School-based speech-language pathologists are obligated to apply evidence-based practice and document progress of their students’ response to intervention in compliance with federal law. The purpose of this preliminary study was to explore the effects of an augmentative and alternative communication (AAC)–based intervention provided in a camp format and begin the exploration of examining strategies to monitor and document progress. Through the use of a survey, data were also collected regarding the demographics of camp attendees and their response to the camp-based intervention model. Results indicated children with autism and intellectual disability comprised a significant portion of the children referred for this type of intervention, and positive gains were documented both in the areas of communicative behaviors and pragmatic use.
AlantE.BornmanJ.LloydL. L. (2006). Issues in AAC research: How much do we really understand?Disability and Rehabilitation, 28, 143–150.
2.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2005). Roles and responsibilities of speech-language pathologists with respect to augmentative and alternative communication: Position statement [Position Statement]. Available from www.asha.org/policy
3.
BeckA.StonerJ. B.DennisM. L. (2009). An investigation of aided language stimulation: Does it increase AAC use with adults with developmental disabilities and complex communication needs?Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 25, 42–54.
4.
BeukelmanD. R.BallL.FagerS. (2008). A personnel framework for adults with acquired complex communication needs. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 24, 255–267.
5.
BeukelmanD. R.MirendaP. (2013). Augmentative and alternative communication: Supporting children and adults with complex communication needs (4th ed.). Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes Publishing.
6.
BingerC.BerensJ.Kent-WalshJ.TaylorS. (2008). The effect of aided AAC interventions on AAC use, speech, and symbol gestures. Seminars in Speech and Language, 29, 101–111.
7.
BingerC.LightJ. (2007). The effect of aided AAC modeling on the expression of multi-symbol messages by preschoolers who use AAC. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 23, 30–43.
8.
BingerC.Maguire-MarshallM.Kent-WalshJ. (2011). Using aided models, recasts, and contrastive targets to teach grammatical morphemes to children who use AAC. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 54, 160–176.
9.
BrunerJ. (1981). The social context of language acquisition. Language & Communication, 1, 155–178.
10.
BrunoJ.TrembathD. (2006). Use of aided language stimulation to improve syntactic performance during a weeklong intervention program. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 22, 300–313.
11.
CalculatorS. N. (1999). AAC outcomes for children and youths with severe disabilities: When seeing is believing. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 15, 4–12.
12.
DadaS.AlantE. (2009). The effect of aided language stimulation on vocabulary acquisition in children with little or no functional speech. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 18, 50–64.
13.
DoddJ. L.GoreyM. (2013a, March). AAC intervention as an immersion program. Poster presentation at the California Speech-Language-Hearing Association, Long Beach, CA.
14.
DoddJ. L.GoreyM. (2013b). Immersive AAC based intervention. Manuscript in preparation.
15.
DoddJ. L.JekerleR.MarsdenC. (2011). Progress monitoring strategies: Children’s response to AAC intervention. Poster presentation at the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association Annual Convention. San Diego, CA.
16.
DychesT. T.DavisA.LucidoB. R.YoungJ. R. (2002). Generalization of skills using pictographic and voice output communication devices. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 18, 124–131.
17.
GanzJ. B.Earles-VollrathT. L.HeathA. K.ParkerR. I.RispoliM. J.DuranJ. B. (2012). A meta-analysis of single case research studies on aided augmentative and alternative communication systems with individuals with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 42, 60–74.
18.
Goossens’C. (1989). Aided communication intervention before assessment: A case study of a child with cerebral palsy. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 5, 14–26.
19.
HarrisM. D.ReichleJ. (2004). The impact of aided language stimulation on symbol comprehension and production in children with moderate cognitive disabilities. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 13, 155–167.
20.
HemsleyB.BlandinS.TogherL. (2008). “I’ve got something to say”: Interaction in a focus group of adults with cerebral palsy and complex communication needs. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 24, 110–122.
21.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400. (1990).
22.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400. (2004).
23.
LarssonM.SandbergA. D. (2008). Memory ability of children with complex communication needs. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 24, 139–148.
24.
LightJ. (1989). Toward a definition of communicative competence for individuals using augmentative and alternative communication systems. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 5, 137–144.
25.
LightJ. (1997). “Communication is the essence of human life”: Reflections on communicative competence. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 13, 61–70.
26.
LundS. K.LightJ. (2003). The effectiveness of grammar instruction for individuals who use augmentative and alternative communicative systems: A preliminary study. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 46, 1110–1123.
27.
MancilG. R. (2006). Functional communication training: A review of the literature related to children with autism. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 41, 213–224.
28.
MillarD. C.LightJ. C.SchlosserR. W. (2006). The impact of augmentative and alternative communication intervention on the speech production of individuals with developmental disabilities: A research review. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49, 248–264.
29.
National Joint Committee for the Communication Needs of Persons With Severe Disabilities. (1992). Guidelines for meeting the communication needs of persons with severe disabilities. Asha, 34(Suppl. 7), 2–3. Available from http://www.asha.org/NJC/bill_of_rights/
30.
NigamR.SchlosserR.LloydL. (2006). Concomitant use of the matrix strategy and the mand-model procedure in teaching graphic symbol combinations. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 22, 160–177.
31.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6319. (2001).
32.
PaulR.NorburyC. F. (2012). Language disorders from infancy through adolescence: Listening, speaking, reading, writing, and communicating (4th ed.). St. Louis, MO: Elsevier Mosby.
33.
SchlosserR. W.RaghavendraP. (2004). Evidence-based practice in augmentative and alternative communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 20, 1–21.
34.
SchlosserR. W.SigafoosJ. (2006). Augmentative and alternative communication interventions for persons with developmental disabilities: Narrative review of comparative single-subject experimental studies. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 27, 1–29.
35.
SchlosserR. W.WendtO. (2008). Effects of augmentative and alternative communication intervention on speech production in children with autism: A systematic review. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 17, 212–230.
36.
SchlosserR. W.WendtO.AngermeierK. L.ShettyM. (2005). Searching for evidence in augmentative and alternative communication: Navigating scattered literature. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 21, 233–255.
37.
ShumwayS.WetherbyA. M. (2009). Communicative acts of children with autism spectrum disorders in the second year of life. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 52, 1139–1156.
38.
SigafoosJ.O’ReillyM.GanzJ. B.LancioniG. E.SchlosserR. W. (2005). Supporting self-determination in AAC interventions by assessing reference for communication devices. Technology and Disability, 17, 143–153.
39.
UkrainetzT.Proctor-WilliamsK.BaumannJ.AlienM.HoffmanL. M.JusticeL. (2008, November). How much is enough? The intensity evidence in language intervention. Presentation presented at the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association National Convention, Chicago, IL.
40.
Van AckerR.GrantS. (1995). An effective computer-based requesting system for persons with Rett syndrome. Journal of Childhood Communication Disorders, 16, 31–38.
41.
van der MeerL.KagoharaD.AchmadiD.O’ReillyM. F.LancioniG. E.SutherlanD.SigafoosJ. (2012). Speech-generating devices versus manual signing for children with developmental disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 33, 1658–1669.
42.
WarrenS. F.FeyM. E.YoderP. J. (2007). Differential treatment intensity research: A missing link to creating optimally effective communication interventions. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 13, 70–77.
43.
WetherbyA. M.CainD. H.YonclasD. G.WalkerV. G. (1988). Analysis of intentional communication of normal children from the pre-linguistic to the multiword stage. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 31, 240–252.
44.
WetherbyA. M.PrizantB. M. (1989). The expression of communicative intent: Assessment guidelines. Seminars in Speech and Language, 10, 77–91.
