Download the Journal (PDF) - Division on Autism and ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

was <strong>the</strong> same as <strong>the</strong> intervention described under Description of <strong>the</strong> Practice; (c) individuals involved in <strong>the</strong> study were diagnosed with ASD; (d) communication consequences were <strong>the</strong> major outcome measured; and (e) articles were written in English. Exclusion criteria. It was necessary to exclude on study (Cummings & Williams, 2000) that appeared to have met all <strong>the</strong> inclusion criteria during <strong>the</strong> initial phase of <strong>the</strong> search process. Close inspection of <strong>the</strong> study revealed that <strong>the</strong> PECS training was only one component of <strong>the</strong> treatment so as to warrant its exclusion. Search Results Eleven articles, including 13 studies and 125 participants, met <strong>the</strong> selection criteria and were included in <strong>the</strong> research syn<strong>the</strong>sis. Table 1 shows selected characteristics of <strong>the</strong> participants. Table 2 lists <strong>the</strong> research designs used in <strong>the</strong> studies, dependent measures, and <strong>the</strong> characteristics of <strong>the</strong> intervention. Participants The 125 participants who participated in <strong>the</strong> studies all exhibited limited or no functional communication skills (see Table 1). Ages ranged from one to twelve years old at <strong>the</strong> baseline assessment. Participants’ gender was reported in 10 of <strong>the</strong> studies (77%). The vast majority (65%) of <strong>the</strong> participants were reported as males (female 36, male 68). Across all <strong>the</strong> studies, participants’ ethnicity was only reported in three studies (Charlop- Christy et al., 2002; Ganz & Simpson, 2004; Tincani, 2004). Participants’ language age was reported in five studies (36%); however, different methods were used for assessment and reporting. Eight studies (57%) did not report participants’ language age, but provided descriptions of <strong>the</strong>ir speech abilities (Adkins & Axelrod, 2002; Ganz & Simpson, 2004; Heneker & Page, 2003; Liddle, 2001; Schwartz, Garfinkle, & Bauer, 1998; Tincani, 2004). In <strong>the</strong> two studies (Charlop-Christy et al., 2002; Jones, 2005) that specifically reported expressive and receptive language ages, <strong>the</strong> participants’ expressive language ages ranged from 1.2 to 1.8 years, with a mean age of 1.4; <strong>the</strong> participants’ receptive language ages ranged from 1.8 to 1.9 years, with a mean age of 1.9 years. Participants’ developmental age was reported in three studies (Anderson, 2002; Ganz & Simpson, 2004; Kravits, Kamps, Kemmerer, & Potucek, 2002), but different methods were used for assessment and reporting. One study (Tincani, 2004) reported participants’ standardized intelligence scores on <strong>the</strong> Developmental Profile-II. Nine studies (64%) did not report any IQ, developmental ages, or o<strong>the</strong>r related information on participants; however, one study (Schwartz et al., 1998) indicated that <strong>the</strong> participants were identified as having cognitive delays. Research Designs 64 / Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities-March 2008 Table 2 summarizes <strong>the</strong> research design employed by <strong>the</strong> studies included in this syn<strong>the</strong>sis. Twelve studies (92%) used single-participant designs. One study used a retrospective analysis of archival data to examine pre-/postintervention outcomes (Schwartz et al., 1998). Among <strong>the</strong> 12 studies employing single-participant designs, four types of research designs were employed. First of all, an AB or a variation of <strong>the</strong> design was used in four studies (Ganz & Simpson, 2004; Heneker & Page, 2003; Magiati & Howlin, 2003). Second, two studies employed multiple-baseline design across participants (Charlop-Christy et al., 2002; Jones, 2005) while one study used multiple-baseline designed across settings (Kravits et al., 2002). Third, two studies used a changing-criterion design to eliminate <strong>the</strong> need to withdraw <strong>the</strong> intervention and include several interventions subphases (Ganz & Simpson; Liddle, 2001). Last, an alternating-treatments design was employed in three studies comparing <strong>the</strong> effectiveness of PECS and sign language training (Adkins & Axelrod, 2002; Anderson, 2002; Tincani, 2004). Three of <strong>the</strong> 12 single-participant studies (25%) reported follow-up data after post treatment (Charlop-Christy et al., 2002; Jones, 2005; Schwartz et al., 1998). Length of time between post-treatment and follow-up ranged from 1 month to 12 months. Two studies conducted by Heneker and Page (2003) reported follow-up results but did not provide data. In addition, all 12 single-participant studies employed outcome measures that require ob-
