A total of 133 augmentative communication training studies conducted up
to December 1984 were rated on nine criteria of adequate research design.
The majority of studies were found to have serious methodological flaws in
terms of descriptions of subjects and training procedures, reliable and
objective assessment of behavioural change, and the use of control pro
cedures, thereby bringing into question the generality and reliability of their
results. Of particular concern is the finding that Blissymbolics and signing
within the framework of the Makaton Vocabulary, which are the most
widely used augmentative systems in the UK, are backed by very few
research data.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bryen, D. and Joyce, D.G.1985: Language intervention with the severely handicapped: a decade of research. Journal of Special Education19, 7-39.
2.
Carrier, J.K.1976: Application of a nonspeech language system with the severely language handicapped. In Lloyd, L. L., editor, Communication assessment and intervention strategies, Baltimore: University Park Press.
3.
Fristoe, M. and Lloyd, L.L.1978: A survey of the use of non-speech systems with the severely communication impaired. Mental Retardation16, 99-103.
4.
Gelfand, D.M. and Hartmann, D.P.1968: Behavior therapy with children: a review and evaluation of research methodology. Psychological Bulletin69, 204-215.
5.
Harris, D.1982: Communicative interaction processes involving nonvocal physically handicapped children. Topics in Language Disorder2(2), 21-37.
6.
Howlin, P.1979: Training parents to modify the language of their autistic children: a home based approach. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Institute of Psychiatry, University of London.
7.
Jones, L.M., Reid, B.D. and Kiernan, C.C.1982: Signs and symbols: the 1980 survey. In Peter, M. and Barnes, R. , editors, Signs, symbols and schools, Stratford on Avon: National Council for Special Education .
8.
Kiernan, C.C.1977: Alternatives to speech. British Journal of Mental Subnormality23(1), 6-28.
9.
Kiernan, C.C., Reid, B.D. and Jones, L.M.1979: Signs and symbols: who uses what? Special Education6(4), 32-35.
10.
— 1982: Signs and symbols: a review of the literature and survey of the use of non-vocal communication systems. London: Heinemann Educational Books.
11.
Light, J.C.1985: The communicative interaction patterns of young non-speaking physically disabled children and their primary caregiversToronto: Blissymbolics Communication Institute.
12.
MacDonough, T.S. and McNamara, J.R.1973: Design-criteria relationships in behaviour therapy with children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry14, 271-282.
13.
Remington, B. and Light, P.1983: Some problems in the evaluation of research on non-oral communication systems. In Hogg, J. and Mittler, P. J., editors, Advances in mental handicap research (Vol. 2), Chichester: Wiley.
14.
Silverman, H.1980: Communication for the speechless. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
15.
Walker, M.1978: The Makaton Vocabulary. In Tebbs, T., editor, Ways and means, Basingstoke : Globe Education.
16.
Walker, M. and Armfield, A.1981: What is the Makaton Vocabulary? Special Education8(2), 19-20.
17.
Yule, W. and Berger, M.1975: Communication, language and behaviour modification. Reprinted from: Behaviour modification with the severely retarded, Institute for Mental and Multiple Handicap, Study Group 8, 35-65.
