Using Dynamic Assessment to Evaluate the Expressive Syntax of Children who use Augmentative and Alternative Communication

Abstract

The developmental readiness of four 5-year-old children to produce basic sentences using graphic symbols on an augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) device during a dynamic assessment (DA) task was examined. Additionally, the ability of the DA task to predict performance on a subsequent experimental task was evaluated. A graduated prompting framework was used during DA. Measures included amount of support required to produce the targets, modifiability (change in participant performance) within a DA session, and predictive validity of DA. Participants accurately produced target structures with varying amounts of support. Modifiability within DA sessions was evident for some participants, and partial support was provided for the measures of predictive validity. These initial results indicate that DA may be a viable way to measure young children’s developmental readiness to learn how to sequence simple, rule-based messages via aided AAC.

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

“…The first focused on phonological awareness skills (Barker, Bridges, & Saunders, 2014), and the second, a precursor to the current investigation, used graduated prompting to evaluate productions of early two-and threeword utterances with four 5-year-old children with severe speech impairments (King, Binger, & Kent-Walsh, 2015). Results from the latter study indicated that the participants benefited from a range of cues to produce the sentences.…”

Language Sampling for Preschoolers With Severe Speech Impairments

“…First, many children with severe speech impairmentsincluding those eventually diagnosed with either speech sound or motor speech disorders-may require intervention not only for speech but also for language (e.g., McNeill & Gillon, 2013;Mortimer & Rvachew, 2010), but language may be overlooked in favor of focusing on the most obvious issue. In addition, and somewhat to the converse, language expectations may be set too low for many of these children -that is, clinicians may underestimate the language potential for a child whose speech is unintelligible, in particular for children with motor speech disorders; that is, the speech impairment may mask linguistic competence, a phenomenon illustrated by studies showing that preschoolers with severe speech impairments can rapidly learn to create multisymbol messages using graphic symbols even though the ability to do so may not be reflected clearly in their spoken language Binger, KentWalsh, Ewing, & Taylor, 2010;Binger, Kent-Walsh, King, Webb, & Buenviaje, in press;Kent-Walsh, Binger, & Buchanan, 2015;King et al, 2015).…”

“…A quite different but complementary approach that may be used to examine syntax for children with limited word productions is to explore expressive syntax by using aided AAC. For example, nearly all children in the current investigation (including Child N) learned to produce two-to three-symbol rule-based messages (e.g., agent-action-object sentences) during a relatively brief dynamic assessment task in which children used a communication app on an iPad (Binger, Kent-Walsh, & King, in press;King et al, 2015). Thus, alternative communication modes should be considered when assessing expressive language potential for children with severe speech Figure 2.…”

“…Emerging evidence indicates that dynamic assessment may be used to explore expressive language options using AAC (Binger, Kent-Walsh, & King, in press;King et al, 2015), and more traditional options, such as language sampling, also may prove viable. In the latter case, transcripts certainly will be impacted by the child's intelligibility.…”

“…As examples, Gordon-Brannan and Hodson (2000) used continuous speech samples; Hustad, Allison, McFadd, and Riehle (2014) used language samples; and Monsen (1981) used a single word intelligibility task, with all considering intelligibility measures below 50%-60% to indicate severely impaired speech. In a similar manner, a commonly used criterion to include children with highly unintelligible speech who require augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) in research studies is having speech less than 50% comprehensible on a single word comprehensibility task (Binger, Kent-Walsh, Berens, Del Campo, & Rivera, 2008;Binger & Light, 2007;King, Binger, & Kent-Walsh, 2015). Thus, despite differences in tasks, an overall pattern for children considered to have severe speech impairments is apparent with a maximal intelligibility (or comprehensibility, depending on the study) of approximately 50%-60%.…”