Initiation and Repair of Intentional Communication Acts by Adults With Severe to Profound Cognitive Disabilities

Abstract

This study assessed the communication initiation and repair behaviors of 28 individuals with severe to profound mental retardation in a variety of experimental conditions. All of these individuals communicated through nonsymbolic gestures. The experimental procedures were devised to simulate the conditions that typically evoke two different types of initiations: comments and requests. Each subject initiation was followed by an experimenter response that indicated a communication breakdown to determine if and how these subjects would attempt to repair such breakdowns. Different indicators of communication breakdown were systematically varied in these scripted interactions, including explicit requests for repair (verbal and gestural) and implicit requests for repair (failure to respond or inappropriate response to the subject’s communication act). All subjects initiated at least one communication act, and all but three subjects repaired at least one communication act following a breakdown. Significantly more subjects initiated protoimperative than protodeclarative communication acts, despite equal opportunities for both types of acts. Across all conditions, additions were observed to occur significantly less often than recasts or repetitions. There were no significant differences in the number of subjects repairing communication following the different types of communication breakdown.

Identification of intentional communication in students with severe and multiple disabilities

“…This finding is consistent with that of McLean and Snyder-McLean (1987), Ogletree et al (1992), and Brady et al (1995), who found that individuals at early stages of intentional communication were more likely to request actions or objects (in the form of protoimperatives) than to provide comments (in the form of protodeclaratives). Using McLean and Snyder-McLean's (1987) classifications of individuals who used primitive versus conventional locutionary behaviors, Irene and Jill could be classified as the former, since all gestures were in the form of contact with either the teacher or the object.…”

“…According to Harding (1984), persistence in behavior, which signals intentionality, is indicated by repairs. The earliest types of repairs are repetitions, while more advanced repairs take the form of modifications, such as increasing the intensity of the signal or adding other behaviors (see also Brady, McLean, McLean, & Johnston [1995] for a review of repair strategies used by individuals with developmental disability). The students studied here demonstrated repetitions and modifications of behaviors but no other indicators of intentionality, possibly as a result of their physical and sensory impairments impeding the demonstration of other clear and coordinated signals.…”

Equivalence Relations in Individuals With Language Limitations and Mental Retardation

“…In a survey of the language skills of 28 individuals with profound MR, Brady, McLean, McLean, and Johnston (1995) found only 1 subject who did not mand, but 10 subjects did not show rudimentary tacting. Given that the floor skill for the most commonly used standardized, direct measures of subjects' expressive language is naming, continued development of these testing procedures could fill an important gap in our characterization of the verbal abilities of individuals with severe and profound MR.…”

Using dynamic assessment with learners who communicate nonsymbolically

“…The work of Brady et al (1995) affirms the capability of individuals using nonsymbolic communication to recognize communication breakdowns, use repairs, and successfully restore an interaction. The implication for dynamic assessment is that it is important during the dynamic assessment to test what happens after a breakdown occurs, teach learners to make repairs, and prompt partners to respond to the repairs.…”