Ganz Jennifer B, Rispoli Mandy J, Mason Rose Ann, Hong Ee Rea
Department of Educational Psychology, Texas A&M University , College Station, TX 77843 , USA.
Dev Neurorehabil. 2014 Jun;17(3):184-92. doi: 10.3109/17518423.2012.748097. Epub 2013 Oct 8.
The purpose of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the potential moderating effects of intervention setting and type of aided augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) on outcome variables for students with autism spectrum disorders.
Improvement rate difference, an effect size measure, was used to calculate aggregate effects across 35 single-case research studies.
Results indicated that the largest effects for aided AAC were observed in general education settings. With respect to communication outcomes, both speech generating devices (SGDs) and the Picture Exchange Communication System (PECS) were associated with larger effects than other picture-based systems. With respect to challenging behaviour outcomes, SGDs produced larger effects than PECS.
This aggregate study highlights the importance of considering intervention setting, choice of AAC system and target outcomes when designing and planning an aided AAC intervention.
本荟萃分析旨在评估干预环境以及辅助性增强和替代沟通(AAC)类型对自闭症谱系障碍学生结局变量的潜在调节作用。
使用改善率差异这一效应量指标来计算35项单病例研究的总体效应。
结果表明,在普通教育环境中观察到辅助性AAC的效果最为显著。在沟通结局方面,语音生成设备(SGD)和图片交换沟通系统(PECS)比其他基于图片的系统产生的效果更大。在挑战性行为结局方面,SGD比PECS产生的效果更大。
这项汇总研究突出了在设计和规划辅助性AAC干预时考虑干预环境、AAC系统选择和目标结局的重要性。