Children with complex communication needs (CCN) who use augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) often need more time to process and respond when communicating with others. This study employed a survival analysis approach exploring child response-time patterns following different communication opportunities for young children with CCN who use AAC. The results showed a median of 1.87 s response time with significant individual variability. Children took less time to communicate following a choice or a question than following a comment. AAC modeling was also associated with shorter response times. Additionally, the more opportunities that occurred without a child response, the longer child response time tended to be. Our findings suggest that if the child does not make a response attempt, instead of repeating communication opportunities, communication partners should consistently wait and use questions and choices along with modeling to increase child communication.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BarkerR. M.AkabaS.BradyN. C.Thiemann-BourqueK. (2013). Support for AAC use in preschool, and growth in language skills, for young children with developmental disabilities. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 29(4), 334–346. https://doi.org/10.3109/07434618.2013.848933
2.
BeckA.BockS.ThompsonJ.KosuwanK. (2002). Influence of communicative competence and augmentative and alternative communication technique on children’s attitudes toward a peer who uses AAC. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 18(4), 217–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434610212331281301
3.
BeukelmanD.MirendaP. (2013). Augmentative and alternative communication: Supporting children and adults with complex communication needs. Paul H. Brookes.
4.
BiggsE. E.CarterE. W.BumbleJ. L.BarnesK.MazurE. L. (2018). Enhancing peer network interventions for students with complex communication needs. Exceptional Children, 85(1), 66–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402918792899
5.
BiggsE. E.CarterE. W.GilsonC. B. (2018). Systematic review of interventions involving aided AAC modeling for children with complex communication needs. American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 123(5), 443–473. https://doi.org/10.1352/1944-7558-123.5.443
6.
BingerC.LightJ. (2006). Demographics of preschoolers who require AAC. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 37(3), 200–208. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2006/022)
7.
BingerC.RenleyN.BabejE.Hahs-VaughnD. (2021). A survey of school-age children with highly unintelligible speech. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 37(3), 194–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434618.2021.1947370
8.
BoyleC. A.BouletS.SchieveL. A.CohenR. A.BlumbergS. J.Yeargin-AllsoppM.VisserS.KoganM. D. (2011). Trends in the prevalence of developmental disabilities in US children, 1997–2008. Pediatrics, 127(6), 1034 − 1042. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2010-2989
9.
BradyN. C.BruceS.GoldmanA.EricksonK.MineoB.OgletreeB. T., Paul, D., Romski, M., Sevcik, R., Siegel, E., Schoonover, J., Snell, M., Sylvester, L., & WilkinsonK. (2016). Communication services and supports for individuals with severe disabilities: Guidance for assessment and intervention. American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 121(2), 121–138. https://doi.org/10.1352/1944-7558-121.2.121
10.
BrobergM.FermU.ThunbergG. (2012). Measuring responsive style in parents who use AAC with their children: Development and evaluation of a new instrument. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 28(4), 243–253. https://doi.org/10.3109/07434618.2012.740686
11.
ClarkeM.KirtonA. (2003). Patterns of interaction between children with physical disabilities using augmentative and alternative communication systems and their peers. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 19(2), 135–151. https://doi.org/10.1191/0265659003ct248oa
12.
ColemanH. M.XuY. (2020). Increasing parent involvement in communication intervention: A case study. Early Child Development and Care, 190(13), 2134–2149. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2018.1561444
13.
CooperB.SotoG.ClarkeM. T. (2021). Prompting for repair as a language teaching strategy for augmentative and alternative communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 37(4), 251–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434618.2021.1979648
DouglasS. N.BowlesR. P.PlavnickJ.SunT.Dunkel-JacksonS. M.BagawanA. (2022). Iterative testing of the POWR intervention: Online training to support paraeducator implementation of augmentative and alternative communication strategies [Manuscript submitted for publication]. Human Development and Family Studies, Michigan State University.
16.
DouglasS. N.McNaughtonD.LightJ. (2013). Online training for paraeducators to support the communication of young children. Journal of Early Intervention, 35(3), 223–242. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053815114526782
17.
DragerK.LightJ.McNaughtonD. (2010). Effects of AAC interventions on communication and language for young children with complex communication needs. Journal of Pediatric Rehabilitation Medicine, 3(4), 303–310. https://doi.org/10.3233/PRM-2010-0141
18.
DragerK. D.LightJ. C.SpeltzJ. H. C.FallonK. A.JeffriesL. Z. (2003). The performance of typically developing 2 1/2-year-olds on dynamic display AAC technologies with different system layouts and language organizations. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 46(2), 298–312. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2003/024)
19.
FinkeE. H.LightJ.KitkoL. (2008). A systematic review of the effectiveness of nurse communication with patients with complex communication needs with a focus on the use of augmentative and alternative communication. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 17(16), 2102–2115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2008.02373.x
20.
GevarterC.ZamoraC. (2018). Naturalistic speech-generating device interventions for children with complex communication needs: A systematic review of single-subject studies. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 27(3), 1073–1090. https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.6615332
21.
Kent-WalshJ.McNaughtonD. (2005). Communication partner instruction in AAC: Present practices and future directions. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 21(3), 195–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434610400006646
22.
LaubscherE.LightJ. (2020). Core vocabulary lists for young children and considerations for early language development: A narrative review. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 36(1), 43–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434618.2020.1737964
23.
LorahE. R.TincaniM.DodgeJ.GilroyS.HickeyA.HantulaD. (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, 25(6), 637–649. https://doi.org/637-649.10.1007/s10882-013-9337-1
24.
LightJ.McNaughtonD. (2014). Communicative competence for individuals who require augmentative and alternative communication: A new definition for a new era of communication?Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 30(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3109/07434618.2014.885080
25.
LightJ.McNaughtonD.CaronJ. (2019). New and emerging AAC technology supports for children with complex communication needs and their communication partners: State of the science and future research directions. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 35(1), 26–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434618.2018.1557251
26.
LundS. K.LightJ. (2006). Long-term outcomes for individuals who use augmentative and alternative communication: Part I. What is a “good” outcome?Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 22(4), 284–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434610600718693
27.
LundS. K.LightJ. (2007a). Long-term outcomes for individuals who use augmentative and alternative communication: Part II. Communicative interaction. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 23(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434610600720442
28.
LundS. K.LightJ. (2007b). Long-term outcomes for individuals who use augmentative and alternative communication: Part III. Contributing factors. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 23(4), 323–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/02656730701189123
29.
LundS. K.QuachW.WeisslingK.McKelveyM.DietzA. (2017). Assessment with children who need augmentative and alternative communication (AAC): Clinical decisions of AAC specialists. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 48(1), 56–68. https://doi.org/10.1044/2016_LSHSS-15-0086
30.
MaroniB.GnisciA.PontecorvoC. (2008). Turn-taking in classroom interactions: Overlapping, interruptions and pauses in primary school. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 23(1), 59–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173140
31.
MathisH.SutherlandD.McAuliffeM. (2011). The effect of pause time upon the communicative interactions of young people who use augmentative and alternative communication. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 13(5), 411–421. https://doi.org/10.3109/17549507.2011.524709
32.
MillerC. A.LeonardL. B.KailR. V.ZhangX.TomblinJ. B.FrancisD. J. (2006). Response time in 14-year-olds with language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49(4), 712–728. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2006/052)
33.
MüllerE.SotoG. (2002). Conversation patterns of three adults using aided speech: Variations across partners. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 18(2), 77–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434610212331281181
34.
O’NeillT.WilkinsonK. M. (2020). Preliminary investigation of the perspectives of parents of children with cerebral palsy on the supports, challenges, and realities of integrating augmentative and alternative communication into everyday life. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 29(1), 238–254. https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_AJSLP-19-00103
35.
ReichleJ.DettlingE.DragerK.LeiterA. (2000). Comparison of correct responses and response latency for fixed and dynamic displays: Performance of a learner with severe developmental disabilities. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 16(3), 154–163. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434610012331279014
36.
SennottS. C.LightJ. C.McNaughtonD. (2016). AAC Modeling intervention research review. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 41(2), 101–115. https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796916638822
37.
SchuchardtK.GebhardtM.MäehlerC. (2010). Working memory functions in children with different degrees of intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 54(4), 346–353. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2788.2010.01265.x
38.
SimpsonK.KeenD. (2010). Teaching young children with autism graphic symbols embedded within an interactive song. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 22(2), 165–177. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-009-9173-5
39.
SingerJ. D.WillettJ. B. (2003). Applied longitudinal data analysis: Modeling change and event occurrence. Oxford University Press.
40.
SmithM. M.GroveN. C. (2003). Asymmetry in input and output for individuals who use AAC. In J. C. Light, D. R. Beukelman, & J. Reichle (Eds.), Communicative Competence for Individuals Who Use AAC: From Research to Effective Practice (pp. 163 –195). Brookes.
41.
SnellM. E.ChenL. Y.HooverK. (2006). Teaching augmentative and alternative communication to students with severe disabilities: A review of intervention research 1997–2003. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 31(3), 203–214. https://doi.org/10.1177/154079690603100301
42.
SotoG.ClarkeM. T. (2017) Effects of a conversation-based intervention on the linguistic skills of children with motor speech disorders who use augmentative and alternative communication. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 60(7), 1980–1998. https://doi.org/10.1044/2016_jslhr-l-15-0246
43.
TabachnickB. G.FidellL. S. (2018). Using multivariate statistics. Pearson.
44.
Tekin-IftarE.Olcay-GulS.CollinsB. C. (2019). Descriptive analysis and meta-analysis of studies investigating the effectiveness of simultaneous prompting procedure. Exceptional Children, 85(3), 309–328. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402918795702
45.
ThistleJ. J.WilkinsonK. M. (2015). Building evidence-based practice in AAC display design for young children: Current practices and future directions. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 31(2), 124–136. https://doi.org/10.3109/07434618.2015.1035798
46.
ThistleJ. J.WilkinsonK. (2017). Effects of background color and symbol arrangement cues on construction of multi-symbol messages by young children without disabilities: Implications for aided AAC design. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 33(3), 160–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434618.2017.1336571
47.
WasikB. A.HindmanA. H. (2018). Why wait? The importance of wait time in developing young students’ language and vocabulary skills. Reading Teacher, 72(3), 369–378. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1730
48.
WhalonK.DelanoM.HanlineM. F. (2013). A rationale and strategy for adapting dialogic reading for children with autism spectrum disorder: RECALL. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 57(2), 93–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2012.672347
49.
YorkeA. M.LightJ. C.Gosnell CaronJ.McNaughtonD. B.DragerK. D. (2018). The effects of explicit instruction in academic vocabulary during shared book reading on the receptive vocabulary of children with complex communication needs. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 34(4), 288–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434618.2018.1506823
50.
ZimmermanI. L.SteinerV.PondR. E. (2011). Preschool Language Scales, Fifth Edition (PLS-5). Pearson.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
