Technology in teaching mathematics to
students with ASD/ADHD in Ecuador and Spain
La tecnología en la enseñanza matemáticas a
estudiantes con TEA/TDAH en Ecuador y España
Gallardo-Herrerías Celia
Universidad de
Almería
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5515-1269
Fecha de recepción:
mayo 26, 2025
Fecha de
aceptación: junio 28, 2025
Fecha de
publicación: julio 1, 2025
Abstract
The study investigates the impact of adaptive
technology aids on the learning of mathematics for children between 9 and 14
years old with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in Spain and
Ecuador. The mixed-method design was employed via a sample of 340 children,
9-14 years old, split evenly across Spain and Ecuador. Students utilized apps
including Smartick, Matific,
and virtual reality in Spain and Prodigy Math and Google Expeditions in Ecuador
for a period of six months. There were significant gains on outcome measures of
mathematical skill and intrinsic motivation in all groups, with effect sizes in
Spain (d=2.12–2.19) larger than those in Ecuador (d=1.54–1.61). Mediators were
technological infrastructure, teacher training, and institutional support,
which were stronger in Spain. Qualitative findings underscored Ecuadoran
concerns of low device utilization and connectivity, with additional Spanish
rollout without concern also being noted by more resourced educators. The study
emphasizes the potential of technology in education for facilitating
neurodivergent learning but creates a need for equity of access in the form of
teacher training specifically crafted, and policy contextualization for maximum
gain.
Keywords: adaptive technology, math education,
neurodivergent students, digital divide, teacher training.
Resumen
El estudio investiga el impacto de las ayudas
tecnológicas adaptativas en el aprendizaje de matemáticas en niños de entre 9 y
14 años con Trastorno del Espectro Autista (TEA) y Trastorno por Déficit de
Atención e Hiperactividad (TDAH) en España y Ecuador. Se empleó un diseño de
método mixto con una muestra de 340 niños de 9 a 14 años, distribuidos
equitativamente entre España y Ecuador. Los estudiantes utilizaron aplicaciones
como Smartick, Matific y
realidad virtual en España, y Prodigy Math y Google Expeditions en Ecuador durante seis meses. Se observaron
mejoras significativas en las medidas de resultado de habilidad matemática y
motivación intrínseca en todos los grupos, con tamaños del efecto mayores en
España (d=2,12-2,19) que en Ecuador (d=1,54-1,61). Los mediadores fueron la
infraestructura tecnológica, la formación docente y el apoyo institucional, que
fueron más fuertes en España. Los hallazgos cualitativos destacaron la
preocupación de los ecuatorianos por el bajo uso de dispositivos y la baja conectividad,
y los educadores con más recursos también observaron una mayor implementación
del español sin problemas. El estudio enfatiza el potencial de la tecnología en
la educación para facilitar el aprendizaje neurodivergente, pero plantea la
necesidad de equidad en el acceso mediante una formación docente
específicamente diseñada y la contextualización de políticas para maximizar los
beneficios.
Palabras clave: tecnología adaptativa, educación matemática, estudiantes
neurodivergentes, brecha digital, formación docente.
Introduction
The inclusion of technology tools in educating
students with special educational needs, i.e., ASD and ADHD diagnosis, has
introduced new insight into the education of mathematics - years ago
characterized as an abstract science and thus impossible to educate students
with various learning abilities. However, not all technologies are created
equal in their revolutionary potential, nor are their virtues guaranteed. Their
effectiveness relies on many factors: instrument adaptation to student
profiles, teacher training in inclusive practices, using technology,
sociocultural and technological educational practice environments, and policy
durability in their support (Chaves et al., 2024).
The scientific literature has recorded the exponential
growth of digital technologies for educational applications over the last
decade. Prodigy Math Game, ST Math, or Khan Academy Kids are some software that
employs AI-powered personalization engines in a bid to individualize math
practice for each student based on their pace and learning style (Gutiérrez
Ruiz et al., 2020; Izquierdo, 2020; López & Valenzuela, 2015). These trends
have particularly been encouraging for kids with ASD/ADHD as they can provide
real-time feedback, satisfaction, and low-stress social environments (Hijós & Cosculluela, 2022; Lima et al., 2023). For
virtual reality, studies like those of Conejeros-Solar
et al. (2018) show that immersive virtual environments not only interest
students with ADHD but also allow the generalization of math capability to
real-world contexts and move beyond the typical restriction of such a
diagnosis.
Methodologically, more recent studies have employed
quasi-experimental designs and mixed methods for determining the effectiveness
of such technologies (Torres Díaz, 2024). For example, Díaz (2024) conducted a
long-term intervention in Spain with students with ASD and learned basic
geometry using a virtual reality application. Results showed statistically
significant results in spatial comprehension and problem-solving compared to a
control group that learned using traditional methods. Similarly, within the
Latin American context, Fernandes et al., (2023) piloted an AI-based system in
Ecuadorian public schools and reported gains in the mathematical fluency and
motivation of students with ADHD, although these were moderated by access to
devices at unplanned moments and patchy connectivity.
Aspects that lead to improved outcomes include:
personalized learning based on the student's pace and cognitive style,
immediate feedback that encourages self-correction, reduced social anxiety
through controlled digital environments, and interactive visualization
capabilities for developing logical-spatial thinking.
Optimism for such innovations, however, needs to be
tempered by a critical assessment. As Goncalves & do Rocio Cordeiro (2024)
alert, the indiscriminate use of educational technologies can have the
consequence of reinforcing pre-existing inequalities if the conditions of
implementation are not considered. In nations such as Ecuador, where
technological infrastructure differs greatly from one region to another,
technological exclusion of vulnerable students is a risk. Likewise, a purely
technologically driven response without deep pedagogical consideration risks
superficial practice that cannot address the real needs of ASD/ADHD students,
whose highly individualized interventions and structured learning supports
demand deep consideration (Torres & Téllez, 2020).
The problem underlying here, then, is not so much the
presence or absence of technology but rather that complicated intertwinement of
tool features, the educational system, politics of inclusion, and teacher
behaviour. Knowing how these differently coalesced in two poles, as in Spain
and Ecuador, enables us not just to access and application differentials
regarding technologies, but also to know the manner in which teaching
methodologies, societal inclusion assumptions, along with physical conditions,
shape technology infusion effect.
Ecuador-Spain technological gap is complex. Spain's
more developed school technology infrastructure comes in the way of national
policies like the Escuela 2.0 Plan and Digitalization and Digital Competences
Plan 2021-2025, which have promoted the presence of devices and connectivity
within school environments. On the other hand, Ecuador, although it has plans
like the National Educational Connectivity Plan, still lags in rural internet
connectivity, obsolete equipment, and a lack of teacher training in digital
literacy (Ecuadorian Ministry of Education, 2023). This lack of balance in
infrastructure has a direct influence on the capacity to incorporate future
technologies like artificial intelligence or virtual reality at schools,
lowering the diversity of strategies that can be provided to students with
special educational needs.
Conversely, regulatory and cultural disparities are a
problem as well. Spain has evolved integrative stable laws, like the Organic
Law of Education (LOE) and its recent reform through LOMLOE, that establish
solid principles to face diversity with curricular adaptations and personalized
resources. Ecuador, despite having adopted education inclusion in the
Constitution and Organic Law of Intercultural Education (LOEI), is faced with
additional challenges of effective implementation due to budget constraints, territorial
inequalities, and the lack of systematic specialized teacher training.
Spain has an internet penetration rate of over 93% in
urban areas and over 85% in rural areas (INE, 2023), while in Ecuador,
according to INEC (2023), only 68% of households have stable internet access,
with only 35% of connectivity in rural areas. Furthermore, in Spain, 87% of
teachers received training in digital skills in the past three years, compared
to only 42% in Ecuador. These figures contextualize the real possibilities of
technological implementation in each country.
This infrastructural, legislative, and instructional
practices disparity means that the impact of adaptive technologies on learning
mathematics for students with ASD/ADHD cannot be equal in Ecuador and Spain.
The need, therefore, for a comparative study that controls not only for
learning outcomes, but also for implementation process and educational
stakeholders' attitudes becomes apparent.
The gap in research that this study addresses is that
no systematic comparison of new learning technology uptake and success with
neurodivergent learners across environments of differing levels of
technological development has been conducted. While there are many case studies
from highly industrialized countries and some solutions from Latin American
environments, comparative studies that not only identify “what works” but
“under what conditions it works” are lacking. This is central to creating
context-sensitive and responsive inclusive education policy that does not
reproduce automatically models from elsewhere.
The working hypothesis under which this study operates
presupposes that the use of adaptive technology in maths education improves the
learning of students with ASD/ADHD but is dependent on access to technology,
the quality of teacher training in schools, and prior inclusion policy in all
countries. Secondary hypotheses are also developed: (a) that teacher
professional development in the use of inclusive technologies positively
influences their impact, (b) that AI-based personalized mechanisms within platforms
are more effective than platforms that merely digitize traditional content, and
(c) that students' beliefs about relevance of tools and accessibility
significantly influence their motivation and performance.
The general objective of the research is to contrast
the impact of adaptive technology tools on the learning of mathematics in
students with ASD/ADHD in Ecuador and Spain. For this purpose, the following
specific aims are set: (1) recognize and categorize principal digital platforms
used in both nations to learn maths by neurodivergent students; (2) determine
students' academic performance and participation through the use of the
platforms; (3) investigate mediating variables of technology adoption and impact
(context variables like infrastructure, policy, and pedagogy); and (4) provide
evidence-based recommendations for improving equity in access and learning
outcomes through innovative technologies.
This research represents a significant contribution to
the study of inclusive mathematics teaching through technology, addressing not
only the effectiveness of the tools but also the sociotechnical conditions
necessary for their effective implementation in markedly dissimilar contexts.
Method
The research went on within an intensive mixed-methods
research design, i.e., a sequential explanatory model combining a
quasi-experimental design with non-equivalent groups and qualitative
accompaniment. The methodological design was appropriate to cover the dual aim
of estimating the impact of adaptive technological tools on mathematics
learning for students with ASD and ADHD, and explaining these results through
teachers' everyday experiences and perceptions who implemented the
intervention. The research took place between January 2024 and February 2025 in
two geographical and socio-educational contexts: Spain and Ecuador.
Ethical procedures were in line with norms in the
Declaration of Helsinki (2013) and had been approved by institutional review
boards in both countries. Informed consent was obtained from all the parents or
legal guardians before inclusion, and assent from the students themselves was
obtained in an age-appropriate format. Participants were informed of their
right to withdraw at any time without penalty. Confidentiality was ensured at
all expense: all the information collected was anonymized, coded, and stored
safely, and no identifying details were published or communicated.
The target population was students aged 9-14 years old
who were clinically diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder
or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder according
to DSM-5 criteria. The total sample was composed of 340 participants, half in
each country. Ecuador provided 80 ASD students and 90 ADHD students; Spain
provided 85 students in each diagnostic category. Participants were selected
through non-probabilistic convenience sampling, with preference given to
institutions that had already integrated adaptive technology into their
curricula. This was an important consideration because it provided the most
convenient means of lending ecological validity to the study and accessing
settings with a minimum level of technological infrastructure necessary for the
implementation of the intervention. Moreover, this sampling technique was
necessary due to ethical and practical constraints in accessing officially
diagnosed neurodivergent students in mainstream school environments.
|
Figure 1. Student distribution |
|
|
Stricter inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied
to determine sample homogeneity. The students formally diagnosed, partially
literate, and had over 80% school attendance throughout the intervention period
were considered.
The intervention was a controlled six-month enactment
of adaptive learning platforms in maths lessons. In Spain, the interventions
used were Smartick®, Matific®,
and VR simulations on VRMath2; and in Ecuador, Prodigy Math® and Google
Expeditions®. The interventions were selected using systematic review based on
psychometric validity, curriculum adaptability, usability, and cultural
responsiveness.
45-minute individual sessions on the platforms were
utilized by students three times weekly, monitored by their maths teachers and
researcher. Objective performance measures like tasks attempted, accuracy, time
taken, and moving through levels of difficulty were automatically recorded on
servers of the platforms, which assured data integrity and minimized observer
bias.
Mathematical skills were measured with the Basic
Mathematical Competency Test (PCM-B, Cronbach's α = 0.91) at pre-test and
post-test under standard conditions. Intrinsic motivation was measured with the
School Motivation Scale in Mathematics (EMEM; α = 0.87) and
student-reported use of technology with a modified Technological User
Experience Questionnaire (CET-U; α = 0.89), an adaptation of the System
Usability Scale.
|
Figure 2. PCM-B score |
|
|
To understand the delivery of the intervention and how
it was addressed in the two countries, qualitative data were obtained with the
use of a semi-structured interview guide for teachers (content validity index =
0.92). This aspect was useful in examining the experiential and contextual
determinants that influenced the uptake and effects of the technology tools.
Specifically, teacher knowledge helped to identify barriers (e.g.,
infrastructural issues), enabling conditions (e.g., professional development), and
emergent practices (e.g., improvisation or peer support), presenting a detailed
picture of intervention success—or failure—across settings.
Quantitative analysis began with Kolmogorov-Smirnov
tests for normality, followed by repeated-measures ANOVA to compare pre- and
post-test scores within and between groups. Multiple linear regression analyses
tested the moderating roles of motivation and technology perception, and
Chi-square tests examined differences between categorical variables.
Statistical computations were made with SPSS version 27 at a p < 0.05
significance level.
For qualitative analysis, inductive thematic analysis
was utilized through NVivo 14. Systematic coding of emergent themes was
conducted, but more richness is recommended to better understand how geographic
and socioeconomic conditions (i.e., internet access, urban or rural living,
institutional support) served as mediators of students' participation and
performance. Discussing in detail how these structural contexts influenced the
students' learning pathway would make the qualitative component stronger.
Results
Analysis of results allowed for the determination of
specific and meaningful impacts of the utilization of adaptive technology tools
on Spanish and Ecuadorian students with ASD and ADHD in learning mathematics.
Pretest results of the PCM-B test indicated that entry levels of mathematical
skill were analogous for the groups of both countries. Specifically, Ecuadorian
students with ASD scored 54.6 (SD = 8.3) in the pretest and Spanish students
55.9 (SD = 7.9). Ecuadorian students with ADHD scored 56.2 (SD = 9.1) and
Spanish students 57.5 (SD = 8.7). ANOVA analysis was statistically
non-significant in country differences at baseline (F(3,336)
= 1.27, p = 0.283), showing sample homogeneity.
At post-test, six months of intervention had resulted
in math performance gains in all groups, with some variation by diagnosis and
country. The ASD students achieved a score of 72.8 (SD = 7.5) in Spain and 68.1
(SD = 8.2) in Ecuador. The ADHD students scored 75.4 (SD = 6.9) in Spain and
70.7 (SD = 7.6) in Ecuador. Repeated-measures analysis revealed a main effect
of time (F(1,336) = 412.89, p < 0.001, η² =
0.55) and a time and country interaction (F(1,336) =
9.34, p = 0.002, η² = 0.03), indicating that geographic setting partially
mediated the intervention effect.
Effect sizes (Cohen's d) on improvement were large: d
= 2.12 for Spanish children with ASD and d = 2.19 for children with ADHD.
Effect sizes in Ecuador were also large, d = 1.54 for ASD and d = 1.61 for
ADHD. This agrees with the perception that although adaptive technologies
assisted in the two countries, their total effect was greater in the Spanish
context because of possibly infrastructural and training factors.
|
Figure 3. Cohen’s effect size |
|
|
Spanish ADHD students´ performance on individual tasks
also showed important patterns. On high-complexity problem-solving tasks, 78.8%
of Spanish ADHD students were high-competent and 62.4% of Ecuadorian students
were high-competent, while for ASD students, 72.3% in Spain were high-competent
and 65.5% in Ecuador were high-competent. Multiple linear regression showed
intrinsic motivation (β
= 0.37, p < 0.001) and perceived technological usability (β = 0.29, p =
0.003) predicted post-intervention performance significantly. Gender and age were not shown to be significant predictors.
|
Figure 4. Problem-solving achievement |
|
|
Intrinsic maths motivation was improved
in all groups. Scores increased from a mean of 2.8 (SD = 0.6) to
3.7 (SD = 0.5) in Spain and from 2.7 (SD = 0.7) to 3.3 (SD = 0.6) in Ecuador.
Paired-sample t-tests also confirmed these gains (Spain: t(169) = 16.42, p < 0.001; Ecuador: t(169)
= 13.05, p < 0.001). ANOVA also
showed a country-by-diagnosis interaction, with greater
motivational gain in Spanish ADHD students.
|
Figure 5. Motivation gain
and usability |
|
|
Self-reporting measure on CET-U reported high platform
usability ratings: 82.1 (SD = 9.7) in Spain and 76.4 (SD = 11.3) in Ecuador (t(338) = 4.88, p < 0.001). While diagnostic category
overall usability ratings were not significantly different, trends in
application preferences existed.
ASD children ever favoured
such interventions like VRMath2 and Matific, which
are distinguished by immersive setting, visual sequence, and lower language
complexity. They are in line with their visual processing strength, need for
structured low-stimulus interaction, and permit spatial reasoning, an aspect of
cognition in which they possess special abilities.
On the other hand, the ADHD students preferred
websites like Prodigy Maths and Smartick,
both with immediate feedback, quick-fire problems, and gamification in the form
of rewards and a progress chart. All of these elements are consistent with
their need for immediate reinforcement, novelty, and high interactivity to be
constantly interested and on their toes during the sessions. The suggestions
thus appear to be quite tailored to the individual motivational and attentional
needs of each neurodivergent group.
Log analysis of the sites confirmed proper adherence
to the intervention protocol: mean rates of participation were 91.7% in Spain
and 88.2% in Ecuador. The mean length of sessions was only slightly longer in
Spain (44.2 minutes) than in Ecuador (41.6 minutes). Frequency of use was
positively and significantly related to gains on maths
(r = 0.42, p < 0.001), once again confirming the finding that repeated use
of the tools predicted more robust outcomes of learning.
Qualitative interview analysis by teachers contributed
additional evidence. Spanish teachers underscored the need for stable
infrastructure and constant access to high-speed internet and specialist
hardware. Ecuadorian teachers, while being supportive of the intervention,
indicated restricted access to devices and connectivity problems that
necessitated constant improvisation (e.g., having to share the devices or go
offline).
|
Figure 6. Intervention compliance |
|
|
Teacher training was also a determining factor.
Spanish teachers felt prepared due to relevant and ongoing training. In
Ecuador, most of them had initial training, but most believed they needed more
technical and pedagogical support to utilize the tools to their maximum
capability.
Teachers in both environments reported having students
more assured, especially when the students were off-task. An Ecuadorian teacher
replied: “The ADHD children who became distracted earlier now request more
tasks because they want to beat their records.” A Spanish teacher also replied:
“ASD students were quieter and more concentrated when they worked out space
issues with virtual reality.”
Country variations in infrastructure influenced
implementation. Technical staff support was 95% Spanish school attendance,
versus 57% in Ecuador. The difference supported the documentation of fewer
session breaks in Spain (3.2%) versus Ecuador (9.8%). Logs of maintenance
yielded an average of 0.8 technical problems per month in Spain, versus 2.4 in
Ecuador.
CET-U student responses were also positive, such as
“Learning this way is fun,” "I like competing with myself,” and “Maths easier with games.” Ecuadorian students complained
about frustration caused by limitations such as "Sometimes the internet is
down” or "Not every day are there enough tablets to go around."
No adverse affective or behavioural
side effects were noted. Single cases of sensory overload were reported in four
cases of VR exposure among ASD students (two for each country), and all of them
were treated successfully with personal mentoring.
Conclusions
This study evaluated the impact of adaptive technology
assists to mathematics education in students with Autism
Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and Attention Deficit
Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in two diverse learning contexts: Ecuador
and Spain. Results of the six-month intervention testified to the beneficial
influence of the aids on academic success and intrinsic motivation, confirming
prior studies while additionally highlighting context-specific nuances.
Larger effect sizes were observed in Spain for all
groups, pointing to the role of structural drivers such as infrastructure,
teacher education, and institutional support. Children with ADHD improved
significantly on speed and accuracy of problem-solving, while ASD children also
improved on spatial thinking and logical thinking, reflecting their cognitive
processes.
|
Figure 7. Cognitive improvement |
|
|
Motivation was another point of improvement, as was
the case with Spanish students. This result contributes validity to the
hypothesis that interactive, personalized, and entertaining technologies have
the capacity to increase learner persistence and enjoyment—key variables for
maintaining educational gains in the long term.
Notably, application preference also differed by
diagnosis: ASD students liked immersive and visually structured tools (e.g.,
VRMath2), while ADHD students liked fast-paced, gamified environments (e.g.,
Prodigy Maths). These preferences indicate their
distinct cognitive and motivational needs and demonstrate the necessity of
differentiated tool selection in inclusive education.
The correlation of frequency of tool usage with
learning gain further augments the potential of consistent, structured
technology integration. Contextual asymmetries—specifically in Ecuador—such as
restricted connectivity and technical support, limited full intervention
realization and should be addressed through targeted policy initiative.
Instructors reported increased student engagement and
confidence but required more comprehensive training, particularly in
under-resourced environments. While the study rated high for internal validity,
it was low on longitudinal follow-up and enhanced curricular emphasis—both
suggestions for future research. Furthermore, while sensory overload was rare,
the fact that it happened at all speaks to the importance of flexibility and
moment-to-moment responsiveness in tech-based interventions with neurodivergent
learners.
