Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A Review of Intervention Studies on Teaching AAC to Individuals who are Deaf and Blind

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We reviewed intervention studies on teaching augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) to deaf–blind individuals. Studies meeting pre-determined inclusion-exclusion criteria were identified through electronic databases and hand searching and were summarized in terms of: (a) participants, (b) AAC mode, (c) target skills, (d) intervention procedures, and (e) main findings. Certainty of evidence was assessed through critical appraisal of each study’s design and methodological rigor. Seventeen studies, comprising 103 participants, were identified. Most participants had combinations of developmental, physical, and sensory impairments. A range of AAC modes were taught, including textures, tangible objects, and line-drawn symbols. Basic requesting skills were the most common intervention targets and these were most often taught using well-established behavioral procedures (e.g., prompting, differential reinforcement). Positive outcomes were reported for 90% of participants, but the evidence for 11 of the 17 studies was inconclusive because of methodological weaknesses. Implications for clinical practice and future research are discussed.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Barlow, D. H., & Hersen, M. (1984). Single case experimental designs: Strategies for studying behavior change (2nd ed.). New York: Pergamon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beukelman, D. R., & Mirenda, P. (2005). Augmentative and alternative communication: Supporting children and adults with complex communication needs (3rd ed.). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brady, N. C., & Halle, J. W. (2002). Breakdowns and repairs in conversations between beginning AAC users and their partners. In J. Reichle, D. R. Beukelman, & J. C. Light (Eds.), Exemplary practices for beginning communicators: Implications for AAC (pp. 323–351). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruce, S. M. (2002). Impact of a communication intervention model on teachers’ practice with children who are congenitally deaf–blind. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 96, 154–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruce, S. M. (2005). The impact of congenital deafblindness on the struggle to symbolism. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 52, 233–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruce, S., Godbold, E., & Naponelli-Gold, S. (2004). An analysis of communicative functions of teachers and their students who are congenitally deafblind. RE:view, 36, 81–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, D., Klein, D., & Haney, M. (2007). Promoting interactions with infants who have complex multiple disabilities: Development and field-testing of the PLAI curriculum. Infants & Young Children, 20, 149–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Downing, J. E., & Siegel-Causey, E. (1988). Enhancing the nonsymbolic communicative behavior of children with multiple impairments. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 19, 338–348.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duker, P., Didden, R., & Sigafoos, J. (2004). One-to-one training: Instructional procedures for learners with developmental disabilities. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

    Google Scholar 

  • Durand, V. M., & Kishi, G. (1987). Reducing severe behavior problems among persons with dual sensory impairments: An evaluation of a technical assistance model. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 12, 2–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engleman, M. D., Griffin, H. C., & Wheeler, L. (1998). Deaf–blindness and communication: Practical knowledge and strategies. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 92, 783–798.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffith, P. L., & Robinson, J. H. (1984). Perceptions of tactile and visual iconicity by blind and sighted groups. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 78, 481–487.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iacono, T., Carter, M., & Hook, J. (1998). Identification of intentional communication in students with severe and multiple disabilities. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 14, 102–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, J. M., Inglebret, E., Jones, C., & Ray, J. (2006). Perspectives of speech language pathologists regarding success versus abandonment of AAC. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 22, 85–99.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, C. H. (2005). Single-case designs for educational research. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koestler, F. A. (1976). The unseen minority: A social history of blindness in the United States. New York: McKay.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ladd, P. (2003). Understanding deaf culture: In search of deafhood. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd, L. L., Fuller, D. R., & Arvidson, H. (1997). Augmentative and alternative communication: A handbook of principles and practices. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millar, D. C., Light, J. C., & Schlosser, R. W. (2006). The impact of augmentative and alternative communication intervention on the speech production of individuals with developmental disabilities: A research review. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49, 248–264.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Reed, C. M., Delhorne, L., Durlach, N., & Fischer, S. (1990). A study of the tactual and visual reception of fingerspelling. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 33, 786–797.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Reed, C. M., Rabinowitz, W. M., Durlach, N. I., Delhorne, L. A., Braida, L. D., Pemberton, J. C., et al. (1992). Analytic study of the tadoma method: Improving performance through the use of supplementary tactual displays. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 35, 450–465.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Reichle, J., York, J., & Sigafoos, J. (1991). Implementing augmentative and alternative communication: Strategies for learners with severe disabilities. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ronnberg, J., & Borg, E. (2001). A review and evaluation of research on the deaf–blind from perceptual, communicative, social and rehabilitative perspectives. Scandinavian Audiology, 30, 67–77.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rowland, C., & Schweigert, P. (2000). Tangible symbols, tangible outcomes. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 16, 61–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlosser, R. W. (1999). Comparative efficacy of interventions in augmentative and alternative communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 15, 56–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlosser, R. W. (2002). On the importance of being earnest about treatment integrity. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 18, 36–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlosser, R. W. (2003). The efficacy of augmentative and alternative communication: Toward evidence-based practice. Boston: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlosser, R. W., & Raghavendra, P. (2004). Evidence-based practice in augmentative and alternative communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 20, 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlosser, R. W., & Sigafoos, J. (2007). Moving evidence-based practice forward. Evidence-based Communication Assessment and Intervention, 1, 1–3 (Editorial).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlosser, R. W., Sigafoos, J., Rothschild, N., Burke, M., & Palace, L. M. (2007a). Speech and language disorders. In I. Brown, & M. Percy (Eds.), A comprehensive guide to intellectual and developmental disabilities (pp. 383–401). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlosser, R. W., Wendt, O., & Sigafoos, J. (2007b). Not all systematic reviews are created equal: Considerations for appraisal. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention (in press).

