Effects of speech and print feedback on spelling performance of a child with cerebral palsy using a speech generating device

Purpose. The aim of the study was to investigate the effectiveness of three feedback conditions, using a speech-generating device, on spelling performance of Tom, an 11-year-old boy with cerebral palsy and complex communication needs. Method. Tom was taught to spell 12 words under three feedback conditions. In the SPEECH condition, he received only speech feedback from the device and in the PRINT condition he received only the orthographic feedback on the display of the device. In the SPEECH – PRINT condition, Tom received both speech output and orthographic feedback. An adapted alternating treatment design was used to investigate the effects of the three-feedback conditions. To strengthen the reliability and increase the internal validity of the findings, an intrasubject direct replication was carried out using the same procedure, but teaching 12 different spelling words to Tom. Results. Tom reached criterion with the PRINT feedback condition first, followed by SPEECH and SPEECH – PRINT conditions simultaneously for the first 12 words, and the same order for the second set of 12 words. Conclusions. Overall, the PRINT condition was most efficient for Tom. The results are discussed in terms of evidence for learning style preferences within spelling instruction for a child with complex communication needs. Furthermore, the implications for targeting intervention to optimise spelling achievement amongst this group are considered.

[1]  David E Yoder,et al.  Enhancing Literacy Development Through AAC Technologies , 2002, Assistive technology : the official journal of RESNA.

[2]  David E. Yoder,et al.  Classroom literacy instruction for children with severe speech and physical impairments (SSPI): What is and what might be , 1993 .

[3]  R. Schlosser,et al.  Effects of Synthetic Speech Output and Orthographic Feedback on Spelling in a Student with Autism: A Preliminary Study , 1998, Journal of autism and developmental disorders.

[4]  D. Barlow,et al.  Single Case Experimental Designs: Strategies for Studying Behavior Change , 1976 .

[5]  Ralf W Schlosser,et al.  Effects of speech and print feedback on spelling by children with autism. , 2004, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[6]  Virginia W. Berninger,et al.  Language profiles in nonspeaking individuals of normal intelligence with severe cerebral palsy , 1986 .

[7]  L. Ehri,et al.  The Development of Spelling Knowledge and Its Role in Reading Acquisition and Reading Disability , 1989, Journal of learning disabilities.

[8]  R. Schlosser,et al.  Roles of Speech Output in Augmentative and Alternative Communication: Narrative Review , 2003, Augmentative and alternative communication.

[9]  D. Beukelman,et al.  Augmentative & Alternative Communication: Supporting Children & Adults With Complex Communication Needs , 2006 .

[10]  D. Koppenhaver,et al.  Literacy Learning of Children with Severe Speech and Physical Impairments in School Settings , 1992 .

[11]  A. D. Sandberg Reading and spelling, phonological awareness, and working memory in children with severe speech impairments: A longitudinal study , 2001 .

[12]  R. Schlosser,et al.  Promoting generalization and maintenance in augmentative and alternative communication: A meta-analysis of 20 years of effectiveness research , 2000 .

[13]  Dennis G. Mike Literacy and Cerebral Palsy: Factors Influencing Literacy Learning in a Self-Contained Setting , 1995 .

[14]  T. Iacono Accessible Reading Intervention: A Work in Progress , 2004 .

[15]  Linnea C. Ehri,et al.  Learning To Read and Learning To Spell: Two Sides of a Coin. , 2000 .

[16]  S. Calculator,et al.  Preliminary validation of facilitated communication. , 1992 .

[17]  David McNaughton,et al.  Comparison of two spelling instruction techniques for adults who use augmentative and alternative communication , 1993 .

[18]  Janice Light,et al.  Do Augmentative and Alternative Communication Interventions Really Make a Difference?: The Challenges of Efficacy Research , 1999 .

[19]  Janice Light,et al.  Literacy and augmentative and alternative communication (AAC): The expectations and priorities of parents and teachers , 1993 .

[20]  Doreen M. Blischak,et al.  Phonologic awareness: Implications for individuals with little or no functional speech , 1994 .

[21]  Ron Dumont,et al.  Test of Phonological Awareness , 2008 .

[22]  R. Senf Tactics of Scientific Research: Evaluating Experimental Data in Psychology , 1962 .

[23]  Janice Light,et al.  Home literacy experiences of preschoolers who use AAC systems and of their nondisabled peers , 1993 .

[24]  D. Koppenhaver,et al.  Childhood reading and writing experiences of literate adults with severe speech and motor impairments , 1991 .

[25]  Alijandra Mogilner,et al.  Children's Writer's Word Book , 1992 .

[26]  B. Foley,et al.  The development of literacy in individuals with severe congenital speech and motor impairments , 1993 .

[27]  Sally Clendon,et al.  Augmentative and Alternative Communication, Language, and Literacy: Fostering the Relationship , 2004 .