Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2008-9
Evidence-Based Communication Practices for Children with Visual Impairments and Additional Disabilities: An Examination of Single-Subject Design Studies
This review examines practices for building effective communication strategies for children with visual impairments, including those with additional disabilities, that have been tested by single-subject design methodology. The authors found 30 studies that met the search criteria and grouped intervention strategies to align any evidence of the replication of successful outcomes.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BruceS. M. (2002). Impact of a communication intervention model on teachers’ practice with children who are congenitally deaf-blind. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 96, 154–168.
2.
BruceS. M. (2005). The application of Werner and Kaplan's concept of “distancing” to children who are deaf-blind. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 99, 464–477.
3.
CosbeyJ. E., & JohnstonS. (2006). Using a single-switch voice output communication aid to increase social access for children with severe disabilities in inclusive classrooms. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 31, 144–156.
4.
DattiloJ. (1986). Computerized assessment of preference for severely handicapped individuals. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 19, 445–448.
5.
FerrellK. A. (2000). Growth and development of young children with visual impairments. In HolbrookM. C., & KoenigA. J. (Eds.), Foundations of education: Volume I. History and theory of teaching children and youths with visual impairments (2nd ed., pp. 111–134). New York: AFB Press.
6.
FerrellK. A., ShawA. R., & DietzS. J. (1998). Project PRISM: A longitudinal study of developmental patterns of children who are visually impaired (Final report, CFDA 84.023C, Grant H023C10188). Greeley: Division of Special Education, University of Northern Colorado.
7.
FraibergS. (1977). Insights from the blind.New York: Basic Books.
8.
HellerK. W., & AllgoodM. H. (1996). Use of dual communication boards at vocational sites by students who are deaf-blind. RE:view, 27, 180–191.
9.
HellerK. W., AllgoodM. H., DavisB., ArnoldS. E., CastelleM. D., & TaberT. A. (1996). Promoting nontask-related communication at vocational sites. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 12, 169–178.
10.
HellerK. W., AllgoodM. H., WareS., ArnoldS. E., & CastelleM. D. (1996). Initiating requests during community-based vocational training by students with mental retardation and sensory impairments. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 17, 173–184.
11.
HellerK. W., & WareS. (1994). Use of dual communication boards with students who are deaf-blind. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 88, 368–376.
12.
HornerR. H., CarrE. G., HalleJ., OdomS., & WoleryM. (2005). The use of single-subject research to identify evidence-based practice in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 165–179.
13.
HuebnerK. M., Merk-AdamB., StrykerD., & WolffeK. E. (2004). The national agenda for the education of children and youths with visual impairments, including those with multiple disabilities, revised.New York: American Foundation for the Blind.
14.
HuntP., AlwellM., & GoetzL. (1991). Interacting with peers through conversation turn-taking with a communication book adaptation. AAC Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 7, 117–127.
15.
HuntP., AlwellM., Farron-DavisF., & GoetzL. (1996). Creating socially supportive environments for fully included students who experience multiple disabilities. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 21, 53–71.
16.
JanssenM. J., Riksen-WalravenM., & van DijkJ. (2002). Enhancing the quality of interaction between deafblind children and their educators. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 14, 87–109.
17.
JanssenM. J., Riksen-WalravenM., & van DijkJ. (2003). Contacts: Effects of an intervention program to foster harmonious interactions between deaf-blind children and their educators. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 97, 215–229.
18.
JanssenM. J., Riksen-WalravenM., & van DijkJ. (2004). Enhancing the interactive competencies of deafblind children: Do intervention effects endure?Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 16, 73–94.
19.
JanssenM. J., Riksen-WalravenM., & van DijkJ. (2006). Applying the diagnostic intervention model for fostering harmonious interactions between deaf-blind children and their educators: A case study. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 100, 91–105.
20.
KnutsonJ., & SullivanP. (1993). Communicative disorders as a risk factor in abuse. Topics in Language Disorders, 13(4), 1–14.
21.
LancioniG. E., & LemsS. (2001). Using a microswitch for vocalization responses with persons with multiple disabilities. Disability and Rehabilitation23, 745–748.
22.
LancioniG. E., O'ReillyM. F., & BasiliG. (2001). Use of microswitches and speech output systems with people with severe/ profound intellectual or multiple disabilities: A literature review. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 22, 21–40.
23.
LancioniG. E., O'ReillyM. F., SigafoosJ., SinghN. N., OlivaD., & BasiliG. (2004). Enabling a person with multiple disabilities and minimal motor behaviour to control environmental stimulation with chin movements. Disability and Rehabilitation, 26, 1291–1294.
24.
LancioniG. E., O'ReillyM. F., SinghN. N., OlivaD., BaccaniS., SeveriniL., & GroenewegJ. (2006). Micro-switch programmes for students with multiple disabilities and minimal motor behaviour: Assessing response acquisition and choice. Pediatric Rehabilitation, 9, 137–143.
25.
LancioniG. E., O'ReillyM. F., SinghN. N., SigafoosJ., DiddenR., OlivaD., & SeveriniL. (2006). A microswitch-based program to enable students with multiple disabilities to choose among environmental stimuli. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 100, 488–493.
26.
LancioniG. E., O'ReillyM. F., SinghN. N., SigafoosJ., OlivaD., CoppaM., & MontironiG. (2005). A new microswitch to enable a boy with minimal motor behavior to control environmental stimulation with eye blinks. Behavioral Interventions, 20, 147–153.
27.
LancioniG. E., O'ReillyM. F., SinghN. N., SigafoosJ., OlivaD., MontironiG., SavinoM., & BoscoA. (2005). Extending the evaluation of a computer system used as a microswitch for word utterances of persons with multiple disabilities. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 49, 639–646.
28.
LancioniG. E., SinghN. N., O'ReillyM. F., OlivaD., BaccaniS., & CanevaroA. (2002). Using simple hand-movement responses with optic microswitches with two persons with multiple disabilities. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 27, 276–279.
29.
LancioniG. E., SinghN. N., O'ReillyM. F., OlivaD., & GroenewegJ. (2005). Enabling a girl with multiple disabilities to control her favorite stimuli through vocalization and a dual-microphone micro-switch. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 99, 133–140.
30.
LancioniG. E., SinghN. N., O'ReillyM. F., SigafoosJ., OlivaD., CostantiniA., GattoS., MarinelliV., & PutzoluA. (2006). An optic micro-switch for an eyelid response to foster environmental control in children with minimal motor behavior. Pediatric Rehabilitation, 9, 53–56.
31.
LeatherbyJ. G., GastD. L., WoleryM., & CollinsB. C. (1992). Assessment of rein-forcer preference in multi-handicapped students. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 4, 15–35.
32.
LockeP., & MirendaP. (1988). A computer-supported communication approach for a child with severe communication, visual and cognitive impairments. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 4, 15–22.
33.
LoniganC. J., ElbertJ. C., & JohnsonS. B. (1998). Empirically supported psychosocial interventions for children: An overview. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 27, 138–145.
34.
MarH. H., & SallN. (1994). Programmatic approach to use of technology in communication instruction for children with dual sensory impairments. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 10, 138–150.
35.
Mathy-LaikkoP., IaconoT., RatcliffA., VillarruelF., YoderD., & VanderheidenG. (1989). Teaching a child with multiple disabilities to use a tactile augmentative communication device. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 5, 249–256.
36.
OdomS. L., BrantlingerE., GerstenR., HornerR. H., ThompsonB., & HarrisK. R. (2005). Research in special education: Scientific methods and evidence-based practices. Exceptional Children, 71, 137–148.
37.
ReichleJ., SigafoosJ., & PicheL. (1989). Teaching an adolescent with blindness and severe disabilities: A correspondence between requesting and selecting preferred objects. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 14, 75–80.
38.
RomerL. T., & HaringN. G. (1994). The social participation of students with deaf-blindness in educational settings. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 29, 134–144.
39.
RowlandC. (1990). Communication in the classroom for children with dual sensory impairments: Studies of teacher and child behavior. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 6, 262–274.
40.
RowlandC., & SchweigertP. (2000). Tangible symbols, tangible outcomes. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 16, 61–78.
41.
RowlandC., & Stremel-CampbellK. (1987). Share and share alike: Conventional gestures to emergent language for learners with sensory impairments. In GoetzL., GuessD., & Stremel-CampbellK. (Eds.), Innovative program design for individuals with dual sensory impairments (pp. 49–75). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
42.
SandlerA. G., & McLainS. C. (1987). Sensory reinforcement: Effects of response-contingent vestibular stimulation on multiply handicapped children. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 91, 373–378.
43.
SchweigertP. (1989). Use of microswitch technology to facilitate social contingency awareness as a basis for early communication skills. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 5, 192–198.
44.
SchweigertP., & RowlandC. (1992). Early communication and microtechnology: Instructional sequence and case studies of children with severe multiple disabilities. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 8, 273–286.
45.
SeligmanM. (1975). Helplessness: On depression, development and death.San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.
46.
Siegel-CauseyE., & DowningJ. (1987). Nonsymbolic communication development: Theoretical concepts and educational strategies. In GoetzL., GuessD., & Stremel-CampbellK. (Eds.), Innovative program design for individuals with dual sensory impairments (pp. 191–223). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
47.
SilbermanR. K., & SacksS. (2005). Expansion of the role of the teacher of students with visual impairments: Providing for students who also have severe/multiple disabilities. Retrieved from http://www.tsbvi.edu/programs/more-vi-position.htm
48.
SinghN. N., LancioniG. E., O'ReillyM. F., MolinaE. J., AdkinsA. D., & OlivaD. (2003). Self-determination during mealtimes through microswitch choice-making by an individual with complex multiple disabilities and profound mental retardation. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 5, 209–215.
49.
TurnellR., & CarterM. (1994). Establishing a repertoire of requesting for a student with severe and multiple disabilities using tangible symbols and naturalistic time delay. Australia and New Zealand Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 19, 193–207.
50.
Van HasseltV. B., HersenM., EganB. S., McKelveyJ. L., & SissonL. A. (1989). Increasing social interactions in deaf-blind severely handicapped young adults. Behavior Modification, 13, 257–272.
51.
VervloedM., van DijkR., KnoorsH., & van DijkJ. (2006). Interaction between the teacher and the congenitally deafblind child. American Annals of the Deaf, 151, 336–344.
