Search

Although high-tech augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) is commonly used to teach social-communication skills to people with autism spectrum disorder or intellectual disabilities who have complex communication needs, there is a critical need to evaluate the efficacy of this approach. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the quality of single-case experimental design research on the use of high-tech AAC to teach social-communication skills to individuals with autism spectrum disorder or intellectual disabilities who have complex communication needs, to determine if this intervention approach meets the criteria for evidence-based practices as outlined by the What Works Clearinghouse. Additionally, information on the following extended methodological standards is reported on all included studies: participant description, description of setting and materials, interventionist description, baseline and intervention description, maintenance, generalization, procedural integrity, and social validity. The results from 18 multiple-baseline or multiple-probe experiments across 17 studies indicate that using high-tech AAC to teach social-communication skills to individuals with autism spectrum disorder or intellectual disabilities and complex communication needs can be considered an evidence-based practice, although the review of comparison (i.e., alternating treatment) design studies did not indicate that high-tech AAC is significantly better than low-tech AAC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The use of mobile technology is ubiquitous in modern society and is rapidly increasing in novel use. The use of mobile devices and software applications (“apps”) as augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) is rapidly expanding in the community, and this is also reflected in the research literature. This article reports the social-communication outcome results of a meta-analysis of single-case experimental research on the use of high-tech AAC, including mobile devices, by individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities, including autism spectrum disorder. Following inclusion determination, and excluding studies with poor design quality, raw data from 24 publications were extracted and included 89 A-B phase contrasts. Tau-U nonparametric, non-overlap effect size was used to aggregate the results across all studies for an omnibus and moderator analyses. Kendall’s S was calculated for confidence intervals,p-values, and standard error. The omnibus analysis indicated overall low to moderate positive effects on social-communication outcomes for high-tech AAC use by individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Objectives: This compares effects of explicit delay cue to reinforcement to general delay cue to reinforcement when attempting to decrease tangible-maintained challenging behaviours of children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Methods: Two school-age children with ASD participated in this study. In order to evaluate the effects of a general cue versus an explicit cue on the participants' tangibly maintained challenging behaviours, a multiple baseline design across settings with an embedded alternating treatments design was used. Results: Results suggested that both types of delay cue to reinforcement demonstrated effectiveness on decreasing tangible-maintained behaviours of the participant. For both participants, an explicit delay cue demonstrated slightly better effects on the participants' challenging behaviours then a general delay cue. Conclusions: This study adds an evidence to support that delayed reinforcement can be used as an effective strategy to reduce both escape and tangible-maintained challenging behaviours of children with ASD across multiple settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]