TABLE 1 Characteristic of Participants Study N a Gender M F Ethnicity Chronological Age (years:months) Adkins & Axelrod (2002) 1 1 0 N/A* 7 Anderson (2002) 6 4 2 N/A 2–4 Charlop-Christy et al. (2002) Ganz & Simpson (2004) Heneker & Page (2003) 3 3 0 3 2 1 a. Ethiopian- American b. Chinese- American c. Korean- American a. Asian b. African- American c. Caucasian 3:8–12 3:9–7:2 Language Age (years:months)/ O<strong>the</strong>r Info. Developmental Age/IQ/ O<strong>the</strong>r Info. Diagnosis No functional language N/A PDD b and ADHD c 0:8–1:6 (CDI d Production) 0:8–1:4 (CDI Comprehension) 1:2 (MCDI e Expressive) 1:9 (PPVT f Receptive) 0:10–1:6 (VABS g Communication Domain) No functional language N/A N/A N/A 1–3 No functional language N/A N/A N/A 4–5 Limited functional language Jones (2005) 5 3 2 N/A 5:1–8:2 Kravits et al. (2002) 1 0 1 N/A 6 Liddle (2001) 21 N/A N/A N/A Magiati &Howlin (2003) Schwartz et al. (1998) 34 29 5 N/A 5–10:6 31 22 9 N/A 3–6 0:10–1:10 (VABS Adaptive Communication) 1:9–1:11 (PPVT Receptive) 1:4–1:10 (PLSh Expressive) 27% rank (WPPSI-R i Verbal Behavior) Limited or no functional language 0:8–2:8 (VABS Communication Domain) Limited or no functional communication skills 1:3–1:7 Years (Bayley) a. Autism b. PDD N/A Autism 0:7 Years (VABS) for 1 child. 2:4 Years (Battelle) for 1 child, N/A for 1 child N/A Autism N/A Autism N/A Autism 2:8 Years (VABS) 2–2:5 Years (PEP-Rj ) N/A a. Autism b. Developmental delay with autistic characteristics c. Developmental delay and speech/ language impairment Autism N/A Autism Cognitive delay 18 3 15 N/A 3:3–5:11 Nonverbal N/A a. Autism b. Severe learning disabilities a. Autism b. PDD-NOS k c. O<strong>the</strong>r develomental disabilities a. Autism b. O<strong>the</strong>r developmental disabilities Functional Communication Intervention / 65
Page 1 and 2:
Education and Training in Developme
Page 3 and 4:
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Guardianship: Its Role in t
Page 9 and 10:
guardians who are knowledgeable abo
Page 11 and 12:
in budgeting and spending; (b) a sp
Page 13 and 14:
and effective are essential to self
Page 15 and 16:
involved in the gu
Page 17 and 18: sonal rights removed through guardi
Page 19 and 20: who are not trustworthy, and when o
Page 21 and 22: Discussion and Recommendations Lake
Page 23 and 24: DC: OSERS. (ERIC Document Reproduct
Page 25 and 26: people who do not have disabilities
Page 27 and 28: TABLE 1 School Demographics Demogra
Page 29 and 30: TABLE 2 Methods for Including Stude
Page 31 and 32: participate in service learning pro
Page 33 and 34: who are “more experienced” in s
Page 35 and 36: cern that they wer
Page 37 and 38: service learning activity for stude
Page 39 and 40: supports school personnel need to h
Page 41 and 42: Using Pivotal Response Training wit
Page 43 and 44: the trained peers
Page 45 and 46: Group B between one and two times p
Page 47 and 48: ing play sessions with Group B, Col
Page 49 and 50: learned to interact with ot
Page 51 and 52: Affirmative sentences emphasize a v
Page 53 and 54: identifying several important behav
Page 55 and 56: Kenji. For Kenji, all observation s
Page 57 and 58: Figure 2. Percentage of 10-s interv
Page 59 and 60: gaging in complicated verbal commun
Page 61 and 62: Results The results of the<
Page 63 and 64: when the person wa
Page 65 and 66: Effectiveness of the</stron
Page 67: is still encountering only one symb
Page 71 and 72: TABLE 2 Characteristics of
Page 73 and 74: TABLE 3 Major Findings Study Commun
Page 75 and 76: TABLE 3—(Continued) Study Communi
Page 77 and 78: TABLE 3—(Continued) Study Communi
Page 79 and 80: nosed as having ASD. Therefore, PEC
Page 81 and 82: Preschool Teacher Perceptions of As
Page 83 and 84: TABLE 1 Teacher Demographics 1 Teac
Page 85 and 86: TABLE 3 Assistive Technology Self-A
Page 87 and 88: Integration or supplemental perspec
Page 89 and 90: I don’t know if the</stro
Page 91 and 92: sessions, and the
Page 93 and 94: that would be difficult to develop
Page 95 and 96: Riemer-Reiss, M. L., & Wacker, R. R
Page 97 and 98: TABLE 1 Characteristics of Campers
Page 99 and 100: appropriate answers were provided.
Page 101 and 102: Figure 2. Effects of STAR intervent
Page 103 and 104: garding how to effectively interact
Page 105 and 106: Shafer K. (1992). Peer-mediating in
Page 107 and 108: proach, features are built into <st
Page 109 and 110: independent transitions were totale
Page 111 and 112: Figure 1. Number of independent tas
Page 113 and 114: type of skills (e.g., domestic, lei
Page 115 and 116: Peer-Implemented Time Delay Procedu
Page 117 and 118: show that peer tutors can reliably
Page 119 and 120:
General Procedures The dependent va
Page 121 and 122:
Skill training. The teacher and one
Page 123 and 124:
Figure 2. Percent of correct respon
Page 125 and 126:
heterogeneous group of students is
Page 127 and 128:
States’ Eligibility Guidelines fo
Page 129 and 130:
Method Procedure The first author d
Page 131 and 132:
TABLE 1—(Continued) IQ part score
Page 133 and 134:
eligibility to exhibit an IQ two or
Page 135:
ility guidelines for MR from state
show all

Download the Journal (PDF) - Division on Autism and ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?