This study determined if the use of computer-assisted instruction Would be an effective method to promote Word identification using the Nonverbal Reading Approach (NRA). Three students With severe speech impairments and concomitant physical disabilities or autism Were provided decoding and Word identification instruction using the NRA across three conditions simulating the natural progression of classroom instruction from teacher-directed to computer-assisted instruction. The three conditions Were (a) teacher only, (b) teacher plus computer-assisted instruction, and (c) computer-assisted instruction only. All participants reached criteria in each of the three conditions. Results indicate that the NRA can be effectively delivered through computer-assisted instruction, thus freeing up teacher time and providing students With the ability to practice decoding and Word identification independently.

The use of video modeling (VM) procedures in conjunction with the picture exchange communication system (PECS) to increase independent communicative initiations in preschool-age students was evaluated in this study. The four participants were 3-year-old children with limited communication skills prior to the intervention. Two of the students had been diagnosed with autism and two students exhibited developmental delays. An alternating treatments design was used to examine the effects of using VM as a priming technique to enhance the efficacy of students acquiring PECS and increasing the number of independent communicative initiations. Based on the data, the authors concluded that all students learned to use PECS and increased the number of independent communicative initiations; however, the students’ rate of learning was quicker when using VM. Conclusions are discussed in the context of using empirically based interventions to teach communication skills to students with disabilities and limited verbal skills.

Adapted alternating treatments designs were used to evaluate three computer-based flashcard reading interventions (1-s, 3-s, or 5-s response intervals) across two students with disabilities. When learning was plotted with cumulative instructional sessions on the horizontal axis, the session-series graphs suggest that the interventions were similarly effective. When the same data were plotted as a function of cumulative instructional seconds, time-series graphs suggest that the 1-s intervention caused the most rapid learning for one student. Discussion focuses on applied implications of comparative effectiveness studies and why measures of cumulative instructional time are needed to identify the most effective intervention(s).Comparative effectiveness studies may not identify the intervention which causes the most rapid learning.Session-series repeated measures are not the same as time-series repeated measures.Measuring the time students spend in each intervention (i.e., cumulative instructional seconds) allows practitioners to identify interventions that enhance learning most rapidly.Student time spent working under interventions is critical for drawing applied conclusions.

No abstract