The Increase in Verbal Operants Following the
Implementation of Augmentative and
Alternative Communication (AAC) Devices with Children
on the Autism Spectrum
The Increase in Verbal Operants Following the
Implementation of Augmentative and
Alternative Communication (AAC) Devices with Children
on the Autism Spectrum
Gili Rechany M.A., BCBAMegan Petrizio M.A., SLP-CCC
Gili Rechany M.A., BCBAMegan Petrizio M.A., SLP-CCC
LiteratureLiterature
Charlop-Christy, M. H., Carpenter, M., Le, L., LeBlanc, L. A., & Kellet, K. (2002). Using the picture exchange communication system (PECS) with children with autism: Assessment of pecs acquisition, speech, social-communicative behavior, and problem behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 35, 213-231.
Schepis, M. M., Reid, D. H., Behrmann, M. M., & Sutton, K. A. (1998). Increasing communicative interactions of young children with autism using a voice output communication aid and naturalistic teaching. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 31, 561-578.
Mirenda, P., (2003) Toward Functional Augmentative and Alternative Communication for Students with Autism: Manual Signs, Graphic Symbols, and Voice Output Communication. Aids Journal of Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in the Schools, 34, 203-216.
Johnston, S., Reichle, J. (2004) Supporting Augmentative and Alternative Communication Use by Beginning Communicators with Severe Disabilities. American Journal of Speech Language Pathology, 13, 20-30.
Charlop-Christy, M. H., Carpenter, M., Le, L., LeBlanc, L. A., & Kellet, K. (2002). Using the picture exchange communication system (PECS) with children with autism: Assessment of pecs acquisition, speech, social-communicative behavior, and problem behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 35, 213-231.
Schepis, M. M., Reid, D. H., Behrmann, M. M., & Sutton, K. A. (1998). Increasing communicative interactions of young children with autism using a voice output communication aid and naturalistic teaching. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 31, 561-578.
Mirenda, P., (2003) Toward Functional Augmentative and Alternative Communication for Students with Autism: Manual Signs, Graphic Symbols, and Voice Output Communication. Aids Journal of Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in the Schools, 34, 203-216.
Johnston, S., Reichle, J. (2004) Supporting Augmentative and Alternative Communication Use by Beginning Communicators with Severe Disabilities. American Journal of Speech Language Pathology, 13, 20-30.
AbstractAbstract
The current investigation focuses on the evaluation and implementation of AAC devices with children presenting with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD).
This study explores prerequisite skills needed for successful implementation of an AAC device by examining the children’s performance on the ABLLS assessment, as well as direct observation of functional communication in the classroom.
A multiple baseline across participants design was implemented.
This study measures the increase of verbal operants following the implementation of augmentative and alternative Communication (AAC) Devices.
Three Verbal Behavior operants were measured; generalized mands, generalized tacts, and generalized intraverbals.
The current investigation focuses on the evaluation and implementation of AAC devices with children presenting with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD).
This study explores prerequisite skills needed for successful implementation of an AAC device by examining the children’s performance on the ABLLS assessment, as well as direct observation of functional communication in the classroom.
A multiple baseline across participants design was implemented.
This study measures the increase of verbal operants following the implementation of augmentative and alternative Communication (AAC) Devices.
Three Verbal Behavior operants were measured; generalized mands, generalized tacts, and generalized intraverbals.
Method: ParticipantsMethod: Participants
Participants Two school age boys and one preschool boy
diagnosed with an Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) participated in this study.
Student A- 8 years old. He is a listener/speaker. He is an emerging reader/writer.
Student B- 4 years old. He is a listener/ emerging speaker. He is an emerging reader/writer.
Student C- 7 years old. He is an emerging listener/speaker. He is a beginner reader/writer.
Participants Two school age boys and one preschool boy
diagnosed with an Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) participated in this study.
Student A- 8 years old. He is a listener/speaker. He is an emerging reader/writer.
Student B- 4 years old. He is a listener/ emerging speaker. He is an emerging reader/writer.
Student C- 7 years old. He is an emerging listener/speaker. He is a beginner reader/writer.
Method: SettingMethod: Setting
Shema Kolainu- Hear Our VoicesAll sessions were conducted in the
participants’ classrooms. The students are in a self-contained class for students with an Autism Spectrum Disorder.
Behavioral Analytic Program6:1:3 classroom ratio
Shema Kolainu- Hear Our VoicesAll sessions were conducted in the
participants’ classrooms. The students are in a self-contained class for students with an Autism Spectrum Disorder.
Behavioral Analytic Program6:1:3 classroom ratio
Experimental DesignExperimental Design
Data Collection Independent variable: High-Tech Augmentative and
Alternative Communication Devices (AAC) Dependent variables: Verbal Operants- generalized
mands, generalized tacts, and generalized intraverbals. Interobserver Agreement
Interobserver agreement was calculated by the number of agreements divided by the number of disagreements times 100. IOA was done daily for 10 minutes.
Participant A- 89% Participant B-92% Participant C- 97%
Design A multiple baseline design across participants was used
to show the relationship between the independent and the dependent variables.
Data Collection Independent variable: High-Tech Augmentative and
Alternative Communication Devices (AAC) Dependent variables: Verbal Operants- generalized
mands, generalized tacts, and generalized intraverbals. Interobserver Agreement
Interobserver agreement was calculated by the number of agreements divided by the number of disagreements times 100. IOA was done daily for 10 minutes.
Participant A- 89% Participant B-92% Participant C- 97%
Design A multiple baseline design across participants was used
to show the relationship between the independent and the dependent variables.
Study SequenceStudy Sequence
Baseline Generalized, mands, tacts and intraverbals were
recorded throughout the day (8:30-2:00). The students used their PECS books for communication.
Evaluation Complete assessment of both direct and indirect
observations was completed Training
Navigating and Transporting the device Implementation
Generalized, mands, tacts and intraverbals were recorded throughout the day (8:30-2:00). The students used a high tech devices for communication.
Baseline Generalized, mands, tacts and intraverbals were
recorded throughout the day (8:30-2:00). The students used their PECS books for communication.
Evaluation Complete assessment of both direct and indirect
observations was completed Training
Navigating and Transporting the device Implementation
Generalized, mands, tacts and intraverbals were recorded throughout the day (8:30-2:00). The students used a high tech devices for communication.
AAC Evaluation ProceduresAAC Evaluation Procedures
Two Part Assessment Cognitive Evaluation
ABLLS Scores Kaufman Praxis Test
Assessed Speech Production and Intelligibility
Preschool Language Scale- Informal Expressive Language Skills Receptive Language Skills
Observations In classroom, playground, 1:1 therapy Interviews with parents/teachers/allied
professionals Technical Evaluation
Low Technology Evaluation High Technology Evaluation
Two Part Assessment Cognitive Evaluation
ABLLS Scores Kaufman Praxis Test
Assessed Speech Production and Intelligibility
Preschool Language Scale- Informal Expressive Language Skills Receptive Language Skills
Observations In classroom, playground, 1:1 therapy Interviews with parents/teachers/allied
professionals Technical Evaluation
Low Technology Evaluation High Technology Evaluation
Low Technology Evaluation
Low Technology Evaluation
Initial Assessment of Symbolic Language Abilities for Aided AAC SystemsPointing as Communication
Discrimination
Sequencing Symbols
Categorizing and Associations
Initial Assessment of Symbolic Language Abilities for Aided AAC SystemsPointing as Communication
Discrimination
Sequencing Symbols
Categorizing and Associations
Low Technology Evaluation cont…
Low Technology Evaluation cont…
Switches for activation of motorized toys
Range of MotionFollowing DirectionsCause and Effect
TechTalk 8Can they handle a static display?Array of 2-4, 4-6, 6-8 pictures/symbols/iconsWere they able to take part in activities
(Discriminate, Sequence, Categorize)Can they carry it, open it, and start the
device
Switches for activation of motorized toys
Range of MotionFollowing DirectionsCause and Effect
TechTalk 8Can they handle a static display?Array of 2-4, 4-6, 6-8 pictures/symbols/iconsWere they able to take part in activities
(Discriminate, Sequence, Categorize)Can they carry it, open it, and start the
device
