Reichle J, Feeley K, Johnston S
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
Clin Commun Disord. 1993 Spring;3(2):7-30.
Traditionally, communication interventionists focused on teaching a beginning repertoire of communicative behavior, once learners with severe to profound disabilities had emitted intentional behavior. Increasingly, interventionists are recognizing that valuable opportunities may be lost if intervention does not begin at an earlier point. In part, intervention strategies at increasingly earlier points have resulted from a prevailing change from semantically-focused intervention logic to pragmatic, interaction-focused intervention logic. At the same time that intervention content has increasingly focused on pragmatics, there has been a wealth of information addressing the social functions served by repertoires of simple idiosyncratic (as well as socially unacceptable) behavior. The increasing availability of augmentative and alternative communicative options has provided an extensive array of motorically simple strategies to exert significant control and influence over one's environment. We have long since passed the need to demonstrate that persons with severe disabilities can be taught a repertoire of communicative functions. However, we have not been as successful in demonstrating that the communicative behavior taught is well maintained solely in the presence of natural maintaining contingencies. Nor have we adequately demonstrated that established repertoires are sufficiently generalized. Most recently, interventionists have begun to focus on more efficient strategies to use in the selection of the most critical teaching instances to teach a new communicative response. Additionally, interventionists are considering response efficiency as an important variable in determining the likelihood that a learner will choose to emit members of his or her communicative repertoire. There appears to be a consensus among those who currently serve individuals with severe disabilities that inclusion represents an attainable objective for students with even the most severe disabilities. Unfortunately, it is not clear that either special or regular educators are being adequately prepared to accomplish included placements. There remains a significant need to recognize those aspects of best practice which must be further explored in regular education settings. What once were considered best practice methods may not meet the test of social validity and be considered best practices in regular classrooms. The vast majority of intervention research has selected a fairly narrow communicative form or function to teach. Increasingly, information on maintenance and generalization is considered. However, often the periods sampled postacquisition are very modest. Among the plethora of available communication intervention curricula, there are virtually none that have taken a learner from a point of engaging in no intentional communicative behavior to the establishment of an effusive repertoire of communicative functions and corresponding vocabulary.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)
传统上，沟通干预专家在重度至极重度残疾学习者表现出有意行为后，才专注于教授基本的沟通行为技能。现在，干预专家越来越意识到，如果干预不更早开始，可能会错失宝贵机会。在某种程度上，更早阶段的干预策略源于一种普遍的转变，即从以语义为重点的干预逻辑转向以语用、互动为重点的干预逻辑。在干预内容越来越关注语用学的同时，也有大量信息涉及简单的特殊（以及社会上不可接受）行为技能所发挥的社会功能。越来越多的辅助和替代沟通选项提供了一系列动作上简单的策略，可对个人环境施加重大控制和影响。我们早就无需证明重度残疾者能够学会一系列沟通功能了。然而，我们尚未成功证明所教授的沟通行为仅在自然维持条件下就能得到良好维持。我们也没有充分证明既定的技能能够充分泛化。最近，干预专家开始关注更有效的策略，以便在选择最关键的教学实例来教授新的沟通反应时加以运用。此外，干预专家将反应效率视为决定学习者选择发出其沟通技能行为可能性的一个重要变量。目前为重度残疾者提供服务的人员似乎达成了一种共识，即融合教育对于即使是最重度残疾的学生来说也是一个可实现的目标。不幸的是，尚不清楚特殊教育工作者或普通教育工作者是否为实现融合安置做好了充分准备。仍然迫切需要认识到最佳实践的那些方面，这些方面必须在普通教育环境中进一步探索。曾经被视为最佳实践的方法可能无法通过社会效度的检验，在普通课堂中不被视为最佳实践。绝大多数干预研究选择了相当狭窄的沟通形式或功能来教授。现在越来越多地考虑有关维持和泛化的信息。然而通常在习得后抽样的时间段非常有限。在众多可用的沟通干预课程中，几乎没有一个能让学习者从没有有意沟通行为的起点发展到建立丰富的沟通功能和相应词汇量。（摘要截选至400字）
