Navigating Evidence-Based Information Sources in Augmentative and Alternative Communication

References

• Balandin, S. (2007). Unaided AAC interventions such as manual signs appear to facilitate the development of speech. Rigorous research is required to establish the effects of AAC systems and interventions on speech production across a variety of populations with developmental disabilities [Abstract]. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention, 1, 63–64. Abstract of Millar, D. C., Light, J. C., & Schlosser, R. W. (2006). The impact of augmentative and alternative communication intervention on the speech production of individuals with developmental disabilities: A research review. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49, 248–264.
   Google Scholar
• Balandin, S. (2009). AAC intervention does not hinder natural speech production for children with autism, but natural speech gains tend to be small [Abstract]. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention. Retrieved 29 May, 2009, from http://www.informaworld.com/10.1080/17489530902781772. Abstract of Schlosser, R. W., & Wendt, O. (2008). Effects of augmentative and alternative communication intervention on speech production in children with autism: A systematic review. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 17, 212–230.
   Google Scholar
• Boesch, M. (2009). Using the EVIDAAC Systematic Review Scale to guide the process of conducting a systematic review. Paper submitted to the Proceedings of the ISAAC Research Symposium, held in August 2009, Montreal, Canada.
   Google Scholar
• Brady, N. C. (2007). Data seem to support manual sign interventions for children with autism, but more high-quality research is needed [Abstract]. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention, 1, 16–17. Abstract of Schwartz, J. B., & Nye, C. (2006). A systematic review, synthesis, and evaluation of the evidence for teaching sign language to children with autism. EBP Briefs, 1, 1–17
   Google Scholar
• Chalmers, I., Hedges L. V., Cooper, H. (2002). A brief history of research synthesis. Evaluation and the Health Professions, 25, 12–37.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Granlund, M. (2007). Presents characteristics of AAC interventions for students with severe disabilities, but judgments about effectiveness do not follow from methodology [Abstract]. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention, 1, 67–68. Abstract of Snell, M., Chen, Lih-Huan, & Hoover, K. (2006). Teaching augmentative communication to students with severe disabilities: A review of intervention research 1997–2003. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 31, 203–214.
   Google Scholar
• Haynes, R. B. (2006). Of studies, syntheses, synopses, summaries, and systems: The 5S evolution of information services for evidence-based decision making. ACP Journal Club, 145(3), A8–A9.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Horner, R. H., Carr, E. G., Halle, J., McGee, G., Odom, S., Wolery, M. (2005). The use of single-subject research to identify evidence-based practice in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 165–179.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malmberg, D. B., Charlop-Christy, M. H. (2008). Acquisition of the Picture Exchange Communication System (PECS) and its relationship with word production varies for individual children with autism [Abstract]. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention, 2, 23–25. Abstract of Ganz, J. B., Simpson, R. L., & Corbin-Newsome, J. (2008). The impact of the Picture Exchange Communication System on requesting and speech development in preschoolers with autism spectrum disorders and similar characteristics. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 2, 157–169.
   Google Scholar
• Millar, D., Light, J. C., Schlosser, R. W. (2006). The impact of augmentative and alternative communication intervention on the speech production of individuals with developmental disabilities: A research review. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49, 248–264.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pennington L., Goldbart J., Marshall, J. (2003). Speech and language therapy to improve the communication skills of children with cerebral palsy. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 3. Art. No.: CD003466. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003466.pub2.
   Google Scholar
• Pennington, L., Goldbart, J., Marshall, J. (2004). Interaction training for conversational partners of children with cerebral palsy: A systematic review. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 39, 151–170.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Probst, P. (2005). Ein integratives literatur-review zur wirksamkeit der gestützten kommunikation (FC) bei nichtsprechenden autistischen und intelligenzgeminderten personen. [Communication unbound—or unfound? An integrative review on the effectiveness of facilitated communication (FC) in non-verbal persons with autism and mental retardation.] Zeitschrift für Klinische Psychologie, Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie, 53, 93–128.
   Google Scholar
• Raghavendra, P. (2007). Direct speech and language therapy for children with cerebral palsy, focusing on communication and expressive language, appears effective but methodological flaws advocate for more high quality research [Abstract]. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention, 1, 103–104. Abstract of Pennington, L., Goldbart, J., & Marshall, J. (2005). Direct speech and language therapy for children with cerebral palsy: Findings from a systematic review. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 47, 57–63.
   Google Scholar
• Schlosser, R. W. (2007). Training of conversation partners of children with cerebral palsy appears effective for common communication targets but methodological concerns render these findings suggestive [Abstract]. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention, 1, 12–13. Abstract of Pennington, L., Goldbart, J., & Marshall, J. (2004). Interaction training for conversational partners of children with cerebral palsy: a systematic review. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 39, 151–170.