High Technology Evaluation
High Technology Evaluation
IIIDV4Large dynamic display deviceKeyboard capabilitiesWord predictionSynthesized speech
IIIMT4Same as above, but smaller for
portability
IIIDV4Large dynamic display deviceKeyboard capabilitiesWord predictionSynthesized speech
IIIMT4Same as above, but smaller for
portability
Training HierarchyTraining Hierarchy
Device Activation using the “on” button after transitioning
between activities independently Touch-Screen Navigation
navigating through the main screen independently
navigating through two or more screens independently
Device Mobility carrying the device using the carrying case
in all settings independently
Device Activation using the “on” button after transitioning
between activities independently Touch-Screen Navigation
navigating through the main screen independently
navigating through two or more screens independently
Device Mobility carrying the device using the carrying case
in all settings independently
ImplementationImplementation
Generalized mands, tacts, and intraverbals were recorded throughout the day.MandsTactsIntraverbals
Generalized mands, tacts, and intraverbals were recorded throughout the day.MandsTactsIntraverbals
Student AStudent A
-5
15
35
55
75
95
115
135
155
175
195
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Days
Gen
era
lized
Verb
al O
pera
nts
Mands
Tacts
Intraverbals
Low - Tech Augmantive Communication Device
High - Tech Augmantive Communication Device
Student BStudent B
-5
45
95
145
195
245
295
345
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Days
Gen
era
lized
Verb
al O
pera
nts
Mands
Tacts
Intraverbals
Low -Tech Augmantive Communication Device
High -Tech Augmantive Communication Device
Student CStudent C
-5
5
15
25
35
45
55
65
75
85
95
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Days
Gen
era
lized
Verb
al O
pare
nts
Mands
Tacts
Intraverbals
Low -Tech Augmantive Communication Device High -Tech Augmantive Communication Device
DiscussionDiscussion
Different trend for each learner based on their verbal behavior
All students communication increased following the implementation of a high tech AAC device
Student C requires additional interventions to strengthen his listener and listener/speaker domains.
Different trend for each learner based on their verbal behavior
All students communication increased following the implementation of a high tech AAC device
Student C requires additional interventions to strengthen his listener and listener/speaker domains.
QuestionsQuestions
1.) To what extent does the vocalization increase paired with the use of an AAC device for students who are stimuable for the production of speech sounds? Considering the demonstration of student B’s high levels of generalized tacts with vocalizations, it appears that this behavior requires further exploration.
2.) Which learners present higher in certain areas and lower in others? Taking into account the three types of learners included in this study are there may be trends specific to the implementation of an AAC device and that specific type of learner.
1.) To what extent does the vocalization increase paired with the use of an AAC device for students who are stimuable for the production of speech sounds? Considering the demonstration of student B’s high levels of generalized tacts with vocalizations, it appears that this behavior requires further exploration.
2.) Which learners present higher in certain areas and lower in others? Taking into account the three types of learners included in this study are there may be trends specific to the implementation of an AAC device and that specific type of learner.
3.) Does measured generalization of the AAC device continue to take place with all three types of learners over an extended period of time?
4.) Can we expect the merging listener-speaker to demonstrate similar behaviors as other learners in the study?
5.) Are similar results possible with low technology voice output devices or is there a discrepancy between the implementation of a high technology device versus a low technology device, specifically with the ASD population?
3.) Does measured generalization of the AAC device continue to take place with all three types of learners over an extended period of time?
4.) Can we expect the merging listener-speaker to demonstrate similar behaviors as other learners in the study?
5.) Are similar results possible with low technology voice output devices or is there a discrepancy between the implementation of a high technology device versus a low technology device, specifically with the ASD population?
