Augmentative and alternative communication interventions for persons with developmental disabilities: narrative review of comparative single-subject experimental studies

Schlosser, Ralf W.; Sigafoos, Jeff

doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2004.04.004

Cited by 115 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 64 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…There has been much debate over whether unaided AAC is more effective than aided AAC, specifically comparing sign language to the Picture Exchange Communication System, for individuals with autism (Gevarter et al 2013;Schlosser and Sigafoos 2006;Tincani 2004). Tincani (2004) found that PECS was more effective for one participant, whereas sign language (unaided AAC) was more effective for the other participant.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Meta-analytic Review of Functional Communication Training Across Mode of Communication, Age, and Disability

Heath¹,

Ganz

Parker

et al. 2015

Rev J Autism Dev Disord

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Deficits in communication in people with disabilities are a major cause of challenging behaviors. Functional communication training (FCT) is one treatment developed to address both challenging behavior and instruction in replacement communicative behaviors by determining the function, or reason, the behavior occurs and developing a communication intervention to address that function. This meta-analysis included 36 single-case studies that evaluated the impact of functional communication training on challenging behaviors in people with disabilities. Effects were measured using the Robust IRD effect size. Findings indicate that functional communication training has strong effects overall. Regarding communication mode, results were greater for speech (verbal) than aided augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) and greater for aided AAC than unaided AAC. Further, primary-aged participants had stronger effects than elementary-aged children and elementary had better effects than adults. Secondary students also had better effects than adults, though effects for secondary-aged participants were not significantly different than those for primary or elementary ages. Finally, FCT was more effective with participants with autism than intellectual disabilities. Challenging behaviors such as aggression, self-injury, stereotypy (e.g., repetitive hand movements or speech), and noncompliance are common in individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), intellectual disabilities (ID), and multiple disabilities (Baghdadli, Pascal, Grisli, and Aussiloux 2003;Kiernan and Kiernan 1994;McClintock, Hall, and Oliver 2003;Murphy et al. 1999;Poppes et al. 2010). If severe and chronic challenging behavior is not addressed, individuals with disabilities are at risk for poor academic achievement, adult mental health concerns, and peer rejection (Dunlap et al. 2006). Challenging behavior also puts individuals at higher risk for abuse, neglect, deprivation (Emerson et al. 2001;Lowe et al. 2007), victimization (Crocker et al. 2006;Rusch et al. 1986), and incarceration (Lund 1990;Crocker and Hoggins 1997;Crocker et al. 2006). Many of these risks can be linked to restrictive social and learning environments due to said challenging behaviors (Buschbacher and Fox 2003;Machalicek et al. 2007;Reichle 1990). Individuals may be segregated or excluded to institutions or specialized treatment centers due to these behaviors, and services within these more restrictive settings can be inconsistent and inadequate due to a higher rate of staff turnover (Hastings and Brown, 2002;Lowe et al. 2007;Machalicek et al. 2007). To decrease the risk of segregation and serious emotional issues, challenging behavior must be addressed using consistent implementation of evidence-based practices.Prior to the mid-1980s, a majority of the research on behavioral interventions for challenging behavior focused on reactive approaches, for example, punishment or withholding reinforcement (Carr 1985;Carr and Durand 1985). Time-out (Zeilberger, Sampen, and Sloane ...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Meta-analytic Review of Functional Communication Training Across Mode of Communication, Age, and Disability

Heath¹,

Ganz

Parker

et al. 2015

Rev J Autism Dev Disord

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…fifth, the study needed to be published in a peer-reviewed journal; unpublished papers such as conference proceedings and dissertations (e.g., carpenter, 2012) were excluded. finally, articles in any language other than english were excluded (e.g., nakamura, 1997; Sakai, 1997 Table i); (b) forward citation searches using ScoPuS using key articles (e.g., Schlosser, 2003); and (c) ancestry searches of articles that qualified for inclusion (e.g., achmadi et al, 2012) and previous reviews related to the topic (e.g., Baxter, enderby, evans, & judge, 2012;Blischak & Schlosser, 2003;Kagohara et al, 2013;lancioni et al, 2007;Rispoli, franco, van der Meer, lang, & camargo, 2010;Schlosser, 2003;Schlosser & Sigafoos, 2006;Wendt, 2006). The search was completed in September of 2014. additional studies were added at the revision stage, per early online papers suggested by reviewers; however, the search was not repeated.…”

