大约25%至35%的被诊断患有自闭症谱系障碍(ASD)的个体无法获得语音语音,并且可能需要增强和替代交流(AAC)方式来表达他们的需求和需求。语音有限的个人可以使用各种模式的AAC(例如,手动标志,图片卡)。然而,用于为个人确定最合适的通信方式的过程并不总是系统的。因此,如果规定的通信模态是不适当的,则指定的AAC模态的获取可能是缓慢的。迄今为止,有几种方法可用于选择AAC模态。然而,这些方法考虑不同的变量。例如,McGreevy等人。(2014)在《生活必需品》(EFL)手册中进行了沟通评估,该手册为个人识别和排名适当的AAC模式。然而,到目前为止,没有研究表明个人将获得EFL推荐的沟通方式或将这种AAC方式的获得与其他经常使用的AAC进行比较。因此,这项研究的目的是比较三种AAC的获取方式,评估使用EFL推荐的AAC模式教授的mands是否在较少的课程中获得,并确定参与者是否更喜欢在较少的会话中获得的AAC模态。四名被诊断患有ASD且声乐曲目有限的儿童参加了这项研究。所有参与者都使用EFL推荐的AAC模式获得了命令。然而,对于所有参与者来说,AAC的所有三种模式的获取率相似,并且AAC的偏好具有特殊性。
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.