A comparison of single-case evaluation tools applied to functional communication training with augmentative and alternative communication supports for students with developmental disabilities.

BACKGROUND: Students with developmental disabilities frequently present with both limited vocal speech and challenging behavior. Functional communication training (FCT) with augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) supports, is a commonly recommended intervention to reduce challenging behavior for these students, while also increasing appropriate communication. AIMS: Current research on this topic has not applied multiple evaluation tools, despite the recent suggestion to do so. Further, there are limited studies in the field of special education that have (a) applied multiple evaluation tools and (b) compared the results of the tools. METHOD: In the current review, we applied three evaluation tools to intervention studies examining the use of FCT with AAC supports in school-based settings to determine the current level of scientific support for this intervention. We identified 38 studies, which contained 59 single-case designs (SCDs). Next, we compared the methodological rigor and/or quality, outcome scores, and Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) ratings provided by the three evaluation tools. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Our results yielded inconsistent methodological rigor and/or quality, participant outcome measures, and EBP classifications between the evaluation tools. No two evaluation tools completely aligned. Limitations and future research are discussed.

A systematic quality review of high-tech AAC interventions as an evidence-based practice.

Although high-tech augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) is commonly used to teach social-communication skills to people with autism spectrum disorder or intellectual disabilities who have complex communication needs, there is a critical need to evaluate the efficacy of this approach. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the quality of single-case experimental design research on the use of high-tech AAC to teach social-communication skills to individuals with autism spectrum disorder or intellectual disabilities who have complex communication needs, to determine if this intervention approach meets the criteria for evidence-based practices as outlined by the What Works Clearinghouse. Additionally, information on the following extended methodological standards is reported on all included studies: participant description, description of setting and materials, interventionist description, baseline and intervention description, maintenance, generalization, procedural integrity, and social validity. The results from 18 multiple-baseline or multiple-probe experiments across 17 studies indicate that using high-tech AAC to teach social-communication skills to individuals with autism spectrum disorder or intellectual disabilities and complex communication needs can be considered an evidence-based practice, although the review of comparison (i.e., alternating treatment) design studies did not indicate that high-tech AAC is significantly better than low-tech AAC.

High-technology augmentative and alternative communication for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities and complex communication needs: a meta-analysis.

The use of mobile technology is ubiquitous in modern society and is rapidly increasing in novel use. The use of mobile devices and software applications ("apps") as augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) is rapidly expanding in the community, and this is also reflected in the research literature. This article reports the social-communication outcome results of a meta-analysis of single-case experimental research on the use of high-tech AAC, including mobile devices, by individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities, including autism spectrum disorder. Following inclusion determination, and excluding studies with poor design quality, raw data from 24 publications were extracted and included 89 A-B phase contrasts. Tau-U nonparametric, non-overlap effect size was used to aggregate the results across all studies for an omnibus and moderator analyses. Kendall's S was calculated for confidence intervals, p-values, and standard error. The omnibus analysis indicated overall low to moderate positive effects on social-communication outcomes for high-tech AAC use by individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities.