Teaching Multi-Step Requesting and Social Communication to Two Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders with Three AAC Options

References

• American Psychiatric Association (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed. text revision ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Barlow, D., & Hayes, S. (1979). Alternating treatments design: One strategy for comparing the effects of two treatments in a single subject. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 12, 199–210.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beck, A., Stoner, J., Bock, S., & Parton, T. (2008). Comparison of PECS and the use of a VOCA: A replication. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 43, 198–216.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beukelman, D., & Mirenda, P. (2013). Augmentative and alternative communication: Supporting children and adults with complex communication needs (4th ed.). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
   Google Scholar
• Cannella-Malone, H., DeBar, R., & Sigafoos, J. (2009). An examination of preference for augmentative and alternative communication devices with two boys with significant intellectual disabilities. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 25, 262–273.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeLeon, I., & Iwata, B. (1996). Evaluation of a multiple-stimulus presentation format for assessing reinforcer preferences. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 519–532.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drasgow, E., Sigafoos, J., Halle, J., & Martin, C. (2009). Teaching mands to individuals with autism spectrum disorders. In A. Fitzer & P. Sturmey (Eds.), Language and autism: Applied behavior analysis, evidence, and practice (pp. 135–168). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
   Google Scholar
• Duker, P., Didden, R., & Sigafoos, J. (2004). One-to-one training: Instructional procedures for learners with developmental disabilities. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
   Google Scholar
• Flippin, M., Reszka, S., & Watson, L. (2010). Effectiveness of the Picture Exchange Communication System (PECS) on communication and speech for children with autism spectrum disorders: A meta-analysis. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 19, 178–195.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ganz, J., Earles-Vollrath, T., Heath, A., Parker, R., Rispoli, M., & Duran, J. (2012). A meta-analysis of single-case research studies on aided augmentative and alternative communication systems with individuals with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 42, 60–74.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Green, V., Sigafoos, J., Didden, R., O’Reilly, M., Lancioni, G., Ollington, N., & Payne, D. (2008). Validity of a structured interview protocol for assessing children's preferences. In P. Grotewell & Y. Burton (Eds.), Early childhood education: Issues and developments (pp. 87–103). New York: Nova Science Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Gregory, M., DeLeon, I., & Richman, D. (2009). The influence of matching and motor-imitation abilities on rapid acquisition of manual signs and exchange-based communication responses. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42, 399–404.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, J., Inglebret, E., Jones, C., & Ray, J. (2006). Perspectives of speech language pathologists regarding success versus abandonment of AAC. Augmentative & Alternative Communi cation, 22, 85–99.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kagohara, D., Van der Meer, L., Achmadi, D., Green, V., O’Reilly, M., Lancioni, G., . . . Sigafoos, J. (2012). Teaching picture naming to two adolescents with autism spectrum disorders using systematic instruction and speech-generating devices. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 6, 1224–1233.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kennedy, C. (2005). Single-case designs for educational research. Boston, MA: Pearson Education Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Lovaas, O. (2003). Teaching individuals with developmental delays: Basic intervention techniques. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
   Google Scholar
• Makaton New Zealand/Aotearoa. (1998–99). Sign illustrations for Makaton core vocabulary. Auckland: Westprint.
   Google Scholar
• Mirenda, P. (2003). Toward functional augmentative and alternative communication for students with autism: Manual signs, graphic symbols, and voice output communication aids. Language, Speech, & Hearing Services in Schools, 34, 203–216.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pyramid Educational Products Inc. (2009). PICS for PECS 2009. Newport, CT: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Reichle, J. (1991). Defining the decisions involved in designing and implementing augmentative and alternative communication systems. In J. Reichle, J. York, & J. Sigafoos (Eds.), Implementing augmentative and alternative communication: Strategies for learners with severe disabilities (pp. 39–60). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
   Google Scholar
• Ringdahl, J., Falcomata, T., Christensen, T., Bass-Ringdahl, S., Lentz, A., Dutt, A., & Schuh-Claus, J. (2009). Evaluation of a pre-treatment assessment to select mand topographies for functional communication training. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 20, 330–341.
   Google Scholar
• Rispoli, M., Franco, J., van der Meer, L., Lang, R., & Carmargo, S. (2010). The use of speech generating devices in communication interventions for individuals with developmental disabilities: A review of the literature. Developmental Neurorehabilitation, 13, 276–293.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruggero, L., McCabe, B., Ballard, K., & Munro, N. (2012). Paediatric speech-language pathology service delivery: An exploratory survey of Australian parents. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 14, 338–350.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schlosser, R. (2003). Single-subject designs. In R. Schlosser (Ed.), The efficacy of augmentative and alternative communication: Toward evidence-based practice (pp. 85–143). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sigafoos, J. (1998). Choice making and personal selection strategies. In J. Luiselli & M. Cameron (Eds.), Antecedent control: Innovative approaches to behavioral support (pp. 187–221). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
   Google Scholar
• Sigafoos, J., & Drasgow, E. (2001). Conditional use of aided and unaided AAC: A review and clinical case demonstration. Focus on Autism & Other Developmental Disabilities, 16, 152–161.
   Google Scholar
• Sigafoos, J., & Iacono, T. (1993). Selecting augmentative communication devices for persons with severe disabilities: Some factors for educational teams to consider. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 18, 133–146.
   Google Scholar
• Sigafoos, J., Ganz, J., O’Reilly, M., Lancioni, G., & Schlosser, R. (2007). Assessing correspondence following acquisition of an exchange-based communication system. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 28, 71–83.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soto, G., Belfiore, P., Schlosser, R., & Haynes, C. (1993). Teaching specific requests: A comparative analysis of skill acquisition and preference using two augmentative and alternative communication aids. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 28, 169–178.
   Google Scholar
• Sparrow, S., Cicchetti, D., & Balla, D. (2005). Vineland-II Adaptive Behavior Scales (2nd ed.). Minneapolis, MN: Pearson.
   Google Scholar
• van der Meer, L., Didden, R., Sutherland, D., O’Reilly, M., Lancioni, G., & Sigafoos, J. (2012). Comparing three augmentative and alternative communication options for children with developmental disabilities. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 24, 451–468.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van der Meer, L., Kagohara, D., Achmadi, D., O’Reilly, M., Lancioni, G., Sutherland, D., & Sigafoos, J. (2012). Speech-generating devices versus manual signing for children with developmental disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 33, 1658–1669.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van der Meer, L., Sigafoos, J., O’Reilly, M., & Lancioni, G. (2011). Assessing preferences for AAC options in communication interventions for individuals with developmental disabilities: A review of the literature. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 32, 1422–1431.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van der Meer, L., Sutherland, D., O’Reilly, M., Lancioni, G., & Sigafoos, J. (2012). A further comparison of manual signing, picture exchange, and speech-generating devices as communication options for children with autism spectrum disorders. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 6, 1247–1257.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verdon, S, Wilson, L., Smith-Tamaray, M., & McAllister, L. (2011). An investigation of equity of rural speech-language pathology services for children: A geographic perspective. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 13, 239–250.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wendt, O. (2009). Research on the use of manual signs and graphic symbols in autism spectrum disorders: A systematic review. In P. Mirenda & T. Iacono (Eds.), Autism spectrum disorders and AAC (pp. 83–140). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
   Google Scholar
• Winborn-Kemmerer, L., Ringdahl, J., Wacker, D., & Kitsukawa, K. (2009). A demonstration of individual preference for novel mands during functional communication training. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42, 185–189.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yamamoto, J., & Mochizuki, A. (1988). Acquisition and functional analysis of manding with autistic students. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 21, 57–64.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar