Selecting graphic symbols for an initial request lexicon: integrative review

References

• Alwell, M., Hunt, P., Goetz, L., & Sailor, W. (1989). Teaching gen-eralized communicative behaviors within interrupted behavior chain contexts. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 14, 91–100.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Angelo, D. H., & Goldstein, H. (1990). Effects of a pragmatic teach-ing strategy for requesting information by communication board users. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 55,231–243.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Beukelman, DR., & Mirenda, P. (1998). Augmentative and alterna-tive communication: Management of severe communication dis-orders in children and adults (2nd ed.) Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
   Google Scholar
• Briggs, T. R. (1983). An investigation of the efficiency and effec-tiveness of three nonvocal communication systems with severely handicapped students. Unpublished doctoral disserta-tion, Georgia State University, Atlanta.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, R. (1977). Why are signed languages easier to learn than spoken languages? Part two. Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 32, 25–44.
   Google Scholar
• Burroughs, J., Albritton, E., Eaton, B., & Montague, J. (1990). A comparative study of language delayed preschool children's ability to recall symbols from two symbol systems. Augmenta-tive and Alternative Communication, 6, 202–206.
   Google Scholar
• Clark, C. (1981). Learning words using traditional orthography and the symbols of Rebus, Bliss, and Carrier. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 46, 191–196.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Clarke, S. (1987). An evaluation of the relationship between recep-tive speech and manual sign language with mentally handi-capped children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southampton, United Kingdom.
   Google Scholar
• Duker, P. C., Dortmans, A., & Lodder, E. (1993). Establishing the manding function of communicative gestures with individuals with severe/profound mental retardation. Research in Develop-mental Disabilities, 14, 39–49.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ecklund, S., & Reichle, J. (1987). A comparison of normal chil-dren's ability to recall symbols from two logographic systems.Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 18, 34–40.
   Google Scholar
• Forbus, S. S. (1987). A comparative study of the ease of learning Rebus and Bliss symbols by severely mentally retarded adults. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Arkansas at Little Rock.
   Google Scholar
• Franzkowiak, T. (1990). Kommunizieren mit grafischen Symbolen: Eine Bestandsaufnahme. In H. Brügelmann & H. Balhorn (Eds.), Das Gehim, sein Alfabet und andere Geschichten (pp. 178–184). Konstanz: Faude.
   Google Scholar
• Fristoe, M., & Lloyd, L. (1979). Effects on learning of instructed use of manual signs. Asha, 21, 792.
   Google Scholar
• Fuller, D. (1997). Effects of translucency and complexity on the associative learning of Blissymbols by cognitively normal chil-dren and adults. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 12, 30–39.
   Google Scholar
• Fuller, D. R., Lloyd, L. L., & Schlosser, R. W. (1996, August). What do we know about graphic AAC symbols, and what do we still need to know about them? Paper presented at the ISAAC Research Symposium, Vancouver, BC.
   Google Scholar
• Fuller, D., Lloyd, L., & Stratton, M. (1997). Aided AAC symbols. In L. L. Lloyd, D. R. Fuller, & H. H. Arvidson (Eds.), Augmentative and alternative communication: A handbook of principles and practices (pp. 48–79). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
   Google Scholar
• Fuller, D. R., & Stratton, M. M. (1992). Representativeness versus translucency: Different theoretical backgrounds, but are they really different concepts? A position paper. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 7,51–58.
   Google Scholar
• Gangkofer, M. (1990). Bilder lesen muss man lernen: Grund-schüler deuten BLISS-Symbole. In H. Brügelmann & H. Bal-horn (Eds.), Das Gehim, sein Alfabet und andere Geschichten (pp. 169–177). Konstanz: Faude.
   Google Scholar
• Gee, K., Graham, N., Goetz, L., Oshima, G., & Yoshioka, K. (1991). Teaching students to request the continuation of routine activities by using time delay and decreasing physical assis-tance in the context of chain interruption. Journal of the Asso-ciation for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 16, 154–167.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glennen, S. L., & Calculator, S. N. (1985). Training functional com-munication board use: A pragmatic approach. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 1, 134–142.
   Google Scholar
• Goossens', C. (1984). The relative iconicity and learnability of verb referents differentially represented by manual signs, Blissym-bols, and Rebus symbols: An investigation with moderately retarded individuals (Doctoral dissertation, Purdue University, 1983). Dissertation Abstracts International, 45, 809A.
   Google Scholar
• Granlund, M., & Olsson, C. (1999). Efficacy of communication intervention for presymbolic communicators. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 15, 25–37.
   Google Scholar
• Harrell, M., Bowers, J. W., & Bacal, J. P. (1973). Another stab at meaning: Concreteness, iconicity, and conventionality. Speech Monographs, 40, 199–207.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hayes, C. L. (1996). The effects of translucency and complexity on the acquisition of Blissymbols by cognitively normal elderly indi-viduals. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Arkansas at Little Rock.
   Google Scholar
• Hem, S. L., Lammers, J., & Fuller, D. R. (1996). The effects of translucency, complexity, and other variables on the acquisition of Blissymbols by institutionalized individuals with mental retar-dation. Unpublished manuscript, University of Arkansas at Lit-tle Rock.
   Google Scholar
• Homer, R. H., & Day, H. M. (1991). The effects of response effi-ciency on functionally equivalent competing behaviors. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 719–732.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hunt, P., Goetz, L., Alwell, M., & Sailor, W. (1986). Using an inter-rupted behavior chain strategy to teach generalized communi-cation responses. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 11, 196–204.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hurlbut, B., lwata, B., & Green, J. (1982). Non-vocal language acquisition in adolescents with severe physical disabilities: Blis-symbol versus iconic stimulus formats. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 15, 241–258.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, C. J., Paivio, A., & Clark, J. M. (1996). Cognitive com-ponents of picture naming. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 113–139.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kozleski, E. (1991a). Expectant delay procedure for teaching requests. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 7, 11–19.
   Google Scholar
• Kozleski, E. (1991b). Visual symbol acquisition by students with autism. Exceptionality, 2, 173–194.
   Google Scholar
• Law, M., & Baum, C. (1998). Evidence-based occupational therapy. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 65, 131–135.
   Google Scholar
• Levie, W. H. (1987). Research on pictures: A guide to the litera-ture. In D. M. Willows & H. A. Houghton (Eds.), The psychology of illustration: Vol. 1. Basic research (pp. 1–50). New York: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Lim, L., Browder, D. M., & Sigafoos, J. (1998). The role of response effort and motion study in functionally equivalent task designs and alternatives. Journal of Behavioral Education, 8, 81–102.
   Google Scholar
• Lloyd, L., & Fuller, D. (1990). The role of iconicity in augmentative and alternative communication symbol learning. In W. Fraser (Ed.), Key issues in mental retardation research (pp. 295–306). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Luftig, R., & Bersani, H. (1985a). An initial investigation of translu-cency, transparency, and component complexity of Blissymbol-ics. Journal of Childhood Communication Disorders, 8, 191–209.
   Google Scholar
• Luftig, R., & Bersani, H. (1985b). An investigation of two variables influencing Blissymbol learnability with nonhandicapped adults. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 1, 32–37.
   Google Scholar
• Millar, D., Light, J. L., & Schlosser, R. W. (2000, August). The impact of AAC on natural speech development: A meta-analy-sis. Paper presented at the Biennial Conference of the Interna-tional Society for Augmentative and Alternative Communica-tion, Washington, DC.
   Google Scholar
• Mirenda, P., & Locke, P. (1989). A comparison of symbol trans-parency in nonspeaking persons with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 54, 131–140.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mizuko, M. (1987). Transparency and ease of learning of symbols represented by Blissymbols, PCS, and Picsyms. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 3, 129–136.
   Google Scholar
• Mizuko, M., & Reichle, J. (1989). Transparency and recall of sym-bols among intellectually handicapped adults. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 54, 627–633.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Nail-Chiwetalu, B. (1992). The influence of symbol and learner factors on the learnability of Blissymbols by students with men-tal retardation. (Doctoral dissertation, Purdue University, 1991). Dissertation Abstracts International, 53, 1125A.
   Google Scholar
• Paivio, A. (1971). Imagery and verbal processes. Toronto: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
   Google Scholar
• Pavio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual-coding approach. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Reichle, J. (1991). Defining the decisions involved in designing and implementing augmentative and alternative communication sys-tems. In J. Reichle, J. York, & J. Sigafoos (Eds.), Implementing augmentative and alternative communication: Strategies for learners with severe disabilities (pp. 39–60). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
   Google Scholar
• Reichle, J., Barrett, C., Tetlie, R., & McQuarter, R. (1987). The effect of prior intervention to establish generalized requesting on the acquisition of object labels. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 3,3–11.
   Google Scholar
• Reichle, J., & Brown, L. (1986). Teaching the use of a multi-page direct selection communication board to an adult with autism. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 11, 68–73.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reichle, J., & Johnston, S. S. (1999). Teaching the conditional use of communicative requests to two school-age children with severe developmental disabilities. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 30, 324–334.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reichle, J., & Sigafoos, J. (1991). Establishing an initial repertoire of requesting. In J. Reichle, J. York, & J. Sigafoos, (Eds.), Imple-menting augmentative and alternative communication: Strate-gies for learners with severe disabilities (pp. 89–114). Balti-more: Paul H. Brookes.
   Google Scholar
• Reichle, J., Sigafoos, J., & Piché, L. (1989). Teaching an adoles-cent with blindness and severe disabilities: A correspondence between requesting and selecting preferred objects. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 14, 75–80.
   Google Scholar
• Reichle, J., & Wacker, D. (1993). Communicative alternatives to challenging behavior: Integrating functional assessment and intervention strategies. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
   Google Scholar
• Reichle, J., York, J., & Sigafoos, J. (1991). Implementing aug-mentative and alternative communication: Strategies for learn-ers with severe disabilities. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
   Google Scholar
• Remington, B. (1993). Augmentative and alternative communica-tion and behavior analysis: A productive partnership? Aug-mentative and Alternative Communication, 10, 3–13.
   Google Scholar
• Roberts-Pennell, D., & Sigafoos, J. (1999). Teaching young chil-dren with developmental disabilities to request more play using the behaviour chain interruptions strategy. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 12, 100–112.
   Google Scholar
• Robinson, J. H., & Griffith, P. L. (1979). On the scientific status of iconicity. Sign Language Studies, 25, 297–315.
   Google Scholar
• Romski, M., & Sevcik, R. (1992). Developing augmented language in children with severe mental retardation. In S. Warren & J. Reichle (Eds.), Causes and effects in communication and lan-guage intervention (pp. 113–131). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
   Google Scholar
• Romski, M. A., Sevcik, R. A., & Pate, J. L. (1988). Establishment of symbolic communication in persons with severe retardation. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 53,94–107.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rotholz, D., Berkowitz, S., & Burberry, J. (1989). Functionality of two modes of communication in the community by students with developmental disabilities: A comparison of signing and com-munication books. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 14, 227–233.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schlosser, R. W. (Ed.) (in press). The efficacy of augmentative and alternative communication interventions: Toward evidence-based practice. New York: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schlosser, R. W. (1997). Nomenclature and category levels in graphic symbols, Part II: The role of similarity in categorization. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 13, 14–29.
   Google Scholar
• Schlosser, R. W. (1999). Comparative efficacy of interventions in augmentative and alternative communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 15, 56–68.
   Google Scholar
• Schlosser, R. W. (2002). On the importance of being earnest about treatment integrity. Augmentative and Alternative Communica-tion, 18, 36–44.
   Google Scholar
• Schlosser, R. W., & Raghavendra, P. (in press). Toward evidence-based practice in augmentative and alternative communication. In R. W. Schlosser (Ed.), The efficacy of augmentative and alternative communication interventions: Toward evidence-based practice. New York: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schlosser, R. W., Belfiore, P., Nigam, R., Blischak, D., & Hetzroni, 0. (1995). The effects of speech output technology in the learn-ing of graphic symbols. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 28, 537–549.
   Google Scholar
• Schlosser, R. W., Lloyd, L. L., & McNaughton, S. (1997). Graphic symbol selection in research and practice: Making the case for a goal driven process. In E. Bjorck-Akesson & P. Lindsey (Eds.). "Communicating...naturally"- Theoretical and methodological issues in augmentative and alternative communication (pp. 126-141). Västeras, Sweden: Mälardalen University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schwartz, I. S., Garfinkle, A. N., & Bauer, J. (1998). The Picture Exchange Communication System: Communicative outcomes for young children with disabilities. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 18, 144–159.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sevcik, R., Romski, M., & Wilkinson, K. (1991). Roles of graphic symbols in the language acquisition process for persons with severe cognitive disabilities. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 7, 161–170.
   Google Scholar
• Shalit, A. (1991). A microcomputer-based synthesis of Blissymbols from key components to facilitate language acquisition in severely disabled people. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Cape Town, South Africa.
   Google Scholar
• Sidman, M., & Tailby, W. (1982). Conditional discrimination vs. matching-to-sample: An expansion of the testing paradigm. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 37,5–22.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sigafoos, J. (1998). Assessing conditional use of graphic mode requesting in a young boy with autism. Journal of Develop-mental and Physical Disabilities, 10, 133–151.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sigafoos, J., Couzens, D., Roberts, D., Phillips, C., & Goodison, K. (1996). Teaching requests for food and drink to children with multiple disabilities in a graphic communication mode. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 8, 247–262.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sigafoos, J., Doss, S., & Reichle, J. (1989). Developing mand and tact repertoires in persons with severe developmental disabili-ties using graphic symbols. Research in Developmental Dis-abilities, 10, 183–200.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sigafoos, J., & Kook, A. M. (1992). Obtaining a correspondence between requesting and selecting preferred objects. Develop-mental Disabilities Bulletin, 20, 1–12.
   Google Scholar
• Sigafoos, J., Laurie, S., & Pennell, D. (1996). Teaching children with Rett syndrome to request preferred objects using aided communication: Two preliminary studies. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 12, 88–96.
   Google Scholar
• Sigafoos, J., & Meikle, B. (1995). A comparison of two procedures for increasing spontaneous requests in children with autism. European Journal on Mental Disability, 2, 11–24.
   Google Scholar
• Sigafoos, J., & Mirenda, P. (in press). Strengthening commu-nicative behaviors for accessing desired items and activities. To appear in J. Reichle, D. Beukelman, & J. Light (Eds.), Implementing augmentative communication systems: Exem-plary strategies for beginning communicators. Baltimore: Brookes.
   Google Scholar
• Sigafoos, J., & Reichle, J. (1992). Comparing explicit to general-ized requesting in an augmentative communication mode. Jour-nal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 4, 167–188.
   Google Scholar
• Sigafoos, J., Reichle, J., Doss, S., Hall, K., & Pettitt, L. (1990). "Spontaneous" transfer of stimulus control from tact to mand contingencies. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 11, 165–176.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sigafoos, J., & Roberts-Pennell, D. (1999). Wrong-item format: A promising intervention for teaching socially appropriate forms of rejecting to children with developmental disabilities? Augmen-tative and Alternative Communication, 15, 135–140.
   Google Scholar
• Simeonsson, R. (1995). Intervention in communicative disability: Evaluation issues and evidence. In J. Roennberg, & E. Hjelmquist (Eds.), Communicative disability: Compensation and development. Linkoping: Linkoping University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Simone, R (1995). Iconicity in language. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Pren-tice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Soto, G., Belfiore, P., Schlosser, R., & Haynes, C. (1993). Teach-ing specific requests: A comparative analysis on skill acquisition and preference using two AAC aids. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 28, 169–178.
   Google Scholar
• Soto, G., & Olmstead, W. (1993). A semiotic perspective for AAC. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 9, 134–141.
   Google Scholar
• Stephenson, J., & Linfoot K. (1995). Choice-making as a natural context for teaching early communication board use to a ten year old boy with no spoken language and severe intellectual disability. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Develop-mental Disabilities, 20, 263–286.
   Google Scholar
• Stokes, T., Osnes, P. G., & Chambers DaVerne, K. (1993). Com-municative correspondence and mediated generalization. In J. Reichle & D. P. Wacker (Eds.), Communicative alternatives to challenging behavior: Integrating functional assessment and intervention strategies (pp. 299–315). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
   Google Scholar
• Van Acker, R., & Grant, S. (1995). An effective computer-based requesting system for persons with Rett syndrome. Journal of Childhood Communication Disorders, 2, 31–38.
   Google Scholar
• van Balkom, H., & Welle Donker-Gimbrere, M. (1988). Kiezen voor communicatie: een handboek over communicatie van mensen met een motorische of meervoudige handicap [Choosing for communication: A handbook about the communication of motoric and multiply handicapped children]. Nykerk: Intro.
   Google Scholar
• Yovetich, W., & Young, T. (1988). The effects of representative-ness and concreteness on the "guessability" of Blissymbols. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 4, 35–39.
   Google Scholar