Comparing Tangible Symbols, Picture Exchange, and a Direct Selection Response for Enabling Two Boys with Developmental Disabilities to Access Preferred Stimuli

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Laura Roche (1)
  Jeff Sigafoos (1)
  Giulio E. Lancioni (2)
  Mark F. O’Reilly (3)
  Larah van der Meer (4)
  Donna Achmadi (4)
  Vanessa A. Green (4)
  Debora Kagohara (4)
  Dean Sutherland (5)
  Christopher Rayner (6)
  Peter B. Marschik (7)
  
• 关键词：Augmentative and alternative communication ; Autism spectrum disorders ; Developmental disability ; Direct selection ; Picture exchange ; Tangible symbols
• 刊名：Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities
• 出版年：2014
• 出版时间：June 2014
• 年：2014
• 卷：26
• 期：3
• 页码：249-261
• 全文大小：531 KB
• 参考文献：1. Ali, E., MacFarland, S. Z., & Umbreit, J. (2011). Effectiveness of combining tangible symbols with the Picture Exchange Communication System to teach requesting skills to children with multiple disabilities including visual impairment. / Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 46, 425-35.
  2. Boesch, M., Wendt, O., Subramanian, A., & Hsu, N. (2013a). Comparative efficacy of the Picture Exchange Communication System (PECS) versus a speech-generating device: effects on requesting skills. / Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 7, 480-93. CrossRef
  3. Boesch, M., Wendt, O., Subramanian, A., & Hsu, N. (2013b). Comparative efficacy of the Picture Exchange Communication System (PECS) versus a speech-generating device: effects on social-communicative skills and speech development. / Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 29, 197-09. CrossRef
  4. Duker, P., Didden, R., & Sigafoos, J. (2004). / One-to-one training: Instructional procedures for learners with developmental disabilities. Austin: Pro-Ed.
  5. Flores, M., Musgrove, K., Renner, S., Hinton, V., Stroizer, S., Franklin, S., et al. (2012). A comparison of communication using the Apple iPad and a picture-based system. / Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 28, 74-4. CrossRef
  6. Kennedy, C. H. (2005). / Single-case designs for educational research. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
  7. Lorah, E., Tincani, M., Dodge, J., Gilroy, S., Hickey, A., & Hantula, D. (2013). Evaluating picture exchange and the iPad as a speech generating device to teach communication to young children with autism. / Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities. doi:10.1007/s10882-013-9337-1 .
  8. Lund, S. K., & Troha, J. M. (2008). Teaching young people who are blind and have autism to make requests using a variation on the Picture Exchange Communication System with tactile symbols: a preliminary investigation. / Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 38, 719-30. CrossRef
  9. Parker, A. T., Banda, D. R., Davidson, R. C., & Liu-Gitz, L. (2010). Adapting the Picture Exchange Communication System for a student with visual impairment and autism: a case study. / AER Journal: Research and Practice in Visual Impairment and Blindness, 3, 2-1.
  10. Roche, L., Sigafoos, J., Lancioni, G. E., O’Reilly, M. F., Green, V. A., Sutherland, D., van der Meer, L., Schlosser, R. W., Marschik, P. B., & Edrisinha, C. (2013). / Tangible symbols as an AAC option for individuals with developmental disabilities: A systematic review of intervention studies. Manuscript submitted for publication.
  11. Rowland, C., & Schweigert, P. (1989). Tangible symbols: symbolic communication for individuals with multisensory impairments. / Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 5, 226-34. CrossRef
  12. Rowland, C., & Schweigert, P. (2000). Tangible symbols, tangible outcomes. / Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 16, 61-8. CrossRef
  13. Schlosser, R. W. (2003). / The efficacy of augmentative and alternative communication: toward evidence-based practice. Boston: Academic.
  14. Schlosser, R. W., & Sigafoos, J. (2002). Selecting graphic symbols for an initial request lexicon: Integrative review. / Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 18, 102-23. CrossRef
  15. Sigafoos, J., O’Reilly, M. F., Ganz, J., Lancioni, G., & Schlosser, R. (2005). Supporting self-determination in AAC interventions by assessing preference for communication devices. / Technology & Disability, 17, 143-53.
  16. Son, S.-H., Sigafoos, J., O’Reilly, M. F., & Lancioni, G. E. (2006). Comparing two types of augmentative and alternative communication systems for children with autism. / Pediatric Rehabilitation, 9, 389-95.
  17. Sparrow, S. S., Cicchetti, D. V., & Balla, D. A. (2005). / Vineland adaptive behavior scales (2nd ed.). Minneapolis: Pearson.
  18. Trief, E. (2007). The use of tangible cues for children with multiple disabilities and visual impairment. / Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 101, 613-19.
  19. Trief, E., Cascella, P. W., & Bruce, S. M. (2013). A field study of a standardized tangible symbol system for learners who are visually impaired and have multiple disabilities. / Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 107, 180-91.
  20. Turnell, R., & Carter, M. (1994). Establishing a repertoire of requesting for a student with severe and multiple disabilities using tangible symbols and naturalistic time delay. / Australia & New Zealand Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 19, 193-07.
  21. van der Meer, L., Didden, R., Sutherland, D., O’Reilly, M., Lancioni, G., & Sigafoos, J. (2012a). Comparing three augmentative and alternative communication modes for children with developmental disabilities. / Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 24, 451-68. CrossRef
  22. van der Meer, L., Sutherland, D., O’Reilly, M., Lancioni, G., & Sigafoos, J. (2012b). A further comparison of manual signing, picture exchange, and speech-generating devices as communication modes for children with autism spectrum disorders. / Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 6, 1247-257. CrossRef
  23. van der Meer, L., Kagohara, D., Roche, L., Sutherland, D., Balandin, S., Green, V. A., O’Reilly, M. F., Lancioni, G. E., Marschik, P. B., & Sigafoos, J. (2013a). Teaching multi-step requesting and social communication to two children with autism spectrum disorders with three AAC options. / Augmentative and Alternative Communication, Early Online: 1-3. doi: 10.3109/07434618.2013.815801 .
  24. van der Meer, L., Sigafoos, J., Sutherland, D., McLay, L., Lang, R., Lancioni, G. E., O’Reilly, M. F., & Marschik, P. B. (2013b). Preference-enhanced communication intervention and development of social communicative functions in a child with autism spectrum disorder. / Clinical Case Studies.
  25. Wilkins, J., & Matson, J. L. (2007). Social skills. In J. L. Matson (Ed.), / Handbook of assessment in persons with intellectual disability (pp. 321-63). Boston: Academic. CrossRef
  
• 作者单位：Laura Roche (1)
  Jeff Sigafoos (1)
  Giulio E. Lancioni (2)
  Mark F. O’Reilly (3)
  Larah van der Meer (4)
  Donna Achmadi (4)
  Vanessa A. Green (4)
  Debora Kagohara (4)
  Dean Sutherland (5)
  Christopher Rayner (6)
  Peter B. Marschik (7)
  
  1. School of Educational Psychology, Victoria University of Wellington, PO Box 17-10, Karori, 6147, Wellington, New Zealand
  2. Department of Neuroscience and Sense Organs, University of Bari, Bari, Italy
  3. Meadows Center for Preventing Educational Risk, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA
  4. School of Educational Psychology, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand
  5. School of Health Sciences, College of Education, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand
  6. School of Education, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, Australia
  7. Institute of Physiology, iDN-Interdisciplinary Developmental Neuroscience, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria
  
• ISSN：1573-3580

文摘

We compared how quickly two boys with developmental disabilities learned to use tangible symbols, picture exchange, and a direct selection response to access cartoon videos. Intervention, aimed at teaching the boys to use each option, was evaluated in a multiple-baseline across participants and alternating treatments design. Following intervention, the boys were allowed to choose among the three options. Both participants learned to access six cartoon videos using the three options at comparable rates. Following acquisition, both boys most often chose to use tangible symbols. These findings are consistent with previous studies reporting comparable acquisition rates and a preference among communication options. The present study extends the literature by including a comparison of tangible symbols and a direct selection response. Our results provide additional support for the use of tangible symbols as a communication option for children with developmental disabilities.