A comparison of schematic and taxonomic iPad® AAC systems for teaching multistep navigational AAC requests to children with ASD

textThe variety of augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) applications available on devices such as the Apple iPad®, necessitates research comparing different application components. AAC applications can include a variety of display formats such as: visual scene displays (VSDs; with vocabulary embedded into images of a scene or context), grid displays (with rows and columns of symbol buttons representing vocabulary), and hybrid formats (combining elements of VSDs and grids). To navigate through multiple pages of vocabulary, VSDs and hybrids are often organized schematically (i.e., by context or location) and grids are commonly organized taxonomically (i.e., by category). This study compared how four young children (ages 4 to 8) with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) acquired two-step navigational requesting with an iPad® AAC application using a schematic VSD, or hybrid pop-up grid, and a taxonomic grid. Using a multielement design, acquisition was compared across two settings (e.g., living room, kitchen), and three categories of preferred items (e.g., drinks, food, toys). Intervention involved behaviorally-based strategies (e.g., time delay, least-to-most prompting). During intervention, three participants mastered the schematic systems (VSD or hybrid), but did not master the taxonomic grid. Two of these participants also generalized requesting with schematic systems to an untrained location with a new preferred item, and maintained responding across all three settings. A fourth participant mastered both a schematic VSD and a taxonomic grid during training. During generalization, she rapidly acquired requesting in the new environment with the schematic VSD, but did not meet mastery criterion with the taxonomic grid. Across participants, the most common error with schematic systems was selecting the wrong scene (i.e., selecting an image of a location that did not match the location of the given session). In contrast, all participants showed a greater variety of error types with the taxonomic grid (including selecting the wrong category symbol, pressing the screen multiple times, trying to activate the screen with the wrong motion, and selecting the wrong item symbol). Differences in the types of errors observed suggest possible advantages and disadvantages with each system. Results have important implications for the development of AAC assessment and implementation protocols.Special Educatio

Teaching Preschoolers With Autism to Use Different Speech-Generating Device Display Formats During Play: Intervention and Secondary Factors

Purpose Children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and complex communication needs are increasingly taught to use tablet-based speech-generating devices (SGDs). An important issue in designing such interventions is the selection of an appropriate format for displaying vocabulary. The purpose of this study was to determine (a) whether young children with ASD can be taught to use different SGD vocabulary display formats and (b) whether there are differences across the formats on a range of secondary measures (e.g., preference and generalization). Method Five preschoolers with ASD (and prior experience with simpler aided augmentative and alternative communication) were taught to use grid and visual scene display SGDs during a play-based intervention. Acquisition of functional responding was assessed using a single-case experimental design. Secondary variables included error types, antecedents for communication, preference, and generalization. Results All participants increased their use of functional target vocabulary using both the grid and the simple visual scene display. Of the five participants, three showed similar performance with both formats, whereas two had slightly higher rates of functional responding with the grid. Individualized differences across participants and formats were apparent across secondary variables (e.g., preference, error types, generalization). Conclusions Both simple grid and visual scene displays may be viable options when teaching functional use of SGDs to children with ASD who have prior aided augmentative and alternative communication experience. Analyzing secondary variables beyond device acquisition (e.g., generalization, preference) may have implications for individualizing intervention

Naturalistic speech-generating device (Gevarter & Zamora, 2018)

<div><b>Purpose: </b>This article presents a systematic review that aimed to synthesize single-subject–design studies that have examined naturalistic interventions for teaching the expressive use of speech-generating devices (SGDs) to children with complex communication needs. Specifically, this review describes what intervention strategies are most commonly applied in studies with positive effects and minimal methodological flaws and examines the populations and outcomes for which these strategies have been effective.</div><div><b>Method:</b> A systematic approach was used to qualitatively code variables of interest to this review. Results were summarized via both visual analysis and effect size methods, and a certainty of evidence methodology was adopted to describe the quality of the evidence.</div><div><b>Results: </b>Thirty-two unique studies met inclusion criteria, with 19 having consistent positive results and meeting minimum requirements for certainty of evidence. Although studies used a variety of titles to describe intervention packages (e.g., milieu teaching, interaction strategies), certain strategies were common across studies. These included (a) creating and capturing communication opportunities via methods such as time delay and questioning; (b) providing feedback via methods such as reinforcement of requests, praise, or expansions; (c) prompting (verbal, physical, gestural); (d) modeling; and (e) training communication partners.</div><div><b>Conclusions:</b> Findings regarding these intervention components help to provide practical guidelines for naturalistic SGD intervention. Limitations of the current body of research (e.g., need to include more home-based studies and more intermediate to advanced SGDs, need to critically analyze the most critical intervention components) provide suggestions for future research.</div><div><br></div><div><b>Supplemental Material S1. </b>Codes and definitions for participants, speech-generating devices (SGDs), dependent variables, and settings/routines. </div><div><br></div><div><b>Supplemental Material S2. </b>General and specific strategy definitions.</div><div><br></div><div><b>Supplemental Material S3. </b>Participants, SGD types/use, and routines/settings.</div><div><br></div><div><b>Supplemental Material S4. </b>Intervention packages, strategies, results, and certainty of evidence.</div><div><br></div><div>Gevarter, C., & Zamora, C. (2018). Naturalistic speech-generating device interventions for children with complex communication needs: A systematic review of single-subject studies. <i>American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 27, </i>1073–1090. https://doi.org/10.1044/2018_AJSLP-17-0128</div><div><br></div