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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

TABLE 2—(Continued) Study Magiati & Howlin (2003) Schwartz et al. (1998) Tincani (2004) PECS acquisition, (b) frequency of spontaneous requests initiated by participants, (c) method and function of <strong>the</strong> participants’ communication, and (d) number of pictures and spoken words used by <strong>the</strong> participants following introduction of PECS. In addition, participants’ behavior outcomes were measured in three studies, Anderson (2002), Charlop- Christy et al. (2002), and Magiati and Howlin (2003). The behavior outcomes examined included frequency of problem behaviors participants engaged in and <strong>the</strong> incidence of frustration showed by participants. Syn<strong>the</strong>sis Findings Research Design a Dependent Measures (S) O 1XO 2O 3 Qualitative research (S) XO 1O 2O 3 O 4 (S) Alternative treatments Table 3 summarizes <strong>the</strong> findings of <strong>the</strong> syn<strong>the</strong>sis regarding <strong>the</strong> communication outcomes of PECS reported across studies. The summary includes a description of <strong>the</strong> influence of <strong>the</strong> PECS training on functional communication outcomes as reported in each study. In addition, it contains information about <strong>the</strong> degree to which change in communication status was demonstrated as a direct result of <strong>the</strong> PECS training. As illustrated, Natural Intervention Setting Intervention Agent <strong>the</strong>re was little variation across <strong>the</strong> 13 studies regarding <strong>the</strong> specificity of documenting appropriate implementation of PECS. For purposes of <strong>the</strong> syn<strong>the</strong>sis, studies that lacked data demonstrating implementers’ mastery of <strong>the</strong> PECS skills were categorized as having Low Specificity (N 0; 0 %). Studies that provided evidence of implementers’ mastery of PECS skills but did not report any treatment-fidelity procedures were categorized as having Moderate Specificity (N 9; 69%). Finally, studies that provided data regarding implementers’ skill mastery and <strong>the</strong> treatment fidelity procedures used were classified as High Specificity studies (N 4; 31%). The studies with High Specificity provided <strong>the</strong> strongest evidence that change in communication outcomes were a direct consequence of <strong>the</strong> PECS training. Results PECS Phase Average Length of Follow-up Fidelity b Reliability PECS acquisition Y Teachers I–VI 6 months C N/A PECS acquisition Y Teachers I–VI N/A M N/A a. Spontaneous speech b. Communicative forms c. Communicative functions d. Communicative acts a. Motor imitation b. Mands c. Word vocalization Y Teachers N/A 12 months M Y Y Experimenters I–III N/A O Y * N/A Information not available in <strong>the</strong> article. a (S) Single subject, O Different assessment phases of a study, X PECS intervention phase of study. b M Implementer used intervention manual containing strategies of PECS, C Implementer demonstrated mastery of strategies to acceptable criterion, O Objective observer coded observations for adherence to PECS during sessions. c Y Reliability data reported. 68 / Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities-March 2008 Communication consequence. Across <strong>the</strong> studies, participants who received <strong>the</strong> PECS training experienced positive gains in functional communication skills. Thus, communi-
TABLE 3 Major Findings Study Communication Consequences O<strong>the</strong>r Consequences Adkins & Axelrod (2002) Anderson (2002) The use of PECS produced a better acquisition rate, more spontaneous usage, and a higher generalization rate than <strong>the</strong> use of sign language for <strong>the</strong> child with PDD. PECS was a more effective method for <strong>the</strong> child with PDD, and it generalized under different conditions. PECS was <strong>the</strong> preferred response method used by <strong>the</strong> child. The child began to imitate some sounds and onesyllable words For <strong>the</strong> majority of <strong>the</strong> children, rates of acquisition in <strong>the</strong> PECS condition were uniformly faster than rates of acquisition in <strong>the</strong> sign language condition. All of <strong>the</strong> children mastered more items in <strong>the</strong> PECS condition than in <strong>the</strong> sign language condition. All <strong>the</strong> children demonstrated response generalization in <strong>the</strong> PECS condition; four out of <strong>the</strong> six children demonstrated skill generalization in <strong>the</strong> sign language condition. Three of <strong>the</strong> children appeared to behaviorally prefer PECS; <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r three children appeared to behaviorally prefer sign language. All <strong>the</strong> children initiated with PECS more often than with sign language when both modalities were available. The three children who appeared to prefer sign language initiated <strong>the</strong> greatest number of sign trials during <strong>the</strong> free choices without PECS probes. The child appeared to be able to achieve correspondence to <strong>the</strong> presented object. Five of <strong>the</strong> six children demonstrated more eye contact in <strong>the</strong> sign language condition than in <strong>the</strong> PECS condition. Several children began vocalizing during treatment in both <strong>the</strong> sign language and PECS conditions. However, <strong>the</strong> three children who vocalized during correct responding did so significantly more often in <strong>the</strong> sign language condition than in <strong>the</strong> PECS condition. Tantrum and avoidance behaviors decreased for all <strong>the</strong> children in both PECS and sign language conditions. Three of <strong>the</strong> six participants demonstrated significant increases in positive affect in <strong>the</strong> sign language condition, while only one significant increase was found in <strong>the</strong> PECS condition. Two children demonstrated more self-stimulation in <strong>the</strong> sign language condition, while two children engaged in significantly more selfstimulated in <strong>the</strong> PECS condition. Report of Generalization a Relation to PECS b Y M Y H Functional Communication Intervention / 69
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 and 68: is still encountering only one symb
Page 69 and 70: TABLE 1 Characteristic of Participa
Page 71: TABLE 2 Characteristics of
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 ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?