functioning
• participation

Yetersizlik Etiketlerinin Ötesinde: Çoklu Yetersizliği Olan Öğrencilerin Eğitim Planlaması İçin Kavramsal Bir Çerçeve

Abstract

Çoklu yetersizliği olan öğrencileri tanımlamak için kullanılan terminoloji, ülkeler, politika gelenekleri ve mesleki disiplinler arasında farklılık göstermektedir. Bu farklılıklar; yetersizliğin tanılanması, işlevselliğin ve katılımın betimlenmesi ve bireyselleştirilmiş desteklerin belirlenmesi gibi farklı amaçları yansıtmaktadır. Bu bakış açılarından elde edilen bilgiler birbirinin yerine kullanıldığında ya da eğitsel karar verme süreciyle sistematik biçimde ilişkilendirilmediğinde, kavramsal farklılıklar eğitim planlaması açısından önem kazanır. Bu kavramsal makalede kategorik, işlevsel, katılım odaklı ve destek temelli bakış açıları incelenmekte; bu bakış açıları arasındaki ilişkileri eğitim planlaması kapsamında düzenlemek üzere Sinerjik Etki ve Destek Gereksinimleri Modeli (SISNM) önerilmektedir. Model, analitik olarak birbirinden farklı ancak birbiriyle ilişkili beş bileşeni bir araya getirmektedir: Tanı, Sinerjik Etki, İşlevsellik, Katılım ve Destek Gereksinimleri. Eğitim Planlaması ise bu bileşenlerden elde edilen bilgilerin önceliklere, desteklere ve öğrenme fırsatlarına dönüştürüldüğü bütünleştirici karar verme sürecidir. Modelin ayırt edici özelliği, birlikte görülen yetersizliklerin eğitsel sonuçlarının toplamsal mı yoksa etkileşimsel mi ortaya çıktığı ve bunun nasıl gerçekleştiği sorusunu açık bir değerlendirme konusu olarak ele almasıdır. SISNM mevcut çerçevelerin yerini almayı, yeni bir yetersizlik sınıflandırması oluşturmayı veya standartlaştırılmış bir değerlendirme süreci öngörmeyi amaçlamamaktadır.

Keywords

• çoklu yetersizlik
• eğitsel planlama
• destek gereksinimleri
• sinerjik etki
• işlevsellik
• katılım

References

1. Abilu, R., Isaac, A., & Adio, J. (2026). Barriers to digital inclusion in mathematics education for students with visual impairments in Oyo State, Nigeria. Turkish Journal of Special Education Research and Practice, 8(2), 26-45. https://doi.org/10.37233/trsped..drr.1881690
2. Akçamete, G. (2019). Çok engelli çocuklar. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 24(1), 151–160. https://doi.org/10.1501/Egifak_0000000718
3. Bellamy, G., Croot, L., Bush, A., Berry, H., & Smith, A. (2010). A study to define: Profound and multiple learning disabilities (PMLD). Journal of Intellectual Disabilities, 14(3), 221–235. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744629510386290
4. Berenskoetter, F. (2017). Approaches to concept analysis. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 45(2), 151–173. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305829816651934
5. Claes, C., Van Hove, G., Vandevelde, S., van Loon, J., & Schalock, R. L. (2010). Person-centered planning: Analysis of research and effectiveness. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 48(6), 432–453. https://doi.org/10.1352/1934-9556-48.6.432
6. Connors, K. H., Guertin, E. L., Nichol, M., Bosson-Heenan, J. M., Gruen, J. R., & Frijters, J. C. (2025). Specificity, co-occurrence, and growth: Math and reading skill development in children with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 58(6), 411–430. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194241312189
7. Demchak, M., Sutter, C., & Prudente, J. (2025). Definitions of support needs: An analysis and call for clarity. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 50(4), 270–288. https://doi.org/10.1177/15407969251342237
8. Downing, J., & Perino, D. M. (1992). Functional versus standardized assessment procedures: Implications for educational programming. Mental Retardation, 30(5), 289–295.

9. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 34 C.F.R. § 300.8(c)(7) (2006).
10. Kırcaali-İftar, G., & Tekin-İftar, E. (2009). İleri derecede ve çoklu yetersizliği olan çocukların eğitimi. In G. Akçamete (Ed.), Genel eğitim okullarında özel gereksinimi olan öğrenciler ve özel eğitim içinde (pp. 78–95). Kök Yayıncılık.
11. Kurth, J. A., Ruppar, A. L., McQueston, J. A., McCabe, K. M., Johnston, R., & Toews, S. G. (2019). Types of supplementary aids and services for students with significant support needs. Journal of Special Education, 52(4), 208–218. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466918791156
12. Kurth, J. A., Lockman-Turner, E., Burke, K., & Ruppar, A. L. (2021). Curricular philosophies reflected in individualized education program goals for students with complex support needs. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 59(4), 283–294. https://doi.org/10.1352/1934-9556-59.4.283
13. Kurth, J. A., Lockman Turner, E., Gerasimova, D., Hicks, T. A., Zagona, A., Lansey, K., Mansouri, M. C., Lyon, K. J., Jameson, M., Loyless, R., & Pace, J. R. (2022). An investigation of IEP quality associated with special education placement for students with complex support needs. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 47(4), 244–260. https://doi.org/10.1177/15407969221134923
14. Laurence, S., & Margolis, E. (2003). Concepts and conceptual analysis. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 67(2), 253–282. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1933-1592.2003.tb00290.x
15. Maciver, D., Rutherford, M., Arakelyan, S., Kramer, J. M., Richmond, J., Todorova, L., Romero-Ayuso, D., Nakamura-Thomas, H., ten Velden, M., Finlayson, I., O'Hare, A., & Forsyth, K. (2019). Participation of children with disabilities in school: A realist systematic review of psychosocial and environmental factors. PLoS ONE, 14(1), e0210511. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210511
16. Maxwell, G., Alves, I., & Granlund, M. (2012). Participation and environmental aspects in education and the ICF and the ICF-CY: Findings from a systematic literature review. Developmental Neurorehabilitation, 15(1), 63–78. https://doi.org/10.3109/17518423.2011.633108
17. Miles, B., & Riggio, M. (Eds.). (1999). Remarkable conversations: A guide to developing meaningful communication with children and young adults who are deafblind. Perkins School for the Blind.
18. Ministry of National Education. (2018). Özel Eğitim Hizmetleri Yönetmeliği [Special Education Services Regulation]. T.C. Resmî Gazete, 30471.
19. Ministry of National Education [MoNE]. (2024a). Çoklu yetersizlik [Multiple disabilities] (Special education bulletin). Özel Eğitim ve Rehberlik Hizmetleri Genel Müdürlüğü.
20. https://orgm.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2025_03/12114248_cokluyetersizlik.pdf
21. Ministry of National Education [MoNE]. (2024b). Çoklu yetersizlik aile eğitimi kitap seti: 0-3 yaş grubu [Multiple disabilities family education book series: 0–3 age group]. Özel Eğitim ve Rehberlik Hizmetleri Genel Müdürlüğü. https://orgm.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2025_01/27110950_cokluyetersizlik03yas2.pdf
22. Nakken, H., & Vlaskamp, C. (2007). A need for a taxonomy for profound intellectual and multiple disabilities. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 4(2), 83–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-1130.2007.00104.x
23. Olsthoorn, J. (2017). Conceptual analysis. In A. Blau (Ed.), Methods in analytical political theory (pp. 153–191). Cambridge University Press.
24. Ruppar, A., Kurth, J., Bubash, S., & Lockman Turner, E. (2023). A framework for preparing to teach students with extensive support needs in the 21st century. Teacher Education and Special Education, 46(1), 26–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/08884064211059853
25. Sakız, H. (2022). Kapsayıcı eğitimin psikolojisi: Güncel eğilimler, güncellenen uygulamalar. Turkish Journal of Special Education Research and Practice, 4(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.37233/TRSPED.2022.0120
26. Simcock, P. (2017). One of society's most vulnerable groups? A systematically conducted literature review exploring the vulnerability of deafblind people. Health & Social Care in the Community, 25(3), 813–839. https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.12317
27. Snell, M. E. (2002). Severe and multiple disabilities, education of individuals with. In Encyclopedia of education (2nd ed.). Macmillan Reference USA.
28. Şafak, P. (2012). Ağır ve çoklu yetersizliği olan çocukların eğitimi. Vize Basım Yayın.
29. Thompson, J. R., Bradley, V. J., Buntinx, W. H. E., Schalock, R. L., Shogren, K. A., Snell, M. E., Wehmeyer, M. L., Borthwick-Duffy, S., Coulter, D. L., Craig, E. M., Gomez, S. C., Lachapelle, Y., Luckasson, R. A., Reeve, A., Spreat, S., Tassé, M. J., Verdugo, M. A., & Yeager, M. H. (2009). Conceptualizing supports and the support needs of people with intellectual disability. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 47(2), 135–146. https://doi.org/10.1352/1934-9556-47.2.135
30. United Nations. (2006). Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. United Nations.
31. Wessels, M. D., van der Putten, A. A. J., & Paap, M. C. S. (2021). Inventory of assessment practices in people with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities in three European countries. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 34, 1521–1537. https://doi.org/10.1111/jar.12896
32. World Health Organization. (2001). International classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF). World Health Organization.