Search

Purpose: Students with multiple disabilities who are beginning communicators require augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) to communicate during school and participate in its academic and social aspects. Triadic gaze is a method for accessing low-tech AAC that minimizes physical demands on access for students with limited mobility, such as students with multiple disabilities. Thus, this study evaluated an instructional protocol for teaching triadic gaze as a low-tech AAC access method for students with multiple disabilities., Method: Three students with multiple disabilities who were beginning communicators participated in a multiple baseline across participants design with three phases: baseline, treatment, and generalization and maintenance. Participants engaged in instruction around using triadic gaze to communicate by making selections on an eye gaze board., Results: Visual analysis showed that all three participants acquired the use of triadic gaze as a method of accessing low-tech AAC in response to instruction. Effect size estimations suggested instruction was effective. The participants also demonstrated that the newly acquired skill generalized to interactions with familiar communication partners after instruction ended., Conclusions: These findings show that instruction can be effective in teaching triadic gaze as a low-tech AAC access method for students with multiple disabilities. Future research should explore the effects of using this access method on communicating across school contexts.

Purpose Augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) is an intervention approach that can promote communication and language in children with multiple disabilities who are beginning communicators. While a wide range of AAC technologies are available, little is known about the comparative effects of specific technology options. Given that engagement can be low for beginning communicators with multiple disabilities, the current study provides initial information about the comparative effects of 2 AAC technology options-high-tech visual scene displays (VSDs) and low-tech isolated picture symbols-on engagement. Method Three elementary-age beginning communicators with multiple disabilities participated. The study used a single-subject, alternating treatment design with each technology serving as a condition. Participants interacted with their school speech-language pathologists using each of the 2 technologies across 5 sessions in a block randomized order. Results According to visual analysis and nonoverlap of all pairs calculations, all 3 participants demonstrated more engagement with the high-tech VSDs than the low-tech isolated picture symbols as measured by their seconds of gaze toward each technology option. Despite the difference in engagement observed, there was no clear difference across the 2 conditions in engagement toward the communication partner or use of the AAC. Conclusions Clinicians can consider measuring engagement when evaluating AAC technology options for children with multiple disabilities and should consider evaluating high-tech VSDs as 1 technology option for them. Future research must explore the extent to which differences in engagement to particular AAC technologies result in differences in communication and language learning over time as might be expected.