Section: Criteria For Inclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…if there are effect size benchmarks for a particular behavior, the benchmarks are the preferred indicators for the determination of what constitutes a large or small effect. each included study was assessed using a certainty framework that has been utilized in previous reviews (e.g., Granlund & olsson, 1999;Millar, light, & Schlosser, 2006;Schlosser & Sigafoos, 2006;. This framework can be used to classify the certainty of research study evidence into four categories: conclusive, preponderant, suggestive, and inconclusive.…”

Section: Selection Of Studies and Data Extractionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Speech Output Technologies in Interventions for Individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorders: A Scoping Review

Schlosser

Koul

2015

Augmentative and Alternative Communication

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this scoping review was to (a) map the research evidence on the effectiveness of augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) interventions using speech output technologies (e.g., speech-generating devices, mobile technologies with AAC-specific applications, talking word processors) for individuals with autism spectrum disorders, (b) identify gaps in the existing literature, and (c) posit directions for future research. Outcomes related to speech, language, and communication were considered. A total of 48 studies (47 single case experimental designs and 1 randomized control trial) involving 187 individuals were included. Results were reviewed in terms of three study groupings: (a) studies that evaluated the effectiveness of treatment packages involving speech output, (b) studies comparing one treatment package with speech output to other AAC modalities, and (c) studies comparing the presence with the absence of speech output. The state of the evidence base is discussed and several directions for future research are posited.

show abstract

“…In some situations, single-case designs may be the best choice; they may be among the most elegant and sophisticated experimental designs for use [12][13]. For these reasons, single-case designs have an impressive legacy in the study of many individualized interventions for persons with disabilities [14][15][16]. Moreover, an historical overview of the rehabilitation literature reveals that many current empirically supported practices first began with evidence obtained in singlecase designs (e.g., behavioral methods for chronic pain rehabilitation, supported employment, and biofeedback) [11].…”

Section: Why Use Small N Research Designs?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Small N designs for rehabilitation research

Barnett¹,

Heinemann²,

Libin³

et al. 2012

JRRD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-Rehabilitation research presents unique and challenging problems to investigators during both the design and analysis periods. Statistical issues regarding sample size requirements for an adequately powered study may be in direct conflict with realistic recruitment and subject retention goals. Issues of underpowered studies, sample size requirements, and recruitment goals plague rehabilitation research. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are typically narrow in scope and thus lack generalizability to everyday, yet specific, clinical problems; they are also costly and time-consuming and require large numbers of participants for randomization to have optimal, desired effects. Further, the RCT design may not be applicable to assistive technologies and environmental modifications-vital components of disability and rehabilitation research-nor is it appropriate in situations in which theoretical models of change are lacking or premature. Single-case designs are better suited for studies in which understanding and changing patient behavior and functional status are primary goals and the targeted sample sizes are less than 30 and frequently less than 10. Theoretical, methodological, and clinical reasons for using experimental and quasiexperimental single-case designs are presented. Recommendations for designing and conducting single-case studies that contribute to the evidence base are also discussed.

show abstract

Augmentative and alternative communication interventions for persons with developmental disabilities: narrative review of comparative single-subject experimental studies

Cited by 115 publications

References 64 publications

A Meta-analytic Review of Functional Communication Training Across Mode of Communication, Age, and Disability

A Meta-analytic Review of Functional Communication Training Across Mode of Communication, Age, and Disability

Speech Output Technologies in Interventions for Individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorders: A Scoping Review

Small N designs for rehabilitation research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About