Independent participation in academic settings is decreased for children who have limited speech and are diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). The use of technology with children with ASD changes behavior, assists with making choices, and increases communication; however, no studies evaluated its impact on performance or required support in classroom activities. The objective of this study was to determine whether an iPad with Proloquo2Go would increase independent activity/task performance and reduce required support for children with ASD, during classroom activities compared with no and other forms of technology (i.e., picture exchange communication system [PECS], SMARTBoard). The study compared the use of Proloquo2Go on the iPad to alternative technologies for performance in classroom activities in four children diagnosed with ASD. Using Proloquo2Go to respond to academic opportunities, children required less support than when using no technology, and equal support to when using a PECS or SMARTBoard. Proloquo2Go on the iPad can enhance academic occupational performance in adding voice output and a variety of response choices.
AlmqvistL.GranlundM. (2005). Participation in school environment of children and youth with disabilities: A person-oriented approach. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 46, 305-314. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9450.2005-00460.x
2.
American Occupational Therapy Association. (2014). Occupational therapy practice framework: Domain and process (3rd edition). American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 68(Suppl.), S1-S48. doi:10.5014/ajot.2014.682006
3.
BlancheE. (2008). Play in children with cerebral palsy: Doing with—Not doing to. In ParhamL. D.FazioL. (Eds.), Play in occupational therapy for children (2nd ed.) (pp. 375-394). St Louis, MO: Mosby.
4.
BondyA. S.FrostL. A. (1994). The picture exchange communication system. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 9(3), 1-19.
5.
BrintonB.FujikiM.HigbeeL. M. (1998). Participation in cooperative learning activities by children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 41, 1193-1206.
6.
BrownM.GordonW. A. (1987). Impact of impairment on activity patterns of children. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 68, 828-832.
7.
Case-SmithJ.O’BrienJ. C. (2015). Occupational therapy for children and adolescents. Maryland Heights, MO: Mosby.
8.
ChantryJ.DunfordC. (2010). How do computer assistive technologies enhance participation in childhood occupations for children with multiple and complex disabilities? A review of the current literature. The British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 73, 351-365. doi:10.4276/030802210X12813483277107
9.
CosterW.KhetaniM. A. (2008). Measuring participation of children with disabilities: Issues and challenges. Disability and Rehabilitation, 30, 639-648.
10.
ErikssonL.GranlundM. (2004). Perceived participation: A comparison of students with disabilities and without disabilities. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 6, 206-224.
11.
ErikssonL.WelanderJ.GranlundM. (2007). Participation in everyday school activities for children with and without disabilities. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 19, 485-502. doi:10.1007/s10882-007-9065-5
12.
FergusonD.BaumgartD. (1991). Partial participation revisited. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 16, 218-227.
13.
FloresM.MusgroveK.RennerS.HintonV.StrozierS.FranklinS.HilD. (2012). A comparison of communication using the Apple iPad and a picture-based system. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 28, 74-84.
KagoharaD. M.van der MeerL.RamdossS.O’ReillyM. F.LancioniG. E.DavisT. N.. . . SigafoosJ. (2013). Using iPods® and iPads® in teaching programs for individuals with developmental disabilities: A systematic review. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 34, 147-156.
16.
KingM. L.TakeguchiK.BarryS. E.RehfeldtR. A.BoyerV. E.MathewsT. L. (2014). Evaluation of the iPad in the acquisition of requesting skills for children with autism spectrum disorder. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 8, 1107-1120.
17.
Maher RidleyS.McWilliamR. A.OatesC. S. (2000). Observed engagement as an indicator of child care program quality. Early Education and Development, 11, 133-146. doi:10.1207/s15566935eed1102_1
18.
McWilliamR. A.BaileyD. B. (1995). Effects of classroom social structure and disability on engagement. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 15, 123-147. doi:10.1177/027112149501500201
19.
RaghavendraP.VirgoR.OlssonC.ConnellT.LaneA. E. (2011). Activity participation of children with complex communication needs, physical disabilities and typically-developing peers. Developmental Neurorehabilitation, 14, 145-155.
20.
RispoliM. J.FrancoJ. H.van der MeerL.LangR.CamargoS. P. H. (2010). The use of speech generating devices in communication interventions for individuals with developmental disabilities: A review of the literature. Developmental Neurorehabilitation, 13, 276-293.
21.
SennottS.BowkerA. (2009). Autism, AAC, and Proloquo2go. SIG 12 Perspectives on Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 18, 137-145.
22.
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.
23.
ShepleyC.LaneJ. D.GastD. L. (2016). Using SMART board technology to teach young students with disabilities and limited group learning experience to read environmental text. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 51, 404-420.
24.
SimeonssonR. J.CarlsonD.HuntingtonG. S.McMillenJ. S.BrentJ. L. (2001). Students with disabilities: A national survey of participation in school activities. Disability and Rehabilitation, 23, 49-63. doi:10.1080/096382801750058134
TammM.SkärL. (2000). How I play: Roles and relations in the play situations of children with restricted mobility. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 7, 174-182.
27.
ThirumanickamA.RaghavendraP.OlssonC. (2011). Participation and social networks of school-aged children with complex communication needs: A descriptive study. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 27, 195-204.
28.
TrottierN.KampL.MirendaP. (2011). Effects of peer-mediated instruction to teach use of speech-generating devices to students with autism in social game routines. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 27, 26-39.
van der MeerL.RispoliM. (2010). Communication interventions involving speech-generating devices for children with autism: A review of the literature. Developmental Neurorehabilitation, 13, 294-306. doi:10.3109/17518421003671494
31.
van der MeerL.SutherlandD.O’ReillyM. F.LancioniG. E.SigafoosJ. (2012). A further comparison of manual signing, picture exchange, and speech-generating devices as communication modes for children with autism spectrum disorders. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 6, 1247-1257.
32.
World Health Organization. (2007). International classification of functioning, disability and health: Children and youth version: ICF-CY. Retrieved from http://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/43737
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.
