Comparative efficacy of the Picture Exchange Communication System (PECS) versus a speech-generating device: Effects on requesting skills

Boesch, Miriam C.; Wendt, Oliver; Subramanian, Anu; Hsu, Ning

doi:10.1016/j.rasd.2012.12.002

Cited by 67 publications

(56 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…found in most studies comparing the effect of SGD versus non-electronic AAC system-based interventions on requesting skills. Although one study (Beck, Stoner, Bock and Parton 2008) found a consistent advantage of a non-electronic system (picture exchange) over an SGD in promoting requesting skills, six other studies found no differences or had mixed results, with some participants performing better with an SGD while others performed better with nonelectronic AAC systems (Bock, Stoner, Beck, Hanley and Prochnow 2005;Boesch et al 2013;Cannella-Malone, DeBar and Sigafoos 2009;Sigafoos, Green, Payne and Son 2009;Sigafoos et al 2005;Son, Sigafoos, O'Reilly and Lancioni 2006). Similar to other studies, the intervention procedure was very structured, and responses were elicited and corrected until participants produced correct combinations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Voice output can be an important tool for gaining a partner"s attention, especially for children who have little control over their own vocalizations (Soto and SeligmanWine 2003). Communication over a distance is possible, while a communication board necessitates greater proximity with the partner (Boesch et al 2013). Voice output might promote greater communicative autonomy, as partners would be likely to "voice over" (or speak out loud) the message conveyed by a person using a communication board, whereas this function is taken over by the voice output of the SGD.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…At the same time, Brekke and Von Tetzchner (2003) in their case study discussion of a young boy relying on graphic-symbol-base AAC systems, remarked on a tendency of partners to expect independent use when technology was involved, whereas partners tended to be more supportive and actively involved in the construction of messages when boards and books were used. High cost and lack of portability have been suggested as two main disadvantages for many SGDs (Boesch et al 2013). Although the iPad with the GoTalk Now application is less costly than many dedicated SGDs, it still seems more expensive than a paper-based system such as a collection of communication boards.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Concurrent implementation of a non-electronic and electronic system with identical symbols and symbol arrangement may be beneficial to allow children to successfully participate in a variety of communication situations (Boesch et al 2013). In the current study, children successfully used both an electronic and a non-electronic system in an alternating fashion, suggesting that such a concurrent implementation of interchangeable systems may be possible.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Performance using the device mostly did not predict preference. Two other studies comparing SGDs and non-electronic systems also investigated team perspectives regarding their preference of system (Flores et al 2012) or team perceptions of child preference (Boesch, Wendt, Subramanian and Hsu 2013). The perceptions of intervention teams and partners such as parents, teachers and therapists may also greatly influence the success and extend with which an AAC system is implemented, as partners play a critical role in supporting communication interactions of children using AAC, including the construction or programming, general management and implementation of aided AAC systems (Blackstone, Williams and Wilkins 2007;Kent-Walsh and McNaughton 2005;Light and Drager 2007).…”

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: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

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

A pilot community‐based randomized comparison of speech generating devices and the picture exchange communication system for children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A pilot community-based randomized controlled trial was conducted to compare the effects of the Picture Exchange Communication System (PECS) to a teaching sequence using a high-tech Speech Generating Device (SGD) to teach social communication behaviors. The two approaches were compared to evaluate the effectiveness of the newer, more hightech intervention using technology to improve social and communicative behavior of children diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder. A total of 35 school-age children were randomized to either a high-tech (SGD device) or low-tech (PECS cards) form of Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC). Study participants received 4 months of communication training delivered in their classrooms, and the primary outcome measures of the trial were several functional communication skills emphasized in the PECS teaching sequence. Results indicated that both high-tech and low-tech AAC approaches resulted in significant improvements in communication, and that these improvements did not differ significantly between the two approaches. These findings support the use of high-tech AAC, and highlight the need for evidence-based guidelines for its use as well as evaluation with individuals with a range impairments and disabilities.Lay Summary: This study compared the effectiveness of a free and open-source app for teaching social and communicative behavior to children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) to traditional picture card approaches. Thirty-five children with ASD were randomized to a picture card or app-based intervention and both treatment approaches resulted in significant improvements in social and communicative behavior. These data indicated that both "high-tech" and "low-tech" interventions were effective for improving behavior and that there was not a significant difference between the two approaches.

show abstract

The feasibility of implementing autism intervention methods in formal education settings welcoming refugee and asylum‐seeking children: A systematic review of the literature

Larran

Schuster

Hein

2021

New Drctns Chld & Adlscnt

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Given the significant amount of time that refugee and asylum‐seeking children (RASC) spend in schools, these institutions play an important role in their lives and represent an ideal environment in which to help them to adapt to their host society. The present study aimed to draw attention to the possibility of transferring intervention methods designed for children with ASD to formal education settings welcoming newly arrived RASC to support their adaptation to their new school environment. For this purpose, a systematic review was undertaken to assess the feasibility of implementing three specific ASD intervention methods (i.e., TEACCH, PECS, and PMI) in schools welcoming RASC. While the review did not reveal previous attempts to implement and evaluate ASD intervention methods with newcomer RASC, 21 records were uncovered providing preliminary evidence in support of this idea. Hypothesized strengths and limitations, as well as considerations about implementation, are discussed.

show abstract

Comparative efficacy of the Picture Exchange Communication System (PECS) versus a speech-generating device: Effects on requesting skills

Cited by 67 publications

References 53 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

A pilot community‐based randomized comparison of speech generating devices and the picture exchange communication system for children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder

The feasibility of implementing autism intervention methods in formal education settings welcoming refugee and asylum‐seeking children: A systematic review of the literature

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About