  • Schultz, M. C., Norton, S. J., Conway-Fithian, S., & Reed, C. M. (1984). A survey of the use of the Tadoma method in the United States and Canada. Volta Review, 86, 282–292.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sigafoos, J., Arthur-Kelly, M., & Butterfield, N. (2006). Enhancing everyday communication for children with disabilities. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spring, B. (2007). Evidence-based practice in clinical psychology: What it is, why it matters; what you need to know. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 63, 611–631.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • van Dijk, J. (1966). The first steps of the deaf–blind child towards language. International Journal for the Education of the Blind, 15, 112–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vervloed, M. P. J., van Dijk, J. M., Knoors, H., & van Dijk, J. P. M. (2006). Interaction between the teacher and congenitally deafblind child. American Annals of the Deaf, 151, 336–344.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Weisz, J. R., Jensen-Doss, A., & Hawley, K. M. (2006). Evidence-based youth psychotherapies versus usual clinical care: A meta-analysis of direct comparisons. American Psychologist, 61, 671–689.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Education, University of Tasmania, Private Bag 66, Hobart, Tasmania, 7001, Australia

    Jeff Sigafoos & Vanessa A. Green

  2. Radboud University Nijmegen and Trajectum–Hanzeborg, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    Robert Didden

  3. Northeastern University, Boston, MA, USA

    Ralf Schlosser

  4. The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA

    Mark F. O’Reilly

  5. University of Bari, Bari, Italy

    Giulio E. Lancioni

Authors
  1. Jeff Sigafoos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Robert Didden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ralf Schlosser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Vanessa A. Green
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Mark F. O’Reilly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Giulio E. Lancioni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeff Sigafoos.

Appendix

Appendix

Included Studies

1. Durand, V. M., & Kishi, G. (1987). Reducing severe behavior problems among persons with dual sensory impairments: An evaluation of a technical assistance model. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 12, 2–10.

2. Mathy-Laikko, P., Iacono, T., Ratcliff, A., Villarruel, F., Yoder, D., & Vanderheiden, G. (1989). Teaching a child with multiple disabilities to use a tactile augmentative communication device. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 5, 249–256.

3. Rowland, C., & Schweigert, P. (1989). Tangible symbols: Symbolic communication for individuals with multisensory impairments. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 5, 226–234.

4. Schweigert, P. (1989). Use of microswitch technology to facilitate social contingency awareness as a basis for early communication skills. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 5, 192–198.

5. Van Hedel-van Grinsven, R. (1989). Communication and language development in a child with severe visual and auditory impairments: A case study and discussion of multiple modalities. RE:view, 21, 61–70.

