Comparative efficacy of interventions in augmentative and alternative communication

References

• Barlow, D. H., & Hayes, S. C. (1979). Alternating treatments design: One strategy for comparing the effects of two treatments in a sin-gle subject. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 12, 199–210.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barlow, D. H., & Hersen, M. (1984). Single case experimental designs: Strategies for studying behavior change (2nd ed.). New York: Pergamon.
   Google Scholar
• Barrera, R. D., Lobato-Barrera, D., & Sulzer-Azaroff, B. (1980). A simultaneous treatment comparison of three expressive lan-guage training programs with a mute autistic child. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 10, 21–37.
   Google Scholar
• Bedrosian, J. (1998). Efficacy research issues in AAC: Interactive storybook reading. Augmentative and Alternative Communica-tion, /5,45–55.
   Google Scholar
• Bennett, D. L., Gast, D. L., Wolery, M., & Schuster, J. (1986). Time delay and system of least prompts: A comparison in teaching manual sign production. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 21, 117–129.
   Google Scholar
• Beukelman, D. R. (1986). Evaluating the effectiveness of inter-vention programs. In S. W. Blackstone (Ed), Augmentative com-munication: An introduction (pp. 423–445). Rockville, MD: American Speech-Language-Hearing Association.
   Google Scholar
• Billingsley, F. F., White, 0. R., & Munson, R. (1980). Procedural reliability: A rationale and an example. Behavioral Assessment, 2, 229–241.
   Google Scholar
• Clarke, S., Remington, B., & Light, P. (1986). An evaluation of the relationship between receptive speech skills and expressive signing. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 19, 231–239.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conaghan, B. P., Singh, N., Moe, T. L., Landrum, T. J., & Ellis, C. R. (1992). Acquisition and generalization of manual signs byhearing-impaired adults with mental retardation. Journal of Behavioral Education, 2, 177–205.
   Google Scholar
• Dalrymple, A. J., & Feldman, M. A. (1992). Effects of reinforced directed rehearsal on expressive sign language by persons with mental retardation. Journal of Behavioral Education, 2, 1–16.
   Google Scholar
• DeRuyter, F. (1995). Evaluating outcomes in assistive technology: Do we understand the commitment? Assistive Technology, 7,3–16.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Doherty, J. (1985). The effects of sign characteristics on sign acquisition and retention: An integrative review of the literature. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 1, 108–121.
   Google Scholar
• Gast, D. L., & Wolery, M. (1988). Parallel treatments design: A nested single subject design for comparing instructional proce-dures. Education and Treatment of Children, 11, 270–285.
   Google Scholar
• Goodman, J., & Remington, B. (1993). Acquisition of expressive signing: Comparison of reinforcement strategies. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 9, 26–35.
   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
• Horn, E. M., & Jones, H. A. (1996). Comparison of two selection techniques used in augmentative and alternative communica-tion. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 12, 23–31.
   Google Scholar
• Hurlbut, B. I., lwata, B. A., & Green, J. D. (1982). Nonvocal lan-guage acquisition in adolescents with severe physical disabili-ties: Blissymbol versus iconic stimulus formats. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, /5,241–257.
   Google Scholar
• Iacono, T. A., & Duncum, J. E. (1995). Comparison of sign alone and in combination with an electronic communication device in early language intervention: Case study. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, /1,249–259.
   Google Scholar
• Iacono, T. A., Mirenda, P., & Beukelman, D. R. (1993). Compari-son of unimodal and multimodal AAC techniques for children with intellectual disabilities. Augmentative and Alternative Com-munication, 9, 83–94.
   Google Scholar
• Kazdin, A. E., & Hartmann, D. P. (1978). The simultaneous treat-ment design. Behavior Therapy, 9, 912–922.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kendall, P., & Norton-Ford, J. (1982). Therapy outcome research methods. In P. Kendall & J. Butcher (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in clinical psychology (pp. 429–460). New York: John Wiley and Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Koul, R., Schlosser, R. W., Corwin, M., & Sims, S. (1997, Novem-ber). Effects of speech output on graphic symbol learning. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American Speech-Language and Hearing Association, Boston.
   Google Scholar
• Lasker, J., Hux, K., Garrett, K. L., Moncrief, E. M., & Eischeid, T. J. (1997). Variations on the written choice communication strat-egy for individuals with severe aphasia. Augmentative and Alter-native Communication, 13, 108–116.
   Google Scholar
• Light, J. (1998). Do augmentative and alternative communication interventions really make a difference? The challenges of effi-cacy research. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, /5,13–24.
   Google Scholar
• Light, P., Remington, B., Clarke, S., & Watson, J. (1989). Signs of language.? In I. Leudar, M. Beveridge, & G. Conti-Ramsden (Eds.), Language and communication in the mentally handi-capped (pp. 56–79). London: Chapman and Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Linton, J. M., & Singh, N. N. (1984). Acquisition of sign language using positive practice overcorrection. Behavior Modification, 8, 553–566.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lloyd, L. L., & Fuller, D. R. (1990). The role of iconicity in aug-mentative and alternative communication symbol learning. In W. I. Fraser (Ed.), Key issues in mental retardation research (pp. 295–306). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• McNaughton, D., & Tawney, J. (1993). Comparison of two spelling instruction techniques for adults who use augmentative and alternative communication. Augmentative and Alternative Com-munication, 9, 72–82.
   Google Scholar
• McReynolds, L. V., & Kearns, K. P. (1983). Single-subject experi-mental designs in communicative disorders. Baltimore: Univer-sity Park Press.
   Google Scholar
• Parsonson, B. S., & Baer, D. M. (1992). The visual analysis of data, and current research into the stimuli controlling it. In T. R. Kra-tochwill, & J. R. Levin (Eds.), Single-case research design and analysis: New directions for psychology and education (pp. 15–40). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Peterson, L., Homer, A. L., & Wonderlich, S. A. (1982). The integrity of independent variables in behavior analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 15, 477–492.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Remington, B., & Clarke, S. (1983). Acquisition of expressive sign-ing by autistic children: An evaluation of the relative effects of simultaneous communication and sign-alone training. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, /6,315–328.
   Google Scholar
• Remington, B., & Clarke, S. (1993a). Simultaneous communication and speech comprehension. Part I: Comparison of two methods of teaching expressive signing and speech comprehension skills. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 9, 36–48.
   Google Scholar
• Remington, B., & Clarke, S. (1993b). Simultaneous communication and speech comprehension. Part II: Comparison of two methods of overcoming selective attention during expressive sign training. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 9, 49–60.
   Google Scholar
• Romski, M. A., & Sevcik, R. A. (1988). Augmentative and alterna-tive communication systems: Considerations for individuals with severe intellectual disabilities. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 4, 83–91.
   Google Scholar
• Romski, M. A., & Sevcik, R. A. (1992a). Augmentative language comprehension and augmentative communication. Proceedings of the Consensus Validation Conference on Augmentative and Alternative Communication (pp. 49–55). Washington, DC: The National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research.
   Google Scholar
• Romski, M. A., & Sevcik, R. A. (1992b). Developing augmented lan-guage in children with severe mental retardation. In S. F. Warren & J. Reichle (Eds.), Causes and effects in communication and language intervention (pp. 113–131). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
   Google Scholar
• Romski, M. A., & Sevcik, R. A. (1993). Language comprehension: Considerations for augmentative and alternative communica-tion. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 9, 281–285.
   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
• Schalock, R. L. (1994). Quality of life, quality enhancement, and quality assurance: Implications for program planning and eval-uation in the field of mental retardation and developmental dis-abilities. Evaluation and Program Planning, /7,121–131.
   Google Scholar
• Schlosser, R. W., Belfiore, P. J., Nigam, R., Blischak, D., & Het-zroni, 0. (1995). The effects of speech output technology in the learning of graphic symbols. Journal of Applied Behavior Analy-sis, 28, 537–549.
   Google Scholar
• Schlosser, R. W., Belfiore, P. J., Nigam, R., Blischak, D., & Het-zroni, 0. (1997). The effects of speech output technology in the learning of graphic symbols. In B. A. lwata, J. S. Bailey, N. A. Neef, D. P. Wacker, A. C. Repp, & G. L. Shook (Eds.), Behav-ior analysis in developmental disabilities (Reprint Volume 1, 3rd Edition) (pp. 321–333). Reprinted from Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 28, 537–549. Society for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior: Lawrence, KS.
   Google Scholar
• Schlosser, R. W., Blischak, D. M., Belfiore, P. J., Bartley, C., & Bar-nett, N. 1998. The effects of synthetic speech output and ortho-graphic feedback on spelling in a student with autism: A prelimi-nary study. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 28, 319–329.
   Google Scholar
• Schlosser, R. W., & Braun, U. (1994). Efficacy of AAC interven-tions: Methodologic issues in evaluating behavior change, gen-eralization, and effects. Augmentative and Alternative Commu-nication, 10, 207–223.
   Google Scholar
• Schlosser, R. W., & Lee, D. (1998). Effectiveness of interventions In augmentative and alternative communication: A meta-analy-sis of 20 years of research. Northeastern University. Manuscript in preparation.
   Google Scholar
• Sevcik, R. A., Romski, M. A., & 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
• 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
• Sindelar, P. T., Rosenberg, M. S., & Wilson, R. J. (1985). An adapted alternating treatments design for instructional research. Education and Treatment of Children, 8, 67–76.
   Google 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
• Watters, R. G., Wheeler, L. J., & Watters, W. E. (1981). The rela-tive efficiency of two orders for training autistic children in the expressive and receptive use of manual signs. Journal of Com-munication Disorders, /4,273–285.
   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