Efficacy of AAC interventions: Methodologic issues in evaluating behavior change, generalization, and effects

References

• Abrahamsen, A. A., Romski, M. A., & Sevcik, R. A. (1989). Concomitants of success in acquiring an augmentative sys-tem: Changes in attention, communication, and sociability. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 93, 475–496.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Alwell, M., Hunt, P., Goetz, L., & Sailor, W. (1989). Teaching generalized communicative behaviors with interrupted behav-ior 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 teaching strategy for requesting information by communication board users. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 55, 231–243.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Baer, D. M., Wolf, M. M., & Risley, T. R. (1968). Some current dimensions of applied behavior analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 91–97.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barlow, D. H., & Hersen, M. (1984). Single case experimental designs (2nd ed.). New York: Pergamon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Barrios, B. A., & Hartmann, D. P. (1988). Recent developments in single-subject methodology: Methods for analyzing gener-alization, maintenance, and multicomponent treatments. In M. Hersen, R. M. Eisler, & P.M. Miller (Eds.), Progress in behavior modification: Vol. 22 (pp. 11-47). Newbury Park, London, New Delhi: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Benaroya, S., Wesley, S., Ogilvie, H., Klein, L. S., & Meaney, M. (1977). Sign language and multisensory input training of chil-dren with communication and related developmental disorders. Journal of Autism and Childhood Schizophrenia, 7, 23–31.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Beukelman, D. R. (1986). Evaluating the effectiveness of inter-vention programs. In S. W. Blackstone (Ed.), Augmentative communication: An introduction (pp. 423–445). Rockville, MD: American Speech-Language-Hearing Association.
   Google Scholar
• Beukelman, D. R. (1991). Magic and cost of communicative competence. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 7, 2–10.
   Google Scholar
• Beukelman, D. R. (1993). AAC research: A multi-dimensional learning community. Augmentative and Alternative Communi-cation, 9, 63–68.
   Google Scholar
• Calculator, S. N. (1988a). Evaluating the effectiveness of AAC programs for persons with severe handicaps. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 4, 177–179.
   Google Scholar
• Calculator, S. N. (1988b). Promoting the acquisition and gener-alization of conversational skills by individuals with severe disabilities. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 4, 93–103.
   Google Scholar
• Calculator, S. N. (1991). Evaluating the efficacy of AAC interven-tion for children with severe disabilities. In J. Brodin & E. Björk-Akesson (Eds.), Proceedings of the First ISAAC Re-
   Google Scholar
• McEwen, I. R., & Karlan, G. R. (1990). Case studies: Why and how. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 6,69-75. McNaughton, S. (1989). Teaching and learning Bliss. Communi- cating Together, 7,12–13.
   Google Scholar
• McNaughton, S. (1990). Gaining the most from AAC's growing years. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 6,2–14.
   Google Scholar
• McNaughton, D., & Light, J. (1989). Teaching facilitators to sup-port the communication skills of an adult with severe cognitive disabilities: A case study. Augmentative and Alternative Com-munication, 5,35–41.
   Google Scholar
• Nelson, K. E. (1989). Indirect aspects of communicative gains: Toward fuller accounts of sequence and process. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 93,503–505.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Newell, A. F., Arnott, J. L., Booth, L., Beattie, W., Brophy, B., & Ricketts, I. W. (1992). Effect of the "PAL" word prediction system on the quality and quantity of text generation. Augmen-tative and Alternative Communication, 8, 304–311.
   Google Scholar
• Olswang, L. B. (1990). Treatment efficacy: The breadth of re-search. In L. B. Olswang, C. K. Thompson, S. F. Warren, & N. J. Minghetti (Eds.), Treatment efficacy research in com-munication disorders. Proceedings of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Foundation's National Conference on Treatment Efficacy (pp. 99-103). San Antonio, TX: ASHA.
   Google Scholar
• Reichle, J., & Johnston, S. (1992). Evaluating the efficacy of AAC interventions. In D. J. Gardner-Bonneau (Ed.), Proceedings of the Second ISAAC Research Symposium in Augmentative and Alternative Communication: Methodological Issues in Re-search in Augmentative and Alternative Communication (pp. 44–54). Philadelphia, PA: ISAAC.
   Google Scholar
• Reichle, J., & Sigafoos, J. (1991). Establishing spontaneity and generalization. In J. Reichle, R. J. York, & J. Sigafoos (Eds.). Implementing augmentative and alternative communication: Strategies for learners with severe disabilities (pp. 157–172). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
   Google Scholar
• Reichle, J., & Yoder, D. E. (1985). Communication board use in severely handicapped learners. Language, Speech, and Hear-ing Services in Schools, 16, 146–157.
   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
• Rosen, A., & Proctor, E. (1981). Distinctions between treatment outcomes and their implications for treatment evaluation. Jour-nal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 49, 418–425.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schlosser, R. W. (1991, May). Generalization issues in augmenta-tive and alternative communication: Preliminary findings from a meta-analysis. Paper presented at the National Meeting of the American Association on Mental Retardation, Washington, DC.
   Google Scholar
• Schlosser, R. W. (1994a). Social validation in the efficacy evalu-ation of AAC interventions: Methodological issues (Research in progress).
   Google Scholar
• Schlosser, R. W. (1994b). Synthesis of AAC interventions: Meth-odological issues (Research in progress).
   Google Scholar
• Schlosser, R. W., & Karlan, G. R. (1994). Effectiveness of gen-eralization in augmentative and alternative communication: A meta-analysis of single subject research (Research in progress).
   Google Scholar
• Scruggs, T. E. (1992). Single subject research methodology in the study of learning and behavioral disorders: Design, analy-sis, and synthesis. In T. E. Scruggs & M. A. Mastropieri (Eds.), Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities (Vol. 7, pp. 223–247). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sigafoos, J., Doss, S., & Reichle, J. (1989). Developing mand and tact repertoires in persons with severe developmental disabilities using graphic symbols. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 10, 183–200.
   PubMed Web of Science ®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
• Sommer, K. S., Whitman, T. L., & Keogh, D. A. (1988). Teaching severely retarded persons to sign interactively through the use of a behavioral script. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 9,291–304.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Soto, G., Belfiore, P. J., Schlosser, R. W., & Haynes, C. (1993). Teaching specific requests: A comparative analysis on skill acquisition and preference using two augmentative and alter-native communication aids. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 28, 169–178.
   Google Scholar
• Sternberg, L., McNerney, C. D., & Pegnatore, L. (1985). Devel-oping co-active imitative behaviors with profoundly mentally handicapped students. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 20, 261–267.
   Google Scholar
• Sternberg, L., Pegnatore, L., & Hill, C. (1983). Establishing inter-active communication behaviors with profoundly mentally handicapped students. TASH Journal, 8, 39–46.
   Google Scholar
• Stokes, T. F., & Baer, D. M. (1977). An implicit technology of generalization. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 349–367.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stokes, T. F., & Osnes, P. G. (1988). The developing applied technology of generalization and maintenance. In R. H. Hor-ner, G. Dunlap, & R. L. Koegel (Eds.), Generalization and maintenance: Life-style changes in applied settings (pp. 5–20). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
   Google Scholar
• Thorley, B., Ward, J., Binepal, T., & Dolan, K. (1991). Communi-cating with printed words to augment signing: Case study of a severely disabled deaf-blind child. Augmentative and Alterna-tive Communication, 8, 80–87.
   Google Scholar
• White, 0. R., Liberty, K. A., Haring, N. G., Billingsley, F. F., Boer, M., Burrage, A., Connors, R., Farman, R., Federochak, G., Leber, B. D., Liberty-Laylin, S., Miller, S., Opalski, C., Phifer, C., & Sessoms, I. (1988). Review and analysis of strategies for generalization. In N. G. Haring (Ed.), Generalization for stu-dents with severe handicaps - strategies and solutions (pp. 15–51). Seattle: University of Washington Press.
   Google Scholar