   Google Scholar
• Schlosser, R. W., Blackstone, S., Dowden, P., Eysenbach, G., Raghavendra, R., Sigafoos, J. (2009). The EVIDAAC database: An introduction and tutorial of its use. Manuscript in preparation.
   Google Scholar
• Schlosser, R. W., Koul, R., Costello, J. (2007). Asking well-built questions for evidence-based practice in augmentative and alternative communication. Journal of Communication Disorders, 40, 225–238.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schlosser, R. W., Lee, D. (2000). Promoting generalization and maintenance in augmentative and alternative communication: A meta-analysis of 20 years of effectiveness research. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 16, 208–227.
   Google Scholar
• Schlosser, R. W., Raghavendra, P. (2004). Evidence-based practice in augmentative and alternative communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 20, 1–21.
   Google Scholar
• Schlosser, R. W., Sigafoos, J. (2006). Augmentative and alternative communication interventions for persons with developmental disabilities: Narrative review of comparative single-subject experimental studies. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 27, 1–29.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schlosser, R. W., Sigafoos, J. (2007). Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention – purposes and procedures. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention, 1, 52–54.
   Google Scholar
• Schlosser, R. W., Sigafoos, J., Belfiore, P. (2008). EVIDAAC Comparative Single-Subject Experimental Design Scale (CSSEDARS). Unpublished manuscript, Northeastern University, Boston, MA, USA.
   Google Scholar
• Schlosser, R. W., Sigafoos, J., Wendt, O. (2008). EVIDAAC Systematic Review Scale. Unpublished manuscript, Northeastern University, Boston, MA, USA.
   Google Scholar
• Schlosser, R. W., Wendt, O. (2008a). Facilitated communication is contraindicated as a treatment choice; a meta-analysis is still to be done [Abstract]. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention, 2, 81–83. Abstract of Probst, P. (2005). Ein integratives literatur-review zur wirksamkeit der gestuumltzten kommunikation (FC) bei nichtsprechenden autistischen und intelligenzgeminderten personen. [Communication unbound—or unfound? An integrative review on the effectiveness of facilitated communication (FC) in non-verbal persons with autism and mental retardation.] Zeitschrift für Klinische Psychologie, Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie, 53, 93–128.
   Google Scholar
• Schlosser, R. W., Wendt, O. (2008b). Effects of augmentative and alternative communication intervention on speech production in children with autism: A systematic review. American Journal of Speech Language Pathology, 17, 212–230.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schlosser, R. W., Wendt, O., Angermeier, K. L., Shetty, M. (2005). Searching for evidence in augmentative and alternative communication: Navigating a scattered literature. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 21, 233–255.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schlosser, R. W., Wendt, O., Beretvas, N. (2008). The effects of the Picture Exchange Communication System (PECS) on prelinguistic behaviors, speech production, and expressive social regulation and communicative functions in children with Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD). Title for a systematic review approved by the Campbell Collaboration.
   Google Scholar
• Schlosser, R. W., Wendt, O., Sigafoos, J. (2007). Not all systematic reviews are created equal: Considerations for appraisal. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention, 1, 138–150.
   Google Scholar
• Schwartz, J. B., Nye, C. (2006). Improving communication for children with autism: Does sign language work? EBP Briefs, 1, 1–17.
   Google Scholar
• Straus, S. E. (2007). Evidence-based health care: Challenges and limitations. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention, 1, 48–51.
   Google Scholar
• Verhagen, A., de Vet, H., de Bie, R., Kessels, A., Boers, M., Bouter, L., Knipschild, P. (1998). The Delphi List: A criteria list for quality assessment of randomized clinical trials for conducting systematic reviews developed by delphi consensus. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 51, 1235–1241.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wendt, O. (2007). Recommended practices for teaching assistive technology use to infants and young children with low incidence disabilities seem to have little empirical support but methodological concerns limit the validity of this review [Abstract]. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention, 1, 60–62. Abstract of Campbell, P. H., Milbourne, S., Dugan, L. M., & Wilcox, M. J. (2006). A review of evidence on practices for teaching young children to use assistive technology devices. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 26, 3–13.
   Google Scholar
• Wendt, O., Koul, R., Hassink, J. M. (2008). Time post-onset does not affect response to treatment in patients with chronic aphasia ≥1 year after stroke [Abstract]. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention, 2, 199–202. Abstract of Moss, A., & Nicholas, M. (2006). Language rehabilitation in chronic aphasia and time postonset: A review of single-subject data. Stroke, 37, 3043–3051.
   Google Scholar