Assessing preferences for AAC options in communication interventions for individuals with developmental disabilities: A review of the literature

Meer, Larah van der; Sigafoos, Jeff; O’Reilly, Mark F.; Lancioni, Giulio E.

doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2011.02.003

Cited by 107 publications

(58 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This result is consistent with the finding in the review by Van der Meer et al (2011) where preference assessments done in seven studies revealed that most participants (67%) preferred the SGD above other systems or strategies. As in other studies, it is hard to determine what the exact reasons for the preference were.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

“…Although the amount of opportunities given to make a choice between systems is less than the amount reported in other studies (see Van der Meer et al 2011, for a review) the consistency with which participants made a choice suggests that they indeed preferred the iPad.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 82%

“…In spite of comparable performance during the story reading activity using either system, all participants that progressed to the preference phase consistently chose the SGD. In other preference assessments reported in the literature, performance also did not predict preference (for a review see Van der Meer et al 2011). Service providers are therefore encouraged not to assume preference based on performance, but to include preference assessments as part of the information gathering strategies to inform the choice of a certain AAC system.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Since preferences may change over time and also with increased exposure (Van der Meer et al 2011;, it would be helpful to assess these more regularly before and also during intervention and implementation of the systems in natural contexts.…”

Section: Limitations and Directions For Further Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Van der Meer et al (2011) summarised the preference assessments done in seven studies comparing SGDs with other AAC systems/strategies. Overall, most participants (67%) preferred the SGD above other systems or strategies.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Supporting the Production of Graphic Symbol Combinations by Children with Limited Speech: A Comparison of Two AAC systems

Tonsing

2015

J Dev Phys Disabil

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy with which the use of a speech generating device (Apple iPad TM with GoTalk Now TM application) versus a communication board promoted the production of two-symbols combinations (agent-action and attribute-entity combinations) by children limited speech within a shared story reading context. Four children between the ages of 6;8 (years;months) and 11;4 with severe motor speech disorders and a variety of developmental 1 disabilities participated in the study. An adapted alternating treatment design was used. All four participants showed increased production of two-symbol combinations in both intervention conditions. The Wilcoxon ranked pairs test did not show differences between the conditions for any participant. The results suggest that symbol combination skills can effectively be taught using either AAC system. A preference assessment indicated that all participants preferred to use the speech generating device during shared story reading. all studies focussed on basic requesting skills requiring the use of only one symbol per response in all or at least one of the intervention conditions; and (b) most studies did not support consistent differences between electronic and non-electronic systems. One explanation for the lack of clear differences between the conditions may be that the acquisition of the requesting skills targeted in these interventions is strongly motivated by the reinforcer. Participants might be so motivated to obtain the reinforcer, that the method to obtain it loses particular relevance. The acquisition of communication functions that are not as tangibly motivated but that proceed for social and interactive reasons might be more prone to influence by the system used, as internal rather than external motivation may play a larger role (Light, Parsons and Drager 2002). Of the 31 participants that took part in the studies comparing SGDs to non-electronic AAC systems reviewed by Gevarter et al (2013), 17 had a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder (ASD), autism or pervasive developmental disorder (PDD). Young children with these diagnoses typically are more likely to communicate in order to regulate the behavior of others (i.e., requesting or protesting), rather than for the purpose of social interaction (Wetherby, Watt, Morgan and Shumway 2007), which may explain the focus on requesting in these studies.The use of electronic versus non-electronic systems may differentially influence the production of multi-symbol combinations (Binger, Kent-Walsh, Berens, Del Campo and Rivera, 2008). An SGD provides auditory feedback to the person using it on his/her own productions, which may facilitate language learning (Romski and Sevcik 1988;1996;Romski, Sevcik and Adamson 1997). The digital or synthetic speech generated by the SGD may reinforce the learning of symbol sequences. This may be a benefit that is particularly relevant to children who have an understanding of spoken language, whereas the receptive (spoken) language skills of the 3 participants...

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 82%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Limitations and Directions For Further Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Supporting the Production of Graphic Symbol Combinations by Children with Limited Speech: A Comparison of Two AAC systems

Tonsing

2015

J Dev Phys Disabil

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Augmentative and Alternative Communication

Mirenda

2014

Handbook of Autism and Pervasive Developmental Disorders, Fourth Edition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Approximately 25\% of individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) are unable to use speech as their primary mode of communication and thus require augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) supports such as manual signs, picture communication books, or speech‐generating devices. AAC techniques can be used to support language development in general, as well as to support functional communication for individuals across the range of age and ability. AAC instruction can be provided through structured teaching (e.g., the Picture Communication System, PECS), naturalistic/milieu teaching, and aided language modeling. Potential collateral effects of AAC interventions include enhanced speech production and decreases in problem behavior.

show abstract

Increasing the vocalizations of individuals with autism during intervention with a speech‐generating device

Gevarter

O’Reilly

Kuhn

et al. 2015

J of App Behav Analysis

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aimed to teach individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and limited vocal speech to emit target vocalizations while using a speech-generating device (SGD). Of the 4 participants, 3 began emitting vocal word approximations with SGD responses after vocal instructional methods (delays, differential reinforcement, prompting) were introduced. Two participants met mastery criterion with a reinforcer delay and differential reinforcement, and 1 met criterion after fading an echoic model and prompt delay. For these participants, vocalizations initiated before speech outputs were shown to increase, and vocalizations generalized to a context in which the SGD was absent. The 4th participant showed high vocalization rates only when prompted. The results suggest that adding vocal instruction to an SGD-based intervention can increase vocalizations emitted along with SGD responses for some individuals with ASD.

show abstract

Assessing preferences for AAC options in communication interventions for individuals with developmental disabilities: A review of the literature

Cited by 107 publications

References 23 publications

Supporting the Production of Graphic Symbol Combinations by Children with Limited Speech: A Comparison of Two AAC systems

Supporting the Production of Graphic Symbol Combinations by Children with Limited Speech: A Comparison of Two AAC systems

Augmentative and Alternative Communication

Increasing the vocalizations of individuals with autism during intervention with a speech‐generating device

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About