Teaching requesting and rejecting sequences to four children with developmental disabilities using augmentative and alternative communication

Teaching Mands to Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder Using Behavior Chain Interruption Strategies: a Systematic Review

“…Thirteen studies (46%) included assessment for multiple types of generalization (e.g., Lechago et al 2013;Marion et al 2012b;Sundberg et al 2002). Finally, generalization across time (i.e., maintenance) was assessed in 11 (39%) studies (e.g., Alwell et al 1989;Choi et al 2010;Marion et al 2011) with such assessments occurring from 1 week to 24 weeks after intervention (M = 5 weeks).…”

“…The Sidener et al (2010) study was unique in that it focused on teaching both mands and tacts. Further, two studies (i.e., Choi et al 2010;Shillingsburg et al 2013) taught mands that were negatively reinforced. Choi et al (2010) taught a requesting and rejecting sequence that involved a re-request in the context of the participant being offered the incorrect item following the initial request.…”

“…Further, two studies (i.e., Choi et al 2010;Shillingsburg et al 2013) taught mands that were negatively reinforced. Choi et al (2010) taught a requesting and rejecting sequence that involved a re-request in the context of the participant being offered the incorrect item following the initial request. Shillingsburg et al (2013) taught mands for the removal of an item that was blocking access to a preferred item.…”

“…Model prompts included the use of verbal models, such as saying the mand that the participant was supposed to produce. Seventeen studies (61%) incorporated the use of a time delay as part of the prompt procedures (e.g., Choi et al 2010;Marion et al 2011;Shillingsburg et al 2014a). Four studies (14%) used physical and/or partial physical prompting procedures (e.g., Alwell et al 1989;Grunsell and Carter 2002;Sigafoos et al 1994).…”

Robot-based augmentative and alternative communication for nonverbal children with communication disorders

“…All participants met the following AAC selection criteria [11]: -(a) they were pre-school children, (b) they had vision, hearing, and motor abilities that were functional for participation in the study according to their parents' reports (i.e., they could see the AAC screen, hear the instructor or robot during sessions, and touch the AAC screen with their fingers), (c) they had a total number of expressive words that was fewer than 20 as indicated by the K M-B CDI [23], and (d) their language development was delayed by more than 1 year as indicated by the results of the Korean Preschool receptive and expressive language test [25]. Table 1 describes the recruited children.…”