6. Murray-Branch, J., Udavari-Solner, A., & Bailey, B. (1991). Textured communication systems for individuals with severe intellectual and dual sensory impairments. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 22, 260–268.

7. Romer, L. T., & Schoenberg, B. (1991). Increasing requests made by people with developmental disabilities and deaf-blindness through the use of behavior interruption strategies. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 26, 70–78.

8. Thorley, B., Ward, J., Binepal, T., & Dolan, K. (1991). Communicating with printed words to augment signing: Case study of a severely disabled deaf–blind child. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 7, 80–87.

9. Schweigert, P., & Rowland, C. (1992). Early communication and microtechnology: Instructional sequence and case studies of children with severe multiple disabilities. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 8, 273–286.

10. Heller, K. W., Ware, S., Allgood, M. H., & Castelle, M. (1994). Use of dual communication boards with students who are deaf–blind. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 88, 368–376.

11. Wolf Heller, K., Allgood, M. H., Davis, B., Arnold, S. E., Castelle, M. D., & Taber, T. A. (1996a). Promoting nontask-related communication at vocational sites. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 12, 169–178.

12. Wolf Heller, K., Allgood, M. H., Ware, S., Arnold, S. E., & Castelle, M. D. (1996b). Initiating requests during community-based vocational training by students with mental retardation and sensory impairments. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 17, 173–184.

13. Wolf Heller, K., Allgood, M. H., Ware, S., & Castelle, M. D. (1996c). Use of dual communication boards at vocational sites by students who are deaf–blind. RE:view, 27, 180–190.

14. Rowland, C., & Schweigert, P. (2000). Tangible symbols, tangible outcomes. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 16, 61–78.

15. Janssen, M. J., Riksen-Walraven, J. M., & van Dijk, J. P. M. (2002). Enhancing the quality of interaction between deafblind children and their educators. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 14, 87–109.

16. Janssen, M. J., Riksen-Walraven, J. M., & van Dijk, J. P. M. (2003). Contact: Effects of an intervention program to foster harmonious interactions between deaf–blind children and their educators. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 97, 215–229.

17. Janssen, M. J., Riksen-Walraven, J. M., & van Dijk, J. P. M. (2004). Enhancing the interactive competence of deafblind children: Do intervention effects endure? Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 16, 73–94.

Excluded Studies

1. Bailey, B. R., & Downing, J. (1994). Using visual accents to enhance attending to communication symbols for students with severe multiple disabilities. RE:view, 26, 101–118.

2. Bruce, S. (2002). Impact of a communication intervention model on teachers’ practice with children who are congenitally deaf–blind. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 96, 154–168.

3. Bruce, S., Godbold, E., & Naponelli-Gold, S. (2004). An analysis of communicative functions of teachers and their students who are congenitally deafblind. RE:view, 36, 81–90.

4. Chen, D., Klein, D., & Haney, M. (2007). Promoting interactions with infants who have complex multiple disabilities: Development and field-testing of the PLAI curriculum. Infants & Young Children, 20, 149–162.

5. Gothelf, C. R., Crimmins, D. B., Merver, C. A., & Finocchairo, P. A. (1993). Teaching students who are deaf–blind and cognitively disabled to effectively communicate choices during mealtime. Deaf–Blind Perspectives, 1, 6–8.

6. Griffith, P. L., & Robinson, J. H. (1984). Perceptions of tactile and visual iconicity by blind and sighted groups. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 78, 481–487.

7. Vervloed, M. P. J., van Dijk, J. M., Knoors, H., & van Dijk, J. P. M. (2006). Interaction between the teacher and congenitally deafblind child. American Annals of the Deaf, 151, 336–344.

8. Wheeler, L., & Griffin, H. C. (1997). A movement-based approach to language development in children who are deaf–blind. American Annals of the Deaf, 142, 387–340.

9. Zumalt, L. E., Silver, S., & Kramer, L. C. (1972). Evaluation of a communication device for deaf–blind persons. New Outlook for the Blind, 66, 20–25.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sigafoos, J., Didden, R., Schlosser, R. et al. A Review of Intervention Studies on Teaching AAC to Individuals who are Deaf and Blind. J Dev Phys Disabil 20, 71–99 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-007-9081-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-007-9081-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation