Abstract
Handheld computing technologies such as the iPad®, which can be adapted to function as a speech-generating device, has led to an influx of evolutions comparing modalities of Augmentative and Alternative Communication systems (AAC) in the acquisition of a mand (i.e., request) repertoire in children with autism and related developmental disabilities. While these studies have consistently yielded results indicating equal acquisition across picture-based systems (PE) and the SGD, they have demonstrated a primary preference for the SGD. The purpose of this study was to extend such research by comparing not only student acquisition and preference, but also stakeholder fidelity of use and preference. Using an alternating treatment design, teachers and paraprofessionals were instructed to conduct mand training trials using both a PE system and an iPad® Mini with the application Proloqu2Go™ as a SGD, with seven school aged children with a diagnosis of autism or downs syndrome. Following 10-weeks of data collection, the student participants were exposed to a device preference assessment and teachers completed a social validity questionnaire to assess preference. The results were consistent with previous research indicating equal acquisition and fidelity of use across both devices; but a general preference for the iPad® based SGD.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Achamadi, D., Kagohara, D. M., van der Meer, L., O’Reilly, M., Lancioni, G., Sutherland, D., et al. (2012). Teaching advanced operation of an iPod-based speech-generating device to two students with autism spectrum disorders. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 6, 1258–1264.
Clark, M. L., Austin, D. W., & Craike, M. J. (2015). Professional and parental attitudes toward iPad application use in autism spectrum disorder. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 30, 174–181.
Couper, L., van der Meer, L., Schäfer, M. C., McKenzie, E., McLay, L., O'Reilly, M. F., & Sutherland, D. (2014). Comparing acquisition of and preference for manual signs, picture exchange, and speech-generating devices in nine children with autism spectrum disorder. Developmental Neurorehabilitation, 0, 1–11.
Flores, M., Musgrove, L., Renner, S., Hinton, V., Strozier, S., Fraklin, S., et al. (2012). A comparison of communication using the Apple iPad and a picture-based communication system. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 28, 78–84.
Gast, D. L., & Ledford, J. R. (2014). Single case research methodology (2nd ed.). New York: Routhledge.
Johnson, J. (1988). Strategic and tactical limitations of comparison studies. Behavior Analyst, 11, 1–9.
Lorah, E. R., Tincani, M., Dodge, J., Gilroy, S., Hickey, A., & Hantula, D. (2013). Evaluating picture exchange and the iPad as a speech generating device to teach communication to young children with autism. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities. doi:10.1007/s10882-013-9337-1.
Lorah, E. R., Parnell, A., Whitby, P., & Hantula, D. (2015). A systematic review of tablet computers and portable multimedia players as a speech-generating device for individuals with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 45, 3792–3804.
McLay, L., Schafer, C. M., van der Meer, L., Couper, L., McKenzie, E., O’Reilly, M. F., & Sutherland, D. (2016). Acquisition, preference, and follow-up comparisons across three AAC modalities taught to two children with autism spectrum disorder. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education. doi:10.1080/1034912X.2016.1188892.
Mirenda, P. (2001). Autism, augmentative communication, and assistive technology what do we really know? Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 16, 141–151.
Mirenda, P. (2003). Toward a functional and augmentative and alternative communication for students with autism: manual signs, graphic symbols, and voice output communication aids. Learning, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 34, 203–216.
van der Meer, L., Didden, R., Sutherland, D., O’Reilly, M. F., Lancioni, G. E., & Sigafoos, J. (2012). Comparing three augmentative and alternative communication modes for children with developmental disabilities. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities. doi:10.1007/s10882-012-9283-3.
Wodka, E. L., Mathy, P., & Kalb, L. (2013). Predictors of phrase and fluent speech in children with autism and severe language delay. Pediatrics, 131, 1128–1134.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethical Approval
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in compliance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed Consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Conflict of Interest
Elizabeth R. Lorah declares no conflict of interest.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lorah, E.R. Comparing Teacher and Student Use and Preference of Two Methods of Augmentative and Alternative Communication: Picture Exchange and a Speech-Generating Device. J Dev Phys Disabil 28, 751–767 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-016-9507-z
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-016-9507-z