Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluating Augmentative and Alternative Communication Modalities for Individuals With Developmental Disabilities: a Brief Review of the Last 5 Years

  • Hot Topic
  • Published:
Current Developmental Disorders Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

This review is to extend our analysis of comparative AAC modality studies by evaluating the literature within the last 5 years as related to individuals with developmental disabilities.

Recent Findings

The findings are consistent with previous reviews of this topic and indicate that a variety of AAC modalities may be effective for individuals with developmental disabilities. Furthermore, these findings highlight the need to assess learner prerequisite skills and learner preference over time.

Summary

This review confirms the need for assessments across a variety of variables and data-based decision making when considering AAC modalities for individuals with developmental disabilities.

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

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Wodka E, Mathy P, Kalb L. Predictors of phrase and fluent speech in children with autism and severe language delay. Ped. 2013;131:1128–34. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2012-2221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ganz JB, Morin KL, Foster MJ, Vannest KJ, Genç Tosun D, Gregori EV, et al. High-technology augmentative and alternative communication for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities and complex communication needs: a meta-analysis. Aug Alt Com. 2017;33:224–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434618.2017.1373855.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Blackwell CL, Hulbert CM, Bell J, Elston L, Morgan W, Robertshaw BA, et al. A survey of the communication abilities of individuals with a mental handicap. Brit J Psy. 1989;35:63–71. https://doi.org/10.1179/bjms.1989.010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Ganz JB. AAC interventions for individuals with autism spectrum disorders: state of the science and future research directions. Aug Alt Com. 2015;31:203–14. https://doi.org/10.3109/07434618.2015.1047532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Schlosser RW, Koul RK. Speech output technologies in interventions for individuals with autism spectrum disorders: a scoping review. Aug Alt Com. 2015;31:285–309. https://doi.org/10.3109/07434618.2015.1063689.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. • Gevarter C, O’Reilly MF, Rojeski L, Sammarco N, Lang R, Lancioni GE, et al. Comparing communication systems for individuals with developmental disabilities: a review of single-case research studies. Res Dev Disabil. 2013;34:4415–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2013.09.017This review provides a comparison of AAC communication systems and provides recommendations for practice.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. • van der Meer L, Sigafoos J, O’Reilly MF, Lancioni GE. Assessing preferences for AAC options in communication interventions for individuals with developmental disabilities: a review of the literature. Res Dev Dis. 2011;32:1422–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2011.02.003This review provides a synthesis of the AAC literature that assesses preference of modality.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Ganz J, Earles-Vollrath T, Mason R, Rispoli M, Heath A, Parker R. An aggregate study of single-case research involving aided AAC: participant characteristics of individuals with autism spectrum disorders. Res Autism Spectr Disord. 2011;5:1500–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2011.02.011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Thistle JJ, Wilkinson KM. Building evidence-based practice in AAC display design for young children: current practices and future directions. Aug Alt Com. 2015;31:124–36. https://doi.org/10.3109/07434618.2015.1035798.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. •• Aydin O, Diken IH. Studies comparing augmentative and alternative communication systems (AAC) applications for individuals with autism spectrum disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Edu Train Auti Dev Dis. 2020;55:119–41 This review evaluates and compares AAC applications for individuals with ASD and evaluates the quality of the research.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Horner RH, Carr EG, Halle J, McGee G, Odom S, Wolery M. The use of single- subject research to identify evidence-based practice in special education. Except Child. 2005;71:165–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290507100203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. What Works Clearinghouse. Procedures and standards handbook (Version 4.0) 2017. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/

  13. Lang R, O’Reilly M, Healy O, Rispoli M, Lydon H, Streusand W, et al. Sensory integration therapy for autism spectrum disorders: a systematic review. Res Autism Spectr Disord. 2012;2012(6):1004–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2012.01.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Schlosser RW. Comparative efficacy of interventions in augmentative and alternative communication. Augmentative Altern Communication. 1999;15:56–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434619912331278575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. • Agius MM, Vance M. A comparison of PECS and iPad to teach requesting to pre-schoolers with autistic spectrum disorders. Aug Alt Com. 2016;32:58–68. https://doi.org/10.3109/07434618.2015.1108363This comparative study evaluated the use of PECS and SGDs to teach preschool-aged students with ASD and was evaluated in the current review.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. • Gilroy SP, Leader G, McCleery JP. A pilot community-based randomized comparison of speech generating devices and the picture exchange communication system for children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. Autism Res. 2018;11:1701–11. https://doi.org/10.1002/aur.2025This study evaluated the comparison of SGDs and PE systems for children with ASD and was evaluated in the current review.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. •• Lorah ER. 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. 2016;28:751–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-016-9507-zThis study evaluated the preference of PE and SGS and was evaluated in the current review.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. •• McLay L, Schäfer MC, van der Meer L, Couper L, McKenzie E, O’Reilly MF, et al. Acquisition, preference and follow-up comparison across three AAC modalities taught to two children with autism spectrum disorder. Int J Disabil Dev Educ. 2017;64(2):117–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912x.2016.1188892This study evaluated the effects of teaching three different AAC modalities and was evaluated in the current review.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. •• McLay L, van der Meer L, Schäfer MC, Couper L, McKenzie E, O’Reilly MF, et al. Comparing acquisition, generalization, maintenance, and preference across three AAC options in four children with autism spectrum disorder. J Dev Phys Disabil. 2015;27(3):323–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-014-9417-xThis study evaluated acquisition of three AAC modalities, PE, sign, and SGD, and was evaluated in the current review.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. •• Tönsing KM. Supporting the production of graphic symbol combinations by children with limited speech: a comparison of two AAC systems. J Phys Dis. 2016;28:5–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-016-9473-5. This study compared the efficacy of SGD applications and communication boards and was evaluated in the current review.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. •• Valentino AL, LeBlanc LA, Veazey SE, Weaver LA, Raetz PB. Using a prerequisite skills assessment to identify optimal modalities for mand training. Behav Anal Pract. 2019;12:22–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-018-0256-6This study evaluated the prerequisite skills as an indicator for optimal modality selection of AAC systems and was evaluated in the current review.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Simeonsson R, Bailey D. Evaluating programme impact: levels of certainty. In: Mitchell D, Brown R, editors. Early intervention studies for young children with special needs. New York: Chapman and Hall; 1991. p. 280–96.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  23. Smith NL. The certainty of judgments in health evaluations. Eval Pro Plan. 1981;4:273–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Davis TN, O’Reilly M, Kang S, Lang R, Rispoli M, Sigafoos J, et al. Chelation treatment for autism spectrum disorders: a systematic review. Res Autism Spectr Disord. 2013;7(1):49–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2012.06.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Schlosser RW, Sigafoos J. Augmentative and alternative communication interventions for persons with developmental disabilities: narrative review of comparative single-subject experimental studies. Res Dev Disabil. 2006;27:1–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2004.04.004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Tager-Flusberg H, Kasari C. Minimally verbal school-aged children with autism spectrum disorder: the neglected end of the spectrum. Autism Res. 2013;6:468–78. https://doi.org/10.1002/aur.1329.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Carnett A, Neely L, Hong ER, Escobar J. Choosing a response topography for individuals with autism during functional communication training: a critically appraised topic. Evi Com Assess Inte. 2019;13:85–105.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Education, Victoria University of Wellington, PO Box 600, Wellington, 6140, New Zealand

    Amarie Carnett

  2. CMartin Therapy Services, PLLC, Wylie, TX, USA

    Christina Martin

  3. Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, USA

    Cindy Gevarter

Authors
  1. Amarie Carnett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christina Martin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Cindy Gevarter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amarie Carnett.

Ethics declarations

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Carnett, A., Martin, C. & Gevarter, C. Evaluating Augmentative and Alternative Communication Modalities for Individuals With Developmental Disabilities: a Brief Review of the Last 5 Years. Curr Dev Disord Rep 8, 133–141 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40474-021-00226-0

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40474-021-00226-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation