Advertisement

Empirische Evidenz für den Einsatz von Methoden der Unterstützten Kommunikation

  • Carina LükeEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Praxiswissen Logopädie book series (PRAXISWISSEN)

Zusammenfassung

Aufgrund des aktuellen Forschungsstandes zur Effektivität von Methoden der Unterstützte Kommunikation (UK) kann festgehalten werden, dass sich der Einsatz von körpereigenen und externen Methoden in der Mehrheit positiv auf die kommunikativen Fähigkeiten von Kindern, Jugendlichen und Erwachsenen mit erheblichen Beeinträchtigungen in diesem Bereich auswirkt. Darüber hinaus führt der Einsatz von Methoden der UK nicht zu einer Abnahme lautsprachlicher Fähigkeiten, sondern wirkt sich im Gegenteil vielfach sogar positiv auf diese aus. Das Modeling (die modellhafte Mitbenutzung der UK-Methode) sowie das Prompting (die Aufforderung zur Nutzung der UK-Methode) innerhalb natürlicher Interaktionen haben sich als förderliche Vorgehensweisen bei der Vermittlung der Verwendung von Methoden der UK gezeigt. Eine Ausnahme von diesen positiven Effekten von Methoden der UK stellt die Gestützte Kommunikation dar. Diese Methode hat sich eindeutig als nicht valide erwiesen und sollte daher keine weitere Verwendung finden.

Literatur

  1. ASHA – American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (2004) Report of the joint coordinating committee on evidence-based practice. http://www.asha.org/uploadedFiles/members/ebp/JCCEBPReport04.pdf. Zugegriffen am 20.08.2018
  2. Barbosa RTA, de Oliveira ASB, de Lima Antão JYF, Crocetta TB, Guarnieri R, Antunes TPC, Arab C, Massetti T, Bezerra IMP, de Mello Monteiro CB, de Abreu LC (2018) Augmentative and alternative communication in children with Down’s syndrome. A systematic review. BMC Pediatr 18:160.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12887-018-1144-5CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Baxter S, Enderby P, Evans P, Judge S (2012) Interventions using high-technology communication devices. A state of the art review. Folia Phoniatr Logop 64:137–144.  https://doi.org/10.1159/000338250CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Beushausen U (2012) Logik der Evidenz-basierten Sprachtherapie. VHN 81:99–111.  https://doi.org/10.2378/vhn2012.art05dCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beushausen U, Grötzbach H (2011) Evidenzbasierte Sprachtherapie. Grundlagen und Praxis. Elsevier, Urban & Fischer, MünchenGoogle Scholar
  6. Binger C, Light J (2006) Demographics of preschoolers who require AAC. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch 37:200–208.  https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2006/0220)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Bondy AS, Frost LA (1994) The picture exchange communication system. Focus Autistic Behav 9:1–19.  https://doi.org/10.1177/108835769400900301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brady N (2000) Improved comprehension of object names following voice output communication aid use. Two case studies. Augment Altern Commun 16:197–204.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07434610012331279054CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Branson D, Demchak M (2009) The use of augmentative and alternative communication methods with infants and toddlers with disabilities: a research review. Augment Altern Commun 25:274–286.  https://doi.org/10.3109/07434610903384529CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Cholewa J (2010) Empirische Sprachheilpädagogik. Strategien der Sprachtherapieforschungs bei Störungen der Sprachentwicklung. Empir Sonderpäd 2:48–68Google Scholar
  11. Cochrane AL (1972) Effectiveness and efficiency. Random reflections of health services. Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust, LondonGoogle Scholar
  12. Costantino MA, Bonati M (2014) A scoping review of interventions to supplement spoken communication for children with limited speech or language skills. PLoS One 9:e90744.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0090744CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Drager KDR, Postal VJ, Carrolus L, Castellano M, Gagliano C, Glynn J (2006) The effect of aided language modeling on symbol comprehension and production in 2 preschoolers with autism. Am J Speech-Lang Pathol 15:112–125.  https://doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360(2006/012)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Gerrig RJ, Zimbardo PG, Graf R (2011) Psychologie. Pearson, MünchenGoogle Scholar
  15. Hanson EK, Yorkston KM, Britton D (2011) Dysarthria in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: a systematic review of characteristics, speech treatment and augmentative and alternative communication options. J Med Speech-Lang Pathol 19:12–30Google Scholar
  16. Hong ER, Gong L-Y, Ninci J, Morin K, Davis JL, Kawaminami S, Shi Y-Q, Noro F (2017) A meta-analysis of single-case research on the use of tablet-mediated interventions for persons with ASD. Res Dev Disabil 70:198–214.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2017.09.013CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Hussy W, Schreier M, Echterhoff G (2010) Forschungsmethoden in Psychologie und Sozialwissenschaften für Bachelor. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hyppa Martin J, Reichle J, Dimian A, Chen M (2013) Communication modality sampling for a toddler with Angelman syndrome. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch 44:327–336.  https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2013/12-0108)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJM, Gavaghan DJ, McQuay HJ (1996) Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials; Is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 17:1–12.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0197-2456(95)00134-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jain A, Spieß R (2012) Versuchspläne der experimentellen Einzelfallforschung. Empir Sonderpäd 4:211–245Google Scholar
  21. Logan K, Iacono T, Trembath D (2017) A systematic review of research into aided AAC to increase social-communication functions in children with autism spectrum disorder. Augment Altern Commun 33:51–64.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07434618.2016.1267795CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Lüke C (2014) Impact of speech-generating devices on the language development of a child with childhood apraxia of speech: a case study. Disabil rehabil Assist Technol:1–9.  https://doi.org/10.3109/17483107.2014.913715
  23. Millar DC, Light JC, Schlosser RW (2006) The impact of augmentative and alternative communication intervention on the speech production of individuals with developmental disabilities: a research review. J Speech Lang Hear Res 49:248–264. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2006/021)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Myers DG (2008) Psychologie. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  25. OCEBM – Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine; Levels of Evidence Working Group (2011) The Oxford 2011 levels of evidence. http://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=5653. Zugegriffen am 20.08.2018
  26. Piaget J (1979) Sprechen und Denken des Kindes. Schwann, DüsseldorfGoogle Scholar
  27. Probst P (2005) „Communication unbound – or unfound“? Ein integratives Literatur-Review zur Wirksamkeit der „Gestützten Kommunikation“ („Facilitated Communication/FC“) bei nichtsprechenden autistischen und intelligenzgeminderten Personen. Z Klin Psychol Psychiatr Psychother 53:93–128Google Scholar
  28. Roddam H, Mühlhaus J (2017) Schmeckt’s? Evidenzbasierte Praxis in der Logopädie. Forum Logopädie 31:30–33Google Scholar
  29. Romski M, Sevcik RA, Adamson LB, Cheslock M, Smith A, Barker RM, Bakeman R (2010) Randomized comparison of augmented and nonaugmented language interventions for toddlers with developmental delays and their parents. J Speech Lang Hear Res 53:350–364. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2009/08-0156)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Romski M, Sevcik RA, Barton-Hulsey A, Whitmore AS (2015) Early intervention and AAC. What a difference 30 years makes. Augment Alternative Communication 31:181–202.  https://doi.org/10.3109/07434618.2015.1064163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Russo MJ, Prodan V, Meda NN, Carcavallo L, Muracioli A, Sabe L, Bonamico L, Allegri RF, Olmos L (2017) High-technology augmentative communication for adults with post-stroke aphasia. A systematic review. Expert Rev Medical Devices 14:355–370.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17434440.2017.1324291CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, Haynes RB, Richardson WS (1996) Evidence based medicine. What it is and what it isn’t. BMJ (Clinical Research ed) 312:71–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schlosser R, Lee D (2000) Promoting generalization and maintenance in augmentative and alternative communication: a meta-analysis of 20 years of effectiveness research. Augment Altern Commun 16:208–226.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07434610012331279074CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schlosser RW, Balandin S, Hemsley B, Iacono T, Probst P, von Tetzchner S (2014) Facilitated communication and authorship. A systematic review. Augment Altern Commun 30:359–368.  https://doi.org/10.3109/07434618.2014.971490CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Sennott SC, Light JC, McNaughton D (2016) AAC modeling intervention research review. Res Practice Persons Severe Disabil 41:101–115.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796916638822CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Shire SY, Jones N (2014) Communication partners supporting children with complex communication needs who use AAC. Commun Disord Q 37:3–15.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1525740114558254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Smith GCS, Pell JP (2003) Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge; Systematic review of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 327:1459–1461.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7429.1459CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. Stahmer AC, Ingersoll B (2004) Inclusive programming for toddlers with autism spectrum disorders. Outcomes from the children’s toddler school. J Posit Behav Interv 6:67–82.  https://doi.org/10.1177/10983007040060020201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. The Cochrane Collaboration (2018) Über uns. http://www.cochrane.de/de/ueber-uns. Zugegriffen am 30.04.2018
  40. Uman LS (2011) Systematic reviews and meta-analyses. J Can Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 20:57–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Verhagen AP, de Vet HC, de Bie RA, Kessels AG, Boers M, Bouter LM, Knipschild PG (1998) The Delphi list: a criteria list for quality assessment of randomized clinical trials for conducting systematic reviews developed by Delphi consensus. J Clin Epidemiol 51:1235–1241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. WHO – Weltgesundheitsorganisation (2005) ICF – International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. http://www.dimdi.de/dynamic/de/klassi/downloadcenter/icf/endfassung/icf_endfassung-2005-10-01.pdf. Zugegriffen am 27.07.2010
  43. Yoder PJ, Layton TL (1988) Speech following sign language training in autistic children with minimal verbal language. J Autism Dev Disord 18:217–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Yoder PJ, Lieberman RG (2010) Brief report. Randomized test of the efficacy of picture exchange communication system on highly generalized picture exchanges in children with ASD. J Autism Dev Disord 40:629–632.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-009-0897-yCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. Yoder P, Stone WL (2006a) A randomized comparison of the effect of two prelinguistic communication interventions on the acquisition of spoken communication in preschoolers with ASD. J Speech Lang Hear Res 49:698–711.  https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2006/051)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Yoder P, Stone WL (2006b) Randomized comparison of two communication interventions for preschoolers with autism spectrum disorders. J Consult Clin Psychol 74:426–435.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.74.3.426CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Yoder PJ, Warren SF (2002) Effects of prelinguistic milieu teaching and parent responsivity education on dyads involving children with intellectual disabilities. J Speech Lang Hear Res 45:1158–1174.  https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2002/094)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Deutschland, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Fakultät für Kulturwissenschaften PsycholinguistikUniversität PaderbornPaderbornDeutschland

Personalised recommendations