Res Dev Disabil. 2013 Dec;34(12):4415-32. doi: 10.1016/j.ridd.2013.09.017.
Studies that have compared different communication systems for individuals with developmental disabilities were systematically reviewed in an effort to provide information useful for clinical decision making and directions for future research. Specifically, 28 studies that compared (a) non-electronic picture systems to speech generating devices, (b) aided AAC (e.g. picture exchange systems and SGDs) to unaided AAC systems (manual sign), or (c) AAC to speech-language interventions were included in this review. Dependent variables forming the basis for comparison included: (a) effectiveness (e.g. acquisition of systems and/or rate of use), (b) efficiency or rate of skill acquisition (c) participants' preference for systems, (d) occurrence of vocalizations and problem behavior, and (e) generalization across communication partners, settings, and time (i.e. maintenance). Results suggest that clear and consistent differences between communication systems are rare, precluding definitive statements regarding a universal best approach for all people with developmental disabilities. Instead, findings of this review support the consideration of an individual's existing skills, goals and preferences as part of the process of selecting an approach to communication.
为了提供有助于临床决策的信息，并为未来的研究指明方向，系统地回顾了比较不同沟通系统在发展性残疾个体中应用的研究。具体而言，本综述纳入了 28 项研究，比较了（a）非电子图片系统与言语生成设备，（b）辅助性辅助沟通（如图片交换系统和 SGD）与非辅助性辅助沟通系统（手动符号），或（c）辅助性沟通与言语语言干预。作为比较基础的因变量包括：（a）效果（如系统的习得和/或使用频率），（b）技能习得的效率或速度，（c）参与者对系统的偏好，（d）发声和问题行为的发生，以及（e）在沟通伙伴、环境和时间（即维持）上的泛化。结果表明，沟通系统之间的明显和一致差异很少见，这使得对于所有发展性残疾个体的通用最佳方法无法做出明确的陈述。相反，本综述的研究结果支持将个体现有的技能、目标和偏好作为选择沟通方法过程的一部分进行考虑。
