Abstract
Augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) approaches offer expressive and receptive supports for the segment of the population of individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) who have little or no functional speech. The National Center for Autism Evidence and Practice (NCAEP) declared augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) interventions for individuals with autism an “evidence-based practice.” Following a brief analysis of the breakdown of studies included in NCAEP by dependent variable, we introduce each of the four papers published as part of this special issue on Advances in Augmentative and Alternative Communication Research for Individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder. In addition to elucidating the contributions and advances of each paper to the research base, including the NCAEP report, we provide a critical commentary as applicable in the hopes of stimulating and guiding further research.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1 In our opinion, the term “evidence-based practice” is misused in their report because this term refers to a process including multiple steps (i.e., ask a question, search for evidence, appraise evidence, integrate appraised evidence with clinical expertise & stakeholder perspectives, evaluate implementation Schlosser & Raghavendra, Citation2004) rather than a designation of evidence support behind an intervention. For this reason, we prefer the term “empirically-supported interventions” for such designations (e.g., Schlosser & Sigafoos, Citation2008).
2 Because some participants received an iPad with an AAC application rather than a dedicated SGD it is technically incorrect to label them all as SGDs - SGDs is a term that the insurance system reserves for devices that are dedicated. “Speech output technologies” has been used a more concise umbrella term that includes AAC applications on general consumer-level devices (e.g., iPad) as well as dedicated SGDs (Schlosser & Koul, Citation2015).