Communication Functions, Modalities, and Maternal Responses in Children with Severe Speech and Physical Impairment

An Investigation of the Intentional Communication and Symbolic Play Skills of Children With Down Syndrome and Cerebral Palsy in Malaysia

“…The results suggest that children will adapt their use of modalities to those available to them according to their physical abilities. According to Balan and Manjula (2009), and Light, Collier, and Parnes (1985), modality preferences emerge according to the modalities that are fastest to produce and most likely to elicit a response. However, Light et al cautioned that these preferred modalities may not always be effective in getting a message across or for demonstrating certain communicative functions, thus leading to failed interaction and frustration.…”

“…Previous researchers have observed a similar pattern, with vocalizations often used either alone or in combination with other modalities by children with DS and with CP (e.g., Chan & Iacono, 2001; Falkman et al, 2002; Stephenson & Dowrick, 2005; Wetherby et al, 1989). According to Balan and Manjula (2009), this preference reflects the close resemblance of vocalizations to speech, suggesting the innate tendency toward vocal communication. It may also be that vocalizations are most likely to gain attention of a non-attending communication partner.…”

The Introduction of a Secondary Reinforcer During Therapy Based on the ABA Model for Children with Autisme

“…However, at the 22 session, she started to scream to request for her needs. As suggested by Balan and Manjula (2009), children often communicate using the mode of communication that is most convenient for them and also most likely to gain the attention of adults, and for A2, it was screaming. Verbal prompts were given to her to teach her to request appropriately and from session 37 th onwards, she stopped screaming and started to request appropriately.…”

Interactions of pre‐symbolic children with developmental disabilities with their mothers and siblings

“…Despite the absence of a significant difference in responsiveness to ICAs and to CAs, there were instances during which communication partners did not respond to the children's communicative behaviours. The failure of communication partners to respond to children's communicative behaviours may lead children to be less motivated to continue to produce communicative behaviours, thereby exacerbating the communicative problems they experience, and preventing them from transitioning to advanced stages of communication (Balan and Manjula ).…”