A systematic quality review of high-tech AAC interventions as an evidence-based practice

Abstract

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.

Keywords:

• Evidence-based practice
• autism spectrum disorder
• intellectual disability
• augmentative and alternative communication
• high-tech AAC
• quality of design and evidence
• quality of methodology
• systematic review

View addendum:

Addendum

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding

The research reported here was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education through Grant R324B160038 awarded to UNC-Chapel Hill and by the Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education through Grant H325D110046 awarded to Texas A&M University. The opinions expressed represent those of the authors and do not represent the Institute of the US Department of Education.