NONVOCAL LANGUAGE ACQUISITION IN ADOLESCENTS WITH SEVERE PHYSICAL DISABILITIES: BLISSYMBOL VERSUS ICONIC STIMULUS FORMATS

Abstract

This study compared training in two language systems for three severely handicapped, nonvocal adolescents: the Bliss symbol system and an iconic picture system. Following baseline, training and review trials were implemented using an alternating treatments design. Daily probes were conducted to assess maintenance, stimulus generalization, and response generalization, and data were collected on spontaneous usage of either language system throughout the school day. Results showed that students required approximately four times as many trials to acquire Bliss symbols as iconic pictures, and that students maintained a higher percentage of iconic pictures. Stimulus generalization occurred in both language systems, while the number of correct responses during responses generalization probes was much greater for the iconic system. Finally, students almost always showed more iconic responses than Bliss responses in daily spontaneous usage. These results suggest that an iconic system might be more readily acquired, maintained, and generalized to daily situations. Implications of these findings for the newly verbal person were discussed.

Selection and Initiation of a Nonvocal Communication Program for Severely Handicapped Students

“…Two studies have investigated the amount of teacher time required for instruction and the number of trials to mastery of symbol systems. When pictograms were compared with Blissymbols, the results suggested that the iconic pictures are more readily acquired, maintained, and generalized (Hurlbut, Iwata, & Green, 1982). When comparing pictograms, Blissymbols, and traditional orthography, pictograms were found to be the most efficient and effective for instruction, followed by Blissymbols and then traditional orthography (Briggs, 1983).…”

Augmentative and alternative communication for children with developmental disabilities

“…First, Hurlbut et al [1982] provided evidence about the relationship of arbitrariness to visualgraphic symbol learning for persons with severe physical disabilities and mental retardation. They compared the acquisition, maintenance, and generalization of colored line drawing symbols and Blissymbols by three young men with physical and cognitive disabilities.…”

Selecting augmentative communication devices for persons with severe disabilities: Some factors for educational teams to consider

“…Selection of an electronic or nonelectronic device may be based upon the nature of the symbols used by the person (e.g., affixing miniature objects to an electronic device may be more difficult than affixing them to a low technology board). The choice of symbols also may be guided to some extent by research on the learnability of different symbol types (Bloomberg, Karlan, & Lloyd, 1990;Hurlbut, Iwata, & Green, 1982;Mirenda & Locke, 1989). In addition, the intelligibility of symbols to listeners will be of tremendous importance if the AAC device is to function as an effective means of interpersonal communication.…”