Augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) interventions that promote commenting: a systematic review.

IF 2.1 3区 医学 Q1 AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY
Trina D Spencer, Kerstin Tönsing, Shakila Dada
{"title":"Augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) interventions that promote commenting: a systematic review.","authors":"Trina D Spencer, Kerstin Tönsing, Shakila Dada","doi":"10.1080/07434618.2025.2477694","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) can be used effectively by persons with speech or speech-related disabilities to accomplish a variety of communicative functions. However, the majority of AAC interventions reported in the literature focused on requesting. While it is important to initially teach requesting skills, commenting should not be neglected. As AAC emerges, commenting is essential for social engagement, social closeness and information transfer. The purpose of this systematic review (INPLASY protocol 3160) was to describe and critically appraise the existing research on AAC interventions for commenting. A systematic search and application of inclusion criteria yielded 14 single case design studies that examined the effect of an AAC intervention on commenting of children with communication disabilities. A quality appraisal indicated that the rigor of most studies was acceptable. However, there are areas in which research can be improved, especially around the number of points per phase, blinding of personnel, and clear reporting of procedures. Interventions fell into three types of teaching procedures, including prompt hierarchies, aided modeling and direct prompting. Likewise, three teaching contexts (i.e., book reading, play/toys/preferred activities, intensive teaching) and four types of commenting behaviors (i.e., one-symbol utterances, two-symbol utterances, sentences frames and grammatically correct utterances) were identified. Findings suggest the strongest evidence exists to support the use of least-to-most prompt hierarchies that include aided modeling in the context of book reading. However, there are too few studies to recommend their use with certainty.</p>","PeriodicalId":49234,"journal":{"name":"Augmentative and Alternative Communication","volume":" ","pages":"1-14"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Augmentative and Alternative Communication","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07434618.2025.2477694","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) can be used effectively by persons with speech or speech-related disabilities to accomplish a variety of communicative functions. However, the majority of AAC interventions reported in the literature focused on requesting. While it is important to initially teach requesting skills, commenting should not be neglected. As AAC emerges, commenting is essential for social engagement, social closeness and information transfer. The purpose of this systematic review (INPLASY protocol 3160) was to describe and critically appraise the existing research on AAC interventions for commenting. A systematic search and application of inclusion criteria yielded 14 single case design studies that examined the effect of an AAC intervention on commenting of children with communication disabilities. A quality appraisal indicated that the rigor of most studies was acceptable. However, there are areas in which research can be improved, especially around the number of points per phase, blinding of personnel, and clear reporting of procedures. Interventions fell into three types of teaching procedures, including prompt hierarchies, aided modeling and direct prompting. Likewise, three teaching contexts (i.e., book reading, play/toys/preferred activities, intensive teaching) and four types of commenting behaviors (i.e., one-symbol utterances, two-symbol utterances, sentences frames and grammatically correct utterances) were identified. Findings suggest the strongest evidence exists to support the use of least-to-most prompt hierarchies that include aided modeling in the context of book reading. However, there are too few studies to recommend their use with certainty.

促进评论的辅助和替代沟通(AAC)干预措施:系统回顾。
辅助和替代沟通(AAC)可以有效地用于言语或言语相关障碍的人来完成各种交际功能。然而,文献中报道的大多数AAC干预措施都集中在请求上。虽然最初教授请求技巧很重要,但评论也不应该被忽视。随着AAC的出现,评论对于社会参与、社会亲密和信息传递至关重要。本系统综述(INPLASY方案3160)的目的是描述和批判性评价现有的AAC干预研究,以供评论。对纳入标准的系统搜索和应用产生了14个单案例设计研究,这些研究检验了AAC干预对交流障碍儿童评论的影响。质量评估表明,大多数研究的严谨性是可以接受的。然而,也有研究可以改进的领域,特别是在每个阶段的点数、人员的盲目和程序的明确报告方面。干预措施分为三种类型的教学过程,包括提示层次,辅助建模和直接提示。同样,我们也发现了三种教学情境(即读书、游戏/玩具/喜欢的活动、强化教学)和四种评论行为(即单符号话语、双符号话语、句子框架和语法正确话语)。研究结果表明,存在最有力的证据来支持在书籍阅读的背景下使用从最少到最多提示的层次结构,包括辅助建模。然而,很少有研究可以肯定地推荐它们的使用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Augmentative and Alternative Communication
Augmentative and Alternative Communication AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY-
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
15.00%
发文量
25
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: As the official journal of the International Society for Augmentative and Alternative Communication (ISAAC), Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) publishes scientific articles related to the field of augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) that report research concerning assessment, treatment, rehabilitation, and education of people who use or have the potential to use AAC systems; or that discuss theory, technology, and systems development relevant to AAC. The broad range of topic included in the Journal reflects the development of this field internationally. Manuscripts submitted to AAC should fall within one of the following categories, AND MUST COMPLY with associated page maximums listed on page 3 of the Manuscript Preparation Guide. Research articles (full peer review), These manuscripts report the results of original empirical research, including studies using qualitative and quantitative methodologies, with both group and single-case experimental research designs (e.g, Binger et al., 2008; Petroi et al., 2014). Technical, research, and intervention notes (full peer review): These are brief manuscripts that address methodological, statistical, technical, or clinical issues or innovations that are of relevance to the AAC community and are designed to bring the research community’s attention to areas that have been minimally or poorly researched in the past (e.g., research note: Thunberg et al., 2016; intervention notes: Laubscher et al., 2019).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信