In summary, adaptive technologies were shown to be
effective to promote maths learning and motivation
for students with ASD and ADHD, but whose success is also dependent on systemic
conditions. Facilitation of equitable access, investment in teacher capacity,
and alignment of tools to learner profiles are needed to achieve their optimum
benefits. Future research needs to have a broader content area covered,
longer-term tracking, and has to address the comparative effectiveness of
different technological modalities for a range of learner needs.
|
Figure 8. Infrastructure and support barriers |
|
|
References
Chaves, J. P. C. S. P., Pinto, V. A. F. S., Silveira,
C. S., Simon, S. L. F., & Gurgel,
C. B. (2024). Psiquiatria da infância
e adolescência: principais
síndromes e terapêutica de escolha. Revista
Ibero-Americana de Humanidades, Ciências
e Educação, 10(4), 530-540. https://doi.org/10.51891/rease.v10i4.13471
Conejeros-Solar, M. L., Gómez-Arizaga, M. P.,
Sandoval-Rodríguez, K., & Cáceres-Serrano, P. A. (2018). Aportes a la
comprensión de la doble excepcionalidad: Alta capacidad con trastorno por
déficit de atención y alta capacidad con trastorno del espectro autista. Revista
Educación, 678-699. https://doi.org/10.15517/revedu.v42i2.25430
Díaz, M. M. T. (2024). Early Care in Children with Neurodevelopmental
Disorders in Ibero-America 2018-2022: A Systematic Review. Revista Scientific, 9(31), 230-250. https://doi.org/10.29394/scientific.issn.2542-2987.2024.9.31.11.230-250
Fernandes,
V. N. F., Campos, M. E. L., de Azevedo Bentes, M.,
& de Oliveira Menezes, R. A. (2023). Tecnologias de Informação e comunicação mediando o ensino-aprendizagem
de pessoas autistas. Diversitas Journal, 8(4), 2762-2773. https://www.diversitasjournal.com.br/diversitas_journal/article/view/2686
Goncalves, J. P. D. M., & do Rocio
Cordeiro, G. (2024). Neurobiologia
e dificuldades de aprendizagem:
implicações para práticas
de ensino para alunos com TEA e dislexia. Caderno
Intersaberes, 13(46), 78-90. https://ojs.studiespublicacoes.com.br/ojs/index.php/cadped/article/view/7452
Gutiérrez Ruiz, K., Cano Iriarte, D. C., &
Hernández Mendoza, A. (2020). Funcionamiento ejecutivo y habilidades
adaptativas en un niño de 11 años con diagnóstico de TEA en comorbilidad con
TDAH. Tesis psicológica, 15(1), 74-89. https://www.redalyc.org/journal/1390/139067933005/html/
Hijós,
A. Q., & Cosculluela, C. L. (2022). Inclusión educativa y
tecnologías para el aprendizaje. Ediciones Octaedro.
Izquierdo, G. D. G. (2020). Diseño de un robot
programado con realidad aumentada que sirva como herramienta terapéutica para
tratar TDAH y TEA. Área de Ciencias y Tecnología.
Lima, I. B. P., Martins, P.
P. C., Cusati, I. C., & Angelo,
R. D. C. O. (2023). Características do transtorno do
espectro autista e sua influência
na aprendizagem: uma revisão integrativa. Sustinere-Revista de Saude
e Educacao, 11(1), 343-375. https://www.e-publicacoes.uerj.br/sustinere/article/view/63902
López, S. I. M., & Valenzuela, B. G. E. (2015).
Niños y adolescentes con necesidades educativas especiales. Revista
médica clínica las condes, 26(1),
42-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmclc.2015.02.004
Torres Díaz, M. M. (2024). Atención temprana en niños
con trastornos del Neurodesarrollo en Iberoamérica 2018-2022. Una revisión
sistemática. Revista Scientific, 9(31),
230-250. https://doi.org/10.29394/scientific.issn.2542-2987.2024.9.31.11.230-250
Torres, D. H., & Téllez, M. G. Y. (2020). Conducta
adaptativa y funcionamiento ejecutivo en niños con trastorno por déficit de
atención con hiperactividad. Neuropsicología Latinoamericana, 12(3), 9-18. https://www.neuropsicolatina.org/index.php/Neuropsicologia_Latinoamericana/article/view/627/0