Language treatment approach for users of AAC: experimental single-subject investigation

This study sought to determine if a language intervention treatment program could promote the segmentation and combination of grammatical constituents in an individual who primarily communicated via single-symbol message strategies. A computerized adaptation of a reciprocal reading procedure was employed to highlight syntactic constituents through selective segmentation and promote their combination through conversational turn taking. To answer this question, evidence for a treatment effect was obtained using a multiple baseline across communicative contexts design. A 5-year-old child who primarily communicated via single-symbol message strategies was trained to segment syntactic constituents in two different discourse contexts (book reading and structured discourse). The data for this child indicated a positive effect of treatment in both discourse contexts, although the magnitude of the treatment effect was greater in the bookreading context than in the structured discourse context.

[1]  Janice Light,et al.  Interaction involving individuals using augmentative and alternative communication systems: State of the art and future directions , 1988 .

[2]  Ruth Clark,et al.  Errors in Talking to Learn , 1980 .

[3]  R. Johnson,et al.  The picture communication symbols , 1993 .

[4]  Nickola Wolf Nelson,et al.  Performance is the prize: Language competence and performance among AAC users , 1992 .

[5]  Leija V. McReynolds,et al.  Single-subject experimental designs in communicative disorders , 1983 .

[6]  K. Nelson,et al.  Structure and strategy in learning to talk. , 1973 .

[7]  Deberah Harris,et al.  Communicative interaction processes involving nonvocal physically handicapped children , 1982 .

[8]  Cathy Binger,et al.  Story Reading interactions between preschoolers who use AAC and their mothers , 1994 .

[9]  Nickola Wolf Nelson,et al.  Childhood Language Disorders in Context: Infancy Through Adolescence , 1992 .

[10]  Judith R. Johnston.  Generalization: The Nature of Change , 1988 .

[11]  H. Goldstein,et al.  Effects of a pragmatic teaching strategy for requesting information by communication board users. , 1990, The Journal of speech and hearing disorders.

[12]  Sima Gerber,et al.  Use of a developmental model of language acquisition: Applications to children using AAC systems , 1992 .

[13]  H. Craig.  Pragmatic Characteristics of the Child with Specific Language Impairment: An Interactionist Perspective , 1991 .

[14]  L. Bloom,et al.  Semantics of verbs and the development of verb inflection in child language , 1980 .

[15]  Ruth Clark.  Performing without competence , 1974, Journal of Child Language.

[16]  G. Whitehurst,et al.  Accelerating Language Development through Picture Book Reading. , 1988 .

[17]  C. Prutting,et al.  Spontaneous verbal repetition: A performance-based strategy for language acquisition , 1987 .

[18]  M. Fey.  Generalization Issues Facing Language Interventionists: An Introduction. , 1988 .

[19]  M. Braine.  Children's First Word Combinations. , 1976 .

[20]  Teresa Iacono,et al.  Individual language learning styles and Augmentative and Alternative Communication , 1992 .

[21]  Catherine E. Snow,et al.  Turn the page please: situation-specific language acquisition , 1983, Journal of Child Language.

[22]  Janice Light,et al.  Communicative interaction between young nonspeaking physically disabled children and their primary caregivers: Part III—modes of communication , 1985 .

[23]  Ann M. Peters,et al.  The Units of Language Acquisition , 1983 .

[24]  Marc E. Fey,et al.  Language intervention with young children , 1986 .

[25]  D. Gast,et al.  Single Subject Research in Special Education , 1984 .

[26]  R. Rush,et al.  The vocabulary of first-grade children , 1982 .

[27]  John Dore,et al.  A pragmatic description of early language development , 1974 .