Abstract
As 30% of individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) demonstrate difficulties with vocal output, augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) intervention can provide a means for those persons to have the ability to communicate with others. To determine the most effective mode of AAC for individuals with ASD, practitioners must have access to current comparative research in order to make evidence-based decisions. This systematic review searched ERIC, Google Scholar, PsycINFO, and Science Direct databases for studies that compared AAC modes, including mobile technology based speech-generating devices, in intervention with individuals with ASD. The search yielded nine (n = 9) alternating treatment design single case studies including a total of 36 participants with ASD with a mean age of seven (range: 3–13). The included studies were compared to evaluate operants, evidence-based best practices, preferences, and participant performance across AAC modes. Visual and statistical analyses indicated most participants not only preferred using the SGD but had performed better when using such devices compared to picture exchange and manual sign. Findings suggest that practitioners should consider using mobile technology based SGDs to promote verbal behavior from children with a diagnosis of ASD. Additionally, research evaluating verbal operants beyond the initial mand (request) and incorporating participants who are adolescents or adults is needed.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Agius, M. M., & Vance, M. (2016). A comparison of PECS and iPad to teach requesting to pre-schoolers with autistic spectrum disorders. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 32(1), 58–68.
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM-5®). American Psychiatric Publications.
Bondy, A. S., & Frost, L. A. (1994). The picture exchange communication system. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 9, 1–19.
Couper, L., van der Meer, L., Schafer, M. C. M., McKenzie, E., McLay, L., O’Reilly, M. F., et al. (2014). Comparing acquisition of and preference for manual signs, picture exchange, and speech-generating devices in nine children with autism spectrum disorder. Developmental Neurorehabilitation, 17(2), 99–109.
Ganz, J. B. (2015). AAC interventions for individuals with autism spectrum disorders: State of the science and future research directions. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 31, 203–214. https://doi.org/10.3109/07434618.2015.1047532
Gevarter, C., O’Reilly, M. F., Rojeski, L., Sammarco, N., Lang, R., Lancioni, G. E., & Sigafoos, J. (2013). Comparing communication systems for individuals with developmental disabilities: A review of single-case research studies. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 34, 4415–4432.
Higgins, J. P., Thomas, J., Chandler, J., Cumpston, M., Li, T., Page, M. J., & Welch, V. A. (Eds.). (2019). Cochrane handbook forsystematic reviews of interventions. John Wiley & Sons.
Hoffmann, A. N., Samaha, A. L., Bloom, S. E., & Boyle, M. A. (2017). Preference and reinforcer efficacy of high- and low-tech items: A comparison of item type and duration of access. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 50(2), 222–237. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.383
Holyfield, C., Drager, K. D., Kremkow, J. M., & Light, J. (2017). Systematic review of AAC intervention research for adolescents and adults with autism spectrum disorder. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 33, 201–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434618.2017.1370495
Holyfield, C. (2021). Comparative Effects of Picture Symbol With Paired Text and Text-Only Augmentative and Alternative Communication Representations on Communication From Children With Autism Spectrum Disorder. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 30(2), 584-597.
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(2), 165-179.
Ledford, J. R., & Gast, D. L. (Eds.). (2018). Single case research methodology: Applications in special education and behavioral sciences. Routledge.
Light, J., McNaughton, D., & Caron, J. (2019). New and emerging AAC technology supports for children with complex communication needs and their communication partners: State of the science and future research directions. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 35(1), 26–41.
Logan, K., Iacono, T., & Trembath, D. (2017). A systematic review of research into aided AAC to increase social-communication functions in children with autism spectrum disorder. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 33, 51–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434618.2016.1267795
Lorah, E. R. (2016). Comparing teacher and student use and preference of two methods of augmentative and alternative communication: Picture exchange and a speech-generating device. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 28, 751–767.
Lorah, E. R., Tincani, M., Dodge, J., Gilroy, S., Hickey, A., & Hantula, D. (2013). Evaluating picture exchange and the iPadTM as a speech generating device to teach communication to young children with autism. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 25(6), 637–649.
Lorah, E. R., Parnell, A., Whitby, P. S., & Hantula, D. (2015). A systematic review of tablet computers and portable media players as speech generating devices for individuals with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 45(12), 3792–3804.
Lorah, E. R., Tincani, M., & Parnell, A. (2018). Current trends in the use of handheld technology as a speech-generating device for children with autism. Behavior Analysis: Research and Practice, 18(3), 317.
Lorah, E. R., Holyfield, C., & Kucharczyk, S. (2021). Typical preschoolers’ perceptions of augmentative and alternative communication modes of a preschooler with autism spectrum disorder. Augmentative and Alternative Communication. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434618.2020.1864469
McLay, L., van der Meer, L., Schafer, M. C., Couper, L., McKenzie, E., O’Reilly, M. F., et al. (2015). Comparing acquisition, generalization, maintenance, and preference across three AAC options in four children with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 27(3), 323–339.
McLay, L., Schafer, M. C. M., van der Meer, L., Couper, L., McKenzie, E., O’Reilly, M. F., Lancioni, G. E., Marschik, P. B., Sigafoos, J., & Sutherland, D. (2017). Acquisition, preference and follow-up comparison across three AAC modalities taught to two children with autism spectrum disorder. International Journal of Disability, Development, and Education, 64, 117–130.
Mirenda, P. (2003). Toward a functional and augmentative and alternative communication for students with autism: Manual signs, graphic symbols, and voice output communication aids. Learning, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 34, 203–216.
Morin, K. L., Ganz, J. B., Gregori, E. V., Foster, M. J., Gerow, S. L., Genç-Tosun, D., & Hong, E. R. (2018). A systematic quality review of high-tech AAC interventions as an evidence-based practice. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 34(2), 104–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434618.2018.1458900
Parker, R. I., Vannest, K. J., Davis, J. L., & Sauber, S. B. (2011). Combining nonoverlap and trend for single-case research: Tau-U. Behavior Therapy, 42, 284–299.
Pustejovsky, J. E., & Ferron, J. M. (2017). Research synthesis and meta-analysis of single-case designs. In Handbook of special education (pp. 168-186). Routledge.
Schlosser, R. W., Brock, K. L., Koul, R., Shane, H., & Flynn, S. (2019). Does animation facilitate understanding of graphic symbols representing verbs in children with autism spectrum disorder? Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 62(4), 965–978.
Schlosser, R. W., & Wendt, O. (2008). Effects of augmentative and alternative communication intervention on speech production in children with autism: A systematic review.
Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. Prentice Hall.
Steinbrenner, J. R., Hume, K., Odom, S. L., Morin, K. L., Nowell, S. W., Tomaszewski, B., & Savage, M. N. (2020). Evidence-Based Practices for Children, Youth, and Young Adults with Autism. FPG Child Development Institute.
Tincani, M., Miller, J., Lorah, E. R., & Nepo, K. (2020). Systematic review of verbal operants in speech generating device research from Skinner’s analysis of verbal behavior. Perspectives on Behavior Science, 43(2), 387.
van der Meer, S., Sutherland, D., O’Reilly, M. F., Lancioni, G. E., & Sigafoos, J. (2012). A further comparison of manual signing, picture exchange, and speech-generating devices as communication modes for children with autism spectrum disorders. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 6, 1247–1257.
van der Meer, D., Sutherland, D., O’Reilly, M. F., Lancioni, G. E., & Sigafoos, J. (2012). Comparing three augmentative and alternative communication modes for children with developmental disabilities. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 24, 451–468.
van der Meer, L., Kagohara, D., Roche, L., Sutherland, D., Balandin, S., Green, V. A., et al. (2013). Teaching multi-step requesting and social communication to two children with autism spectrum disorders with three AAC options. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 29(3), 222–234.
Vannest, K. J., Parker, R. I., Gonen, O., & Adiguzel, T. (2016). Single case research: web based calculators for SCR analysis. (Version 2.0) [Web-based application]. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University. Retrieved Monday 23rd November 2020. Available from singlecaseresearch.org
Vevea, J. L., Coburn, K., & Sutton, A. (2019). Publication Bias. In H. M. Cooper, L. V. Hedges, & J. C. Valentine (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (3rd ed., pp. 383–429). Russell Sage Foundation.
Wodka, E. L., Mathy, P., & Kalb, L. (2013). Predictors of phrase and fluent speech in children with autism and severe language delay. Pediatrics, 131, 1128–1134.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethical Approval
This study did not involve human or non-human participants and therefore, ethical approval was not required.
Informed Consent
This manuscript did not include human participants so informed consent was not obtained.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendices
Appendix
Visual Analysis Worksheet
Researcher initials:
IOA:
Reference:
Participant:
Device:
Characteristic | Questions | + | − | N/A |
---|---|---|---|---|
Level | Is a consistent level established in each condition prior to condition change? | Yes | No | |
Is there a consistent level change between conditions, in the expected direction? | Yes | No | ||
Trend | Are unexpected trends present that make determination of behavior change difficult? | No | Yes | |
Is there a consistent change in trend across conditions, in the expected direction? | Yes | No | ||
Variability | Does unexpected variability exist in one or more conditions? | No | Yes | |
Consistency | Are data within conditions and changes between conditions consistent? | Yes | No | |
If changes are inconsistent with regard to level, trend, or variability, was it expected? | Yes | No | ||
Overlap | Are data overlapping between conditions? | No | Yes | |
If overlapping, does the degree of overlap improve overtime? | Yes | No | ||
Is overlap consistent across comparisons? | Yes | No | ||
Was overlap expected a priori? | Yes | No | ||
Immediacy | Are changes between tiers immediate, in the intended direction? | Yes | No | |
If no, are delays in changes consistent across tiers? | Yes | No | ||
Total: |
What is your determination regarding the presence of a functional relation? | Present | Not Present |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lorah, E.R., Holyfield, C., Miller, J. et al. A Systematic Review of Research Comparing Mobile Technology Speech-Generating Devices to Other AAC Modes with Individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder. J Dev Phys Disabil 34, 187–210 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-021-09803-y
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-021-09803-y