Teaching Educational Assistants to Facilitate the Multisymbol Message Productions of Young Students Who Require Augmentative and Alternative Communication

Binger, Cathy; Kent-Walsh, Jennifer; Ewing, Cai S.; Taylor, Stacy

doi:10.1044/1058-0360(2009/09-0015)

Cited by 86 publications

(70 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Results from the current study compare less favourably with results from other intervention studies (Binger et al, 2008(Binger et al, , 2010. Differences in task parameters between these studies and the current investigation may account for poorer performance by Participants 3 and 4 in the current study.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 55%

“…They were also able to identify fewer of the graphic symbols prior to the commencement of intervention (see Table 1). Receptive language skills have been suggested to be an important factor in the production of graphic and other symbol combinations for children using AAC (Binger et al, 2010;Sevcik, 2006). The ability to produce graphic symbol combinations was specifically associated with receptive language skills equivalent to an age Running head: TEACHING GRAPHIC SYMBOL COMBINATIONS 34 level of at least 24 months in school-aged children using AAC (Sevcik, 2006).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Researchers and clinicians have successfully used story reading as a context for aided AAC interventions targeting various language skills (see Wood & Hood, 2004, for a review), including the production of symbol combinations (Binger et al, 2008(Binger et al, , 2010. By Running head: TEACHING GRAPHIC SYMBOL COMBINATIONS 7 incorporating specific semantic relations generated from a matrix into a more naturalistic context (i.e., shared story reading), we aimed to increase the external validity of the intervention as well as participants' motivation.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Teaching Graphic Symbol Combinations to Children with Limited Speech During Shared Story Reading

Tonsing

Dada

Alant

2014

Augmentative and Alternative Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 55%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Teaching Graphic Symbol Combinations to Children with Limited Speech During Shared Story Reading

Tonsing

Dada

Alant

2014

Augmentative and Alternative Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In the study where participants used either a communication board or an SGD ) participants making use of SGDs with graphic symbol overlays produced the combinations quicker than participants using non-electronic communication boards; however, the small sample and potential differences between participants precluded any definite conclusions. In each of the other studies, participants either all made use of communication boards (Nigam et al 2006;Tönsing et al 2014) or they all made use of SGDs (Binger et al 2010). From these studies it is therefore not clear whether use of SGDs rather than communication boards may encourage the production of graphic symbol combinations more effectively and efficiently.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Supporting the Production of Graphic Symbol Combinations by Children with Limited Speech: A Comparison of Two AAC systems

Tonsing

2015

J Dev Phys Disabil

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy with which the use of a speech generating device (Apple iPad TM with GoTalk Now TM application) versus a communication board promoted the production of two-symbols combinations (agent-action and attribute-entity combinations) by children limited speech within a shared story reading context. Four children between the ages of 6;8 (years;months) and 11;4 with severe motor speech disorders and a variety of developmental 1 disabilities participated in the study. An adapted alternating treatment design was used. All four participants showed increased production of two-symbol combinations in both intervention conditions. The Wilcoxon ranked pairs test did not show differences between the conditions for any participant. The results suggest that symbol combination skills can effectively be taught using either AAC system. A preference assessment indicated that all participants preferred to use the speech generating device during shared story reading. all studies focussed on basic requesting skills requiring the use of only one symbol per response in all or at least one of the intervention conditions; and (b) most studies did not support consistent differences between electronic and non-electronic systems. One explanation for the lack of clear differences between the conditions may be that the acquisition of the requesting skills targeted in these interventions is strongly motivated by the reinforcer. Participants might be so motivated to obtain the reinforcer, that the method to obtain it loses particular relevance. The acquisition of communication functions that are not as tangibly motivated but that proceed for social and interactive reasons might be more prone to influence by the system used, as internal rather than external motivation may play a larger role (Light, Parsons and Drager 2002). Of the 31 participants that took part in the studies comparing SGDs to non-electronic AAC systems reviewed by Gevarter et al (2013), 17 had a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder (ASD), autism or pervasive developmental disorder (PDD). Young children with these diagnoses typically are more likely to communicate in order to regulate the behavior of others (i.e., requesting or protesting), rather than for the purpose of social interaction (Wetherby, Watt, Morgan and Shumway 2007), which may explain the focus on requesting in these studies.The use of electronic versus non-electronic systems may differentially influence the production of multi-symbol combinations (Binger, Kent-Walsh, Berens, Del Campo and Rivera, 2008). An SGD provides auditory feedback to the person using it on his/her own productions, which may facilitate language learning (Romski and Sevcik 1988;1996;Romski, Sevcik and Adamson 1997). The digital or synthetic speech generated by the SGD may reinforce the learning of symbol sequences. This may be a benefit that is particularly relevant to children who have an understanding of spoken language, whereas the receptive (spoken) language skills of the 3 participants...

show abstract

“…Although a growing body of work supports building early syntax skills with this population (Binger et al, 2008;Binger, Kent-Walsh, Ewing, & Taylor, 2010;Binger & Light, 2007;Kent-Walsh et al, 2015), the current investigation moves this work forward in two primary ways: First, using DA may enable clinicians to improve their ability to predict when children are ready to focus on early syntax when using AAC. Second, focusing on a range of targets may help determine which particular linguistic structures may be viable at a given point in time.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dynamic Assessment for 3- and 4-Year-Old Children Who Use Augmentative and Alternative Communication: Evaluating Expressive Syntax

Binger

Kent-Walsh

King

2017

J Speech Lang Hear Res

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: The developmental readiness to produce early sentences with an iPad communication application was assessed with ten 3-and 4-year-old children with severe speech disorders using graduated prompting dynamic assessment (DA) techniques. The participants' changes in performance within the DA sessions were evaluated, and DA performance was compared with performance during a subsequent intervention. Method: Descriptive statistics were used to examine patterns of performance at various cueing levels and mean levels of cueing support. The Wilcoxon signed-ranks test was used to measure changes within the DA sessions. Correlational data were calculated to determine how well performance in DA predicted performance during a subsequent intervention.Results: Participants produced targets successfully in DA at various cueing levels, with some targets requiring less cueing than others. Performance improved significantly within the DA sessions-that is, the level of cueing required for accurate productions of the targets decreased during DA sessions. Last, moderate correlations existed between DA scores and performance during the intervention for 3 out of 4 targets, with statistically significant findings for 2 of 4 targets. Conclusion: DA offers promise for examining the developmental readiness of young children who use augmentative and alternative communication to produce early expressive language structures.

show abstract

Teaching Educational Assistants to Facilitate the Multisymbol Message Productions of Young Students Who Require Augmentative and Alternative Communication

Cited by 86 publications

References 27 publications

Teaching Graphic Symbol Combinations to Children with Limited Speech During Shared Story Reading

Teaching Graphic Symbol Combinations to Children with Limited Speech During Shared Story Reading

Supporting the Production of Graphic Symbol Combinations by Children with Limited Speech: A Comparison of Two AAC systems

Dynamic Assessment for 3- and 4-Year-Old Children Who Use Augmentative and Alternative Communication: Evaluating Expressive Syntax

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About