Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Supporting the Production of Graphic Symbol Combinations by Children with Limited Speech: A Comparison of Two AAC systems

  • ORIGINAL ARTICLE
  • Published:
Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities Aims and scope Submit manuscript

An Erratum to this article was published on 28 January 2016

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy with which the use of a speech generating device (Apple iPadTM with GoTalk NowTM 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 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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. iPod and iPad are registered trademarks of Apple Inc., Cupertino, CA.

  2. The GoTalk Now application is sold by Attainment Company, Verona, WI.

  3. The Junior phase in primary school refers to the first three years of official schooling (Grades 1–3).

  4. The Special stream at this particular school made use of a modified curriculum with assessment standards that were lower than those of the national school curriculum.

References

  • Bates, E., Dale, P. S., & Thal, D. (1995). Individual differences and their implications for theories of language development. In P. Fletcher & B. MacWhinney (Eds.), Handbook of child language (pp. 96–151). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, A. R., Stoner, J. B., Bock, S. J., & Parton, T. (2008). Comparison of PECS and the use of a VOCA: a replication. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 43(2), 198–216.

    Google Scholar 

  • Binger, C., & Light, J. (2007). The effect of aided AAC modeling on the expression of multi-symbol messages by preschoolers who use AAC. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 23(1), 30–46. doi:10.1080/07434610600807470.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Binger, C., & Light, J. (2008). The morphology and syntax of individuals who use AAC: research review and implications for effective practice. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 24(2), 123–138. doi:10.1080/07434610701830587.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Binger, C., Kent-Walsh, J., Berens, J., Del Campo, S., & Rivera, D. (2008). Teaching Latino parents to support the multi-symbol message productions of their children who require AAC. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 24(4), 323–38. doi:10.1080/07434610802130978.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Binger, C., Kent-Walsh, J., Ewing, C., & Taylor, S. (2010). Teaching educational assistants to facilitate the multisymbol message productions of young students who require augmentative and alternative communication. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 19(2), 108–120. doi:10.1044/1058-0360(2009/09-0015).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Blackstone, S. W., Williams, M. B., & Wilkins, D. P. (2007). Key principles underlying research and practice in AAC. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 23(3), 191–203. doi:10.1080/07434610701553684.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bock, S. J., Stoner, J. B., Beck, A. R., Hanley, L., & Prochnow, J. (2005). Increasing functional communication in non-speaking preschool children: comparison of PECS and VOCA. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 40(3), 264–278.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boesch, M. C., Wendt, O., Subramanian, A., & Hsu, N. (2013). Comparative efficacy of the picture exchange communication system (PECS) versus a speech-generating device: effects on requesting skills. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 7(3), 480–493. doi:10.1016/j.rasd.2012.12.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bortz, M. (1997). South African language assessments. Ponteland: STASS Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brekke, K. M., & Von Tetzchner, S. (2003). Co-construction in graphic language development. In S. Von Tetzchner & N. Grove (Eds.), Augmentative and alternative communication: developmental issues (pp. 176–210). London: Whurr.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, R. (1973). A first language: the early stages. London: George Allen & Unwin.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bruno, J., & Trembath, D. (2006). Use of aided language stimulation to improve syntactic performance during a weeklong intervention program. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 22(4), 300–13. doi:10.1080/07434610600768318.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cannella-Malone, H. I., DeBar, R. M., & Sigafoos, J. (2009). An examination of preference for augmentative and alternative communication devices with two boys with significant intellectual disabilities. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 25, 262–273. doi:10.3109/07434610903384511.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Carrow-Woolfolk, E. (1999). Test for auditory comprehension of language (4th ed.). Austin: Pro-Ed.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dada, S. (1999). Teachers’ attitudes towards children with LNFS using two AAC devices (Master's thesis). Retrieved from http://upetd.up.ac.za/thesis/available/etd-08022006-142253/. Accessed 27 Oct 2014.

  • Dada, S., & Alant, E. (2002). A comparative study of the attitudes of teachers at special and educationally inclusive schools towards learners with little or no functional speech using communication devices. South African Journal of Education, 22(3), 213–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dada, S., Huguet, A., & Bornman, J. (2013). The iconicity of picture communication symbols for children with English additional language and mild intellectual disability. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 29(4), 360–73. doi:10.3109/07434618.2013.849753.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dowden, P. (1997). Augmentative and alternative communication: decision making for children with severely unintelligible speech. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 13, 48–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, D. M. (2007). Peabody picture vocabulary test (4th ed.). San Antonio: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald, E. (1959). Straight language for the deaf. Washington: The Volta Bureau.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flores, M., Musgrove, K., Renner, S., Hinton, V., Strozier, S., Franklin, S., & Hil, D. (2012). A comparison of communication using the Apple iPad and a picture-based system. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 28(2), 74–84. doi:10.3109/07434618.2011.644579.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Garg, M., & Singhal, R. (2014). Speech re-synthesis from spectrogram image through sinusoidal modelling. In Advances in computing, communications and informatics (ICACCI, 2014 international conference) (pp. 2757–2761). Delhi: Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gevarter, C., O’Reilly, M. F., Rojeski, L., Sammarco, N., Lang, R., Lancioni, G. E., & Sigafoos, J. (2013). Comparing communication systems for individuals with developmental disabilities: a review of single-case research studies. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 34(12), 4415–4432. doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2013.09.017.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Goossens, C. (1989). Aided communication intervention before assessment: a case study of a child with cerebral palsy. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 5, 14–26. doi:10.1080/07434618912331274926.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henton, C. (2012). Text‐to‐speech synthesis development. The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Wiley Online Library. doi:10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal1207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higginbotham, D. J., & Engelke, C. R. (2013). A primer for doing talk-in-interaction research in augmentative and alternative communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 29(1), 3–19. doi:10.3109/07434618.2013.767556.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Horn, T. (2014). Children’s attitudes towards interaction with an unfamiliar peer with little or no functional speech: Comparing high- and low-technology devices (Master's thesis). Retrieved from http://repository.up.ac.za/handle/2263/42056. Accessed 9 Feb 2015.

  • Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (2004). Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test (2nd ed.). San Antonio: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kent-Walsh, J., & McNaughton, D. (2005). Communication partner instruction in AAC: present practices and future directions. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 21(3), 195–204. doi:10.1080/07434610400006646.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koul, R. (2003). Synthetic speech perception in individuals with and without disabilities. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 19(1), 49–58. doi:10.1080/0743461031000073092.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Light, J., & Drager, K. (2007). AAC technologies for young children with complex communication needs: state of the science and future research directions. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 23(3), 204–16. doi:10.1080/07434610701553635.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Light, J. C., Parsons, A. R., & Drager, K. (2002). “There’s more to life than cookies”. Developing interactions for social closeness with beginning communicators who use AAC. In J. Reichle, D. R. Beukelman, & J. C. Light (Eds.), Exemplary pratices for beginning communicators: Implications for AAC (pp. 187–218). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

    Google Scholar 

  • NCSS. (2012). Computer software. Kaysville: NCSS LLC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nigam, R., Schlosser, R. W., & Lloyd, L. L. (2006). Concomitant use of the matrix strategy and the mand-model procedure in teaching graphic symbol combinations. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 22(3), 160–77. doi:10.1080/07434610600650052.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Parker, R. I., & Vannest, K. (2009). An improved effect size for single-case research: nonoverlap of all pairs. Behavior Therapy, 40(4), 357–67. doi:10.1016/j.beth.2008.10.006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Quist, R., & Lloyd, L. L. (1997). Principles and uses of technology. In L. L. Lloyd, D. R. Fuller, & H. H. Arvidson (Eds.), Augmentative and alternative communication: a handbook of principles and practices (pp. 107–126). Needham Heights: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Romski, M. A., & Sevcik, R. A. (1988). Augmentative and alternative communication systems: considerations for individuals with severe intellectual disabilities. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 4(2), 83–93. doi:10.1080/07434618812331274667.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romski, M. A., & Sevcik, R. A. (1996). Breaking the speech barrier: language development through augmented means. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

    Google Scholar 

  • Romski, M. A., Sevcik, R. A., & Adamson, L. B. (1997). Framework for studying how children with developmental disabilities develop language through augmented means. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 13(3), 172–178. doi:10.1080/07434619712331277988.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlosser, R. W. (2003). Roles of speech output in augmentative and alternative communication: narrative review. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 19(1), 5–27. doi:10.1080/0743461032000056450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sigafoos, J., O’Reilly, M. F., Ganz, J. B., Lancioni, G. E., & Schlosser, R. W. (2005). Supporting self-determination in AAC interventions by assessing preference for communication devices. Technology and Disability, 17, 143–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sigafoos, J., Green, V. A., Payne, D., & Son, S. (2009). A Comparison of picture exchange and speech-generating devices: acquisition, preference, and effects on social interaction. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 25, 99–109. doi:10.1080/07434610902739959.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Son, S., Sigafoos, J., O’Reilly, M. F., & Lancioni, G. E. (2006). Comparing two types of augmentative and alternative communication systems for children with autism. Pediatric Rehabilitation, 9(4), 389–385. doi:10.1080/13638490500519984.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Soto, G., & Seligman-Wine, J. (2003). Child-driven development of alternative communciation: a case study. In S. Von Tetzchner & N. Grove (Eds.), Augmentative and alternative communication: developmental issues (pp. 211–228). London: Whurr.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutton, A., Soto, G., & Blockberger, S. (2002). Grammatical issues in graphic symbol communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 18, 192–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tönsing, K. M., Dada, S., & Alant, E. (2014). Teaching graphic symbol combinations to children with limited speech during shared story reading. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 30(4), 279–97. doi:10.3109/07434618.2014.965846.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Meer, L., Sigafoos, J., O’Reilly, M. F., & Lancioni, G. E. (2011). Assessing preferences for AAC options in communication interventions for individuals with developmental disabilities: a review of the literature. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 32, 1422–31. doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2011.02.003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Meer, L., Kagohara, D., Roche, L., Sutherland, D., Balandin, S., Green, V. A., & Sigafoos, J. (2013). Teaching multi-step requesting and social communication to two children with autism spectrum disorders with three AAC options. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 29(3), 222–234. doi:10.3109/07434618.2013.815801.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wetherby, A. M., Watt, N., Morgan, L., & Shumway, S. (2007). Social communication profiles of children with autism spectrum disorders late in the second year of life. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 37, 960–975. doi:10.1007/s10803-006-0237-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wilcoxon, F. (1945). Individual comparisons by ranking methods. Biometrics Bulletin, 1(6), 80–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolery, W., Gast, D. L., & Hammond, D. (2010). Comparative intervention designs. In D. Gast (Ed.), Single subject research methodologies in behavioral sciences (pp. 329–381). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research project was funded by the National Research Foundation (NRF) of South Africa and the Research Development Programme from the University of Pretoria. Opinions expressed and conclusions arrived at, are those of the author and are not necessarily to be attributed to the NRF or the University of Pretoria. The author would like to thank the children, their families, and the school staff for making the study possible.

Conflict of Interest

The author reports no conflict of interest. The author alone is responsible for the content and writing of this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Augmentative and Alternative Communication, Communication Pathology Building, University of Pretoria, Hatfield, 0002, Pretoria, South Africa

    Kerstin M. Tönsing

Authors
  1. Kerstin M. Tönsing
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kerstin M. Tönsing.

Appendix

Appendix

Arrangement of Symbols on Communication Boards and GoTalk Now Pages

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tönsing, K.M. Supporting the Production of Graphic Symbol Combinations by Children with Limited Speech: A Comparison of Two AAC systems. J Dev Phys Disabil 28, 5–29 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-015-9425-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-015-9425-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation