Augmentative and Alternative Communication and Speech Production for Individuals with ASD: A Systematic Review

White, Emily N.; Ayres, Kevin M.; Snyder, Sara Kathryn; Cagliani, Rachel R.; Ledford, Jennifer R.

doi:10.1007/s10803-021-04868-2

Cited by 19 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Another myth within the AAC literature is that using AAC systems will discourage children from developing speech (Millar et al, 2006; White et al, 2021). This belief is based on the idea that children will rely solely on their AAC system and will no longer use speech, which presumes that using an AAC system will be easier for the child than producing speech.…”

Section: Common Mythsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In a meta-analysis (Millar et al, 2006), examining the impact of AAC use on speech production, the majority of included studies (89%) reported moderate gains in speech production for individuals using AAC. A recent systematic review (White et al, 2021) found that for children with ASD, AAC use did not result in decreased speech production. None of the participants showed a decrease in speech production.…”

Section: Common Mythsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Dispelling Myths Surrounding AAC Use for Children: Recommendations for Professionals

Jensen

Douglas

Gerde

2023

Inclusive Practices

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) includes methods and technologies to support communication and aid individuals with limited speech. There are many widespread misconceptions about AAC use, however, that can negatively impact how children with disabilities are taught in classrooms. In this article, we describe the main types of AAC systems and how they are used to promote child success. Then, we identify and dispel common myths about AAC use and provide evidence-based recommendations for practitioners to support children who use AAC in the classroom.

show abstract

Section: Common Mythsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Common Mythsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dispelling Myths Surrounding AAC Use for Children: Recommendations for Professionals

Jensen

Douglas

Gerde

2023

Inclusive Practices

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Results suggested that service providers had different levels of knowledge and understanding of evidence-based practice of AAC systems and SLPs should identify barriers and facilitators of using AAC to support families to make informed intervention decisions [13]. Similarly, White et al [14] evaluated the effects of AAC on speech development in children with ASD, highlighting that it is still unclear if the addition of AAC will benefit a participant's speech production. More recently, a mega-review summarized published peer-reviewed literature reviews about aided AAC interventions that included children with developmental disabilities [8].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Parents’ Perceptions and Experiences with Their Children’s Use of Augmentative/Alternative Communication: A Systematic Review and Qualitative Meta-Synthesis

Berenguer

Martínez

Stasio

et al. 2022

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) consists of any method of communicating that supplements or completely substitutes oral and/or written language when it is impaired. Therefore, it enables children with complex communication needs to develop their full communicative potential. However, despite the many benefits of AAC and its widespread use, several review studies have underscored the problems faced by parents and children who use AAC in their daily lives. The general objective of this systematic review and qualitative meta-synthesis is to provide a complete overview of parents’ experiences and perceptions with their children’s use of AAC. Specifically, it aimed to identify common themes and subthemes of interest and to analyze the research quality of the selected studies. An exhaustive literature search was carried out using different electronic databases. Nineteen studies were included, involving 297 parents. A thematic synthesis was undertaken. Three main themes and nine subthemes were identified: service support (accessibility, providers and coordination); characteristics of AAC systems (usability and acceptability, features, cost and funding); and integration of AAC in daily life (family, school, social and community). Findings raise a need for more services that support children with complex communication deficits in different contexts, more functional use of AAC systems at school and in real-world situations, as well as service assistance over an extended time period.

show abstract

“…Some children rarely initiate communication, where others might communicate spontaneously using alternative means (e.g. gestures, or augmentative/alternative communication systems such as picture exchange, electronic communicators, or software based systems of tablet devices; (see White et al, 2021 for review). A number of existing assessment tools have been used to capture language development in this population, with mixed sensitivity to the features of autism.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring communicative competence in autistic children who are minimally verbal: The Low Verbal Investigatory Survey for Autism (LVIS)

Naples

Tenenbaum

Jones

et al. 2022

Autism

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Approximately 30% of autistic children are considered minimally verbal. The field lacks an efficient and reliable measure of communicative capacity among minimally verbal autistic children. Improved methods are needed to determine which children are at greatest risk for minimally verbal outcomes to better target interventions. Here, we present the Low Verbal Investigatory Survey (LVIS), a brief parent-report measure designed to assess communicative capacity among minimally verbal autistic children. The 36-item easy-to-complete LVIS was developed to capture the atypical language trajectories associated specifically with autism. We report pilot results from a sample of 147 children (1–8 years) whose caregivers completed the LVIS as part of other studies. Principal components analysis was used to assess dimensionality of the LVIS; composite scores were compared with existing measures of communicative capacity, all of which take significantly more time and training to administer and score. Scores on the LVIS were strongly correlated with existing gold-standard measures of communication. Presence of atypical vocalizations was determined to be particularly relevant for symptoms of autism as well as language and cognitive abilities. These findings provide initial validation of a tool designed to capture multiple dimensions of communicative capacity in children with minimal or low verbal skills. Lay abstract Approximately one in three autistic children is unable to communicate with language; this state is often described as minimally verbal. Despite the tremendous clinical implications, we cannot predict whether a minimally verbal child is simply delayed (but will eventually develop spoken language) or will continue to struggle with verbal language, and might therefore benefit from learning an alternative form of communication. This is important for clinicians to know, to be able to choose the most helpful interventions, such as alternative forms of communication. In addition, the field lacks a standard definition of “minimally verbal.” Even when we do agree on what the term means (e.g. fewer than 20 words), describing a child based on their lack of words does not tell us whether that child is communicating in other ways or how they are using those 20 words. To address these concerns, we developed the Low Verbal Investigatory Survey (LVIS), a one-page parent-report measure designed to help us characterize how minimally verbal autistic children are communicating. Parents of 147 children (aged 1–8 years) completed the LVIS. Here, we ask (1) whether the survey measures what it was designed to measure, that is, communicative ability in children without much spoken language, and (2) how the LVIS relates to cognitive and language ability, and symptoms of autism. Results suggest that this survey, which takes only 5 min to complete, is a good estimate of the child’s communication skills. Furthermore, LVIS survey scores are correlated with other measures of language and cognitive abilities as well as autism symptomatology. The LVIS has the potential to save time and money in both clinical and research efforts to assess communication skills in minimally verbal autistic children.

show abstract

Augmentative and Alternative Communication and Speech Production for Individuals with ASD: A Systematic Review

Cited by 19 publications

References 41 publications

Dispelling Myths Surrounding AAC Use for Children: Recommendations for Professionals

Dispelling Myths Surrounding AAC Use for Children: Recommendations for Professionals

Parents’ Perceptions and Experiences with Their Children’s Use of Augmentative/Alternative Communication: A Systematic Review and Qualitative Meta-Synthesis

Exploring communicative competence in autistic children who are minimally verbal: The Low Verbal Investigatory Survey for Autism (LVIS)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About