Comparing acquisition of and preference for manual signs, picture exchange, and speech-generating devices in nine children with autism spectrum disorder

Developmental Neurorehabilitation

Volumn 17, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 99-109

  Couper, Llyween ^a   Van Der Meer, Larah ^b   Schäfer, Martina C M ^a   Mckenzie, Emma ^a   Mclay, Laurie ^a   O'reilly, Mark F ^c   Lancioni, Giulio E ^d   Marschik, Peter B ^e   Sigafoos, Jeff ^b   Sutherland, Dean ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CANTERBURY   (New Zealand)

^b VICTORIA UNIVERSITY OF WELLINGTON   (New Zealand)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF BARI   (Italy)

^e MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF GRAZ   (Austria)

Author keywords

Augmentative and alternative communication; Autism spectrum disorder; IPad ; IPod ; Manual sign; Picture exchange; Preference assessment; Speech generating device

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; AUTISM; CHILD; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COMMUNICATION AID; COMMUNICATION SKILL; FOLLOW UP; HAND MOVEMENT; HUMAN; LANGUAGE ABILITY; LEARNING; MALE; MANUAL SIGN; NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PICTURE EXCHANGE; PLAY; PRESCHOOL CHILD; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SCHOOL CHILD; SIGN LANGUAGE; SPEECH GENERATING DEVICE; TEACHING; VISUAL STIMULATION;

CHILD; CHILD DEVELOPMENT DISORDERS, PERVASIVE; CHILD, PRESCHOOL; COMMUNICATION AIDS FOR DISABLED; COMMUNICATION DISORDERS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION; SPEECH;

EID: 84897540418     PISSN: 17518423     EISSN: 17518431     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/17518423.2013.870244     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Beukelman D, Mirenda P. Augmentative and alternative communication: Supporting children and adults with complex communication needs, 4th ed. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing; 2013
2. Mirenda P. Toward functional augmentative and alternative communication for students with autism: Manual signs, graphic symbols, and voice output communication aids. Language, Speech, &Hearing Services in Schools 2003;34:203-216
3. Flippin M, Reszka S, Watson L. Effectiveness of the picture exchange communication system (PECS) on communication and speech for children with autism spectrum disorders: A meta-Analysis. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology 2010;19:178-195
4. van Der Meer L, Rispoli M. Communication interventions involving speech-generating devices for children with autism: A review of the literature. Developmental Neurorehabilitation 2010;13:294-306
5. Bondy A, Frost L. The picture exchange communication system: Clinical and research applications. In: Mirenda P, Iacono T, editors. Autism spectrum disorders and AAC. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.; 2009. pp 279-302
6. Lancioni G, OReilly M, Cuvo A, Singh N, Sigafoos J, Didden R. PECS and VOCAs to enable students with developmental disabilities to make requests: An overview of the literature. Research in Developmental Disabilities 2007;28:468-488
7. van Der Meer L, Didden R, Sutherland D, OReilly M, Lancioni G, Sigafoos J. Comparing three augmentative and alternative communication modes for children with developmental disabilities. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities 2012;24:451-468
8. van Der Meer L, Kagohara D, Achmadi D, OReilly M, Lancioni G, Sutherland D, Sigafoos J. Speech-generating devices versus manual signing for children with developmental disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities 2012;33:1658-1669
9. van Der Meer L, Sutherland D, OReilly M, Lancioni G, Sigafoos J. A further comparison of manual signing, picture exchange, and speech-generating devices as communication modes for children with autism spectrum disorders. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 2012;6:1247-1257
10. Boesch M, Wendt O, Subramanian A, Hsu N. Comparative efficacy of the Picture Exchange Communication System (PECS) versus a speech-generating device: Effects on requesting skills. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 2013;7:480-493
11. Boesch M, Wendt O, Subramanian A, Hsu N. Comparative efficacy of the picture exchange communication system (PECS) versus a speech-generating device: Effects on social-communicative skills and speech development. Augmentative and Alternative Communication 2013;29:197-209
12. Flores M, Musgrove K, Renner S, Hinton V, Stroizer S, Franklin S, Hil D. A comparison of communication using the Apple iPad and a picture-based system. Augmentative and Alternative Communication 2012;28:1-11
13. Lorah E, Tincani M, Dodge J, Gilroy S, Hickey D, Hantula D. Evaluating picture exchange and the iPad- as a speech generating device to teach communication to young children with autism. Journal of Developmental Physical Disabilities [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2013 October 12]. Available from: Http://link.springer.com/ article/10.1007/s10882-013-9337-1
14. Son S, Sigafoos J, OReilly M, Lancioni G. Comparing two types of augmentative and alternative communication systems for children with autism. Pediatric Rehabilitation 2006;9:389-395
15. Light J, McNaughton D. The iPad and mobile technology revolution: Benefits and challenges for individuals who require augmentative and alternative communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication 2013;29:107-116
16. Sparrow S, Cicchetti D, Balla D. Vineland-II Adaptive Behavior Scales. 2nd ed. Minneapolis: Pearson; 2005
17. Sennott S, Bowker A. Autism, AAC, and Proloquo2Go. Perspectives on augmentative and alternative communication 2009;18:137-145
18. NZSL Online [Internet]. Wellington, NZ: Victoria University [cited 2013 October 13]. Available from: Http://nzsl.vuw.ac.nz/signs/1897
19. Kennedy C. Single-case designs for educational research. Boston: Pearson; 2005
20. Light J, Drager K, Nemser J. Enhancing the appeal of AAC technologies for young children: Lessons from the toy manufacturers. Augmentative and Alternative Communication 2004;20: 137-149
21. Drager K, Light J, McNaughton D. Effects of AAC interventions on communication and language for young children with complex communication needs. Journal of Pediatric Rehabilitation Medicine: An Interdisciplinary Approach 2010;3:303-331