Teaching Mands: Correspondence among Acquisition, Recommendations of the Essential for Living Communication Modality Assessment, and Preference.

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.