Young children who cannot use their natural speech to communicate their daily wants, needs, thoughts, and opinions often rely on augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) strategies that frequently use graphic symbols to assemble messages. Early intervention strategies typically focus on visual scene displays (VSDs) to place target messages in familiar contextualized scenes. However, there are currently no bridging strategies to assist children in moving from VSDs to displays incorporating discrete graphic symbols. The use of contextualized video vignettes is a potential bridge. This preliminary study implemented an intervention using video and play activities paired with a direct instruction approach to teach 10 graphic symbols of important early concepts to children with complex communication needs (CCN). A single-subject multiple baseline across subjects research design was used. Results indicated that the intervention was effective in teaching the target concepts.
BanajeeM.DiCarloC.StricklinS. (2003). Core vocabulary determination for toddlers. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 19, 67–73.
2.
BandaD. R.CoppleK. S.KoulR. K.ScancibrianS. L.BogschutzR. J. (2010). Video modelling interventions to teach spontaneous requesting using AAC devices to individuals with autism: A preliminary investigation. Disability and Rehabilitation, 32, 1364–1372. doi:10.3109/09638280903551525
3.
BaumannJ. F.Kame’enuiE. J. (2004). Vocabulary instruction: Research to practice. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
4.
BingerC.LightJ. (2006). Demographics of preschoolers who require AAC. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 37, 200–208.
5.
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. doi:10.1080/07434610600807470
6.
BingerC.Maguire-MarshallM.Kent-WalshJ. (2011). Using aided AAC models, recasts, and contrastive targets to teach grammatical morphemes to children who use AAC. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 54, 160–176. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2010/09-0163)
7.
BloomP. (2000). How children learn the meanings of words (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
8.
BosterJ. B.McCarthyJ. W. (2017). Designing augmentative and alternative communication applications: The results of focus groups with speech-language pathologists and parents of children with autism spectrum disorder. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 13, 353–365. doi:10.1080/17483107.2017.1324526
9.
DeLoacheJ. S. (1991). Symbolic functioning in very young children: Understanding of pictures and models. Child Development, 62, 736–752. doi:10.2307/1131174
10.
DunnL. M.DunnL. M. (2006). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (4th ed.). Minnesota, MN: American Guidance Service.
11.
EggenP. D.KauchakD. P. (2012). Educational psychology: Windows on classrooms (9th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
12.
FallonK.LightJ.McNaughtonD.DragerK.HammerC. (2004). The effects of direct instruction on the single-word reading skills of children who require augmentative and alternative communication. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47, 1424–1439.
13.
FischS. M. (2004). Children’s learning from educational television: Sesame street and beyond. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
14.
Fried-OkenM.MooreL. (1992). An initial vocabulary for nonspeaking preschool children based on developmental and environmental language scores. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 8, 41–56. doi:10.1080/07434619212331276033
15.
HornerR.CarrE.HalleJ.McGeeG.OdomS.WoleryM. (2005). The use of single-subject research to identify evidence-based practice in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 165–179. doi:10.1177/001440290507100203
16.
KearnsJ.McCarthyJ. (2012). The effects of animated feedback on locating verbs in a dynamic contextual scene display on an augmentative and alternative communication device. Contemporary Issues in Communication Science and Disorders, 39, 43–53.
17.
LightJ.DragerK. (2007). AAC technologies for young children with complex communication needs: State of the science and future research directions. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 23, 204–216. doi:10.1080/07434610701553635
18.
LightJ.DragerK. D. R.CurralJ.BrownC.ChewK.DoorisM.GuthrieS.WummerL. (2012, November). Effects of AAC technologies with “just in time” programming. Paper presented at the annual convention of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, Atlanta, GA.
19.
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, 1–18. doi:10.3109/07434618.2014.885080
20.
MasonR. A.GanzJ. B.ParkerR. I.BurkeM. D.CamargoS. P. (2012). Moderating factors of video-modeling with other as model: A meta-analysis of single-case studies. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 33, 1076–1086. doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2012.01.016
21.
McCarthyK.LightJ.McNaughtonD. (2007). The effects of internet-based instruction on the social problem solving of young adults who use augmentative and alternative communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 23, 100–112. doi:10.1080/07434610600720426
22.
MillarD.LightJ.McNaughtonD. (2004). The effect of direct instruction and writer’s workshop on the early writing skills of children who use augmentative and alternative communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 20, 164–178. doi:10.1080/07434610410001699690
23.
MirendaP. (2001). Autism, augmentative communication, and assistive technology: What do we really know?Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 16, 141–151. doi:10.1177/108835760101600302
24.
SchlosserR. W. (2003). The efficacy of augmentative and alternative communication: Toward evidence-based practice. San Diego, CA: Elsevier. doi:10.1080/13682820400006028
25.
SchlosserR. W.ShaneH.SorceJ.KoulR.BloomfieldE.DebrowskiL.. . . NeffA. (2012). Animation of graphic symbols representing verbs and prepositions: Effects on transparency, name agreement, and identification. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 55, 342–358. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2011/10-0164)
26.
SchlosserR. W.ShaneH. C.AllenA. A.AbramasonJ.LaubscherE.DimeryK. (2016). Just-in-time supports in augmentative and alternative communication. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 28, 177–193. doi:10.1007/s10882-015-9452-2
27.
SchlosserR. W.SigafoosJ. (2002). Selecting graphic symbols for an initial request lexicon: Integrative review. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 18, 102–123. doi:10.1080/07434610212331281201
28.
ScruggsT. E.MastropieriM. A. (1998). Summarizing single-subject research: Issues and applications. Behavior Modification, 22, 221–242. doi:10.1177/01454455980223001
ShaneH. C.LaubscherE. H.SchlosserR.W.FlynnS.SorceJ. F.AbramsonJ. (2012). Applying technology to visually support language and communication in individuals with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 42, 1228–1235. doi:10.1007/s10803-011-1304-z
31.
SmithM.GroveN. (2003). Asymmetry in input and output for individuals who use augmentative and alternative communication. In LightJ.BeukelmanD.ReichleJ. (Eds.), Communicative competence of individuals who use augmentative and alternative communication (pp. 15–42). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
32.
TherrienM. C. S.LightJ. (2016). Using the iPad to facilitate interaction between preschool children who use AAC and their peers. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 32, 163–174. doi:10.1080/07434618.2016.1205133
