Orozco Daniella, Cividini-Motta Catia, Campos Claudia, Brolmann Holly A
Applied Behavior Analysis Program, Department of Child and Family Studies, University of South Florida, 13301 Bruce B. Downs Blvd., Tampa, FL 33612 USA.
Simmons University, Boston, MA USA.
Behav Anal Pract. 2022 Dec 7;16(3):812-825. doi: 10.1007/s40617-022-00764-y. eCollection 2023 Sep.
Approximately 25% to 35% of individuals diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder (ASD) do not acquire vocal speech and may require an augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) modality to express their wants and needs. There are various modes of AAC that individuals with limited vocal speech may use (e.g., manual signs, picture cards). However, the process used to identify the most appropriate communication modality for an individual is not always systematic. Thus, the acquisition of the specified AAC modality may be slow if the communication modality prescribed is inappropriate. To date, there are a few methods that may be used to select an AAC modality. However, these methods consider different variables. For example, McGreevy et al. (2014) included a communication assessment within the Essential for Living (EFL) manual that identifies and ranks appropriate AAC modalities for individuals. Nevertheless, to date, there is no research demonstrating that individuals will acquire the communication modality recommended by the EFL or comparing acquisition of this AAC modality to other frequently used AACs. Thus, this study aimed to compare acquisition of mands across three AACs, evaluate whether mands taught using the AAC modality recommended by the EFL were acquired in fewer sessions, and determine whether participants preferred the AAC modality acquired in fewer sessions. Four children diagnosed with ASD and limited vocal repertoires participated in this study. All participants acquired mands using the AAC modality recommended by the EFL. However, for all participants, rate of acquisition was similar across all three modalities of AAC and preference of AAC was idiosyncratic.
大约25%至35%被诊断患有自闭症谱系障碍（ASD）的人无法获得言语能力，可能需要使用辅助和替代沟通（AAC）方式来表达他们的需求。有多种AAC模式可供言语能力有限的人使用（例如，手势、图片卡片）。然而，用于为个体确定最合适沟通方式的过程并不总是系统的。因此，如果规定的沟通方式不合适，特定AAC方式的习得可能会很缓慢。迄今为止，有一些方法可用于选择AAC方式。然而，这些方法考虑的变量不同。例如，麦格里维等人（2014年）在《生活 essentials》手册中纳入了一项沟通评估，该评估可为个体识别并排列合适的AAC方式。然而，迄今为止，尚无研究表明个体将习得《生活 essentials》推荐的沟通方式，或将这种AAC方式的习得与其他常用的AAC方式进行比较。因此，本研究旨在比较三种AAC方式下指令性言语行为的习得情况，评估使用《生活 essentials》推荐的AAC方式教授的指令性言语行为是否能在更少的课程中习得，并确定参与者是否更喜欢在更少课程中习得的AAC方式。四名被诊断患有ASD且言语能力有限的儿童参与了本研究。所有参与者都使用《生活 essentials》推荐的AAC方式习得指令性言语行为。然而，对于所有参与者来说，在所有三种AAC方式中习得速度相似，且对AAC的偏好因人而异。
