TY - JOUR
T1 - Instructional Techniques in Alternative Communication for Students with Severe Intellectual Handicaps
AU - Mirenda, Pat
AU - Dattilo, John
N1 - Funding Information:
ture identification abilities suggest that such compwrheo-se leisure preference hierarchy was almost identical hension skills may be less related to the use of toa the order in which she requested items during in-communication device than has been suggested sbtyruction. Because a number of factors (including prob-some authors (e.g., Shane & Bashir, 1980). Both Tracleyms with the leisure assessment protocol itself) might and Norah performed poorly on the receptive labelainlsgo explain the inconsistent results, additional studies tasks but showed evidence of greater ability to use athree needed to clarify the relationship between various communication device than did James, whose receptipvreeference predictive measures and the choices made abilities appeared to be more advanced. While this issduuering natural communicative exchanges. is beyond the scope of the present study, the results suggest a need for future investigations specifically Summary designed to examine the relationship between compreT-he prompt-free instructional technique reported by hension and production skills for augmentative systeMmirenda and Santogrossi (1985) was ineffective in gen-users, particularly those with severe cognitive delayes.rating a spontaneous communicative response in Matching AssessmentTs.h ere appears to be some three subjects with severe intellectual handicaps. A evidence of a relationship between matching ability amnoddification of the approach, referred to as a “verbal the outcome of the teaching strategies used in tphrisompt-free” technique, appeared to be successful in investigation. Tracy, who was the only subject wtiethaching one subject to choose among five photo-excellent matching abilities across all three matchginragphs to make spontaneous requests. Clinicians seek-tasks, was also the most successful subject in acquiriinngg to generate self-initiated requests in response to the communication response. Norah and James pepr-ictures or other symbols may find this to be a viable formed less accurately on the matching tasks, and thinesirtructional strategy for some learners with severe errors appeared to be partially related to a lack laonfguage and/or cognitive disabilities, particularly those understanding of the 1:1 correspondence between phwoh-o demonstrate a tendency toward spoken prompt tographs and the objects they represent. This is dienpendency. accordance with the suggestion by Keogh and ReichleA number of issues related to the preintervention (1985) that matching skills are necessary before suabss-essment results were identified as important for jects with severe intellectual disabilities can be efuxt-ure research. In addition, future investigations of the pected to benefit significantly from instruction in futontca-l and/or “verbal prompt-free” approaches appear tional communication. The results of this investigatwioanrranted in order to identify the subject and proce-suggest that future studies specifically investigating dthuirsal characteristics that may be related to successful relationship would be useful. outcomes. Additional attention to this area seems war-Sensorimotor AssessmenOt.n e factor that might par-ranted in light of the potential of the prompt-free ap-tially account for subject variability in response to ptrhoeach (or variations thereof) for generating self-initi-intervention is the difference in functioning level aotend communicative behavior in nonspeaking learners some of the sensorimotor subtasks. Tracy, the mowshto often exhibit considerable prompt dependency in successful of the subjects, displayed sensorimotcoormmunicative exchanges. Stage 6 behavior in all five areas measured by the Sensorimotor Profile (MCRI, 1985) that were not di-Acknowledgments rectly related to communication (i.e., visual pursuit andThe authors wish to thank Chris TeKolste for her object permanence,means-end, causality, objectassistance during intervention and data collection, and schemes, and spatial relations). Norah’s and James’David Beukelman for his helpful comments on earlier sensorimotor profiles differed from Tracy’s in that theydrafts of this manuscript. We are also grateful to the primarily exhibited sensorimotor Stage 4 to 5 behaviorsstudents and staff at Hawthorne Elementary School in in these areas. This is not to suggest that attainmentLincoln, Nebraska for their cooperation. of Stage 6 is a prerequisite to the use of augmentativeThis investigation was supported in part by the Uni- communication in general (Reichle & Karlan, 1985;versity of Nebraska-Lincoln Research Council and by Reichle & Keogh, 1986). Rather, the data suggest thatGrant No. G008530093 from the U.S. Department of the outcome of certain types of augmentative commu-Education, Division of Personnal Preparation. nicationi nstructionm ight be related in some way to Address reprint requests to: Pat Mirenda, Ph.D., these measures. Department of Special Education-Communication Dis-Leisure Preference AssessmenTth.e leisure hierar- orders, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 202 Barkley chies identified for the subjects during assessmentMemorial Center, Lincoln, NE 68583-0732. were only partially reflected in the choices they made during instruction. These discrepancies could be related to the aforementioned difficulties related to the sub-REFERENCES jects’ matching abilities. Norah and James both expBea-ngs, T. E., & Dodson, S. (1979B)i.r th to three developmental scale. rienced difficulties related to the use of symbols toBoston: Teaching Resources. request leisure activities, and it is likely that, as a result,munication augmentation: A casebook of clinical managSeamnent. Beukelman, D. FL, Yorkston, K. M., & Dowden, P. A. (19C8o5m).- they were touching photographs haphazardly ratherDiego: College-Hill Press. than making true choices. This is in contrast to Tracy,Dattilo, J. (1986). Computerized assessment of preference for se- who was quite deliberate in the choices she made andverely handicapped individuJaolsu.r nal of Applied Behavior Analy-
Copyright:
Copyright 2016 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 1987/1
Y1 - 1987/1
N2 - A series of investigations was conducted with three nonspeaking subjects with severe intellectual disabilities to teach use of a pictorial communication device. The interventions were preceded by assessments of the subjects receptive language and matching abilities, as well as by assessments related to their leisure preferences and sensorimotor status. Individualized interventions based on the prompt-free strategy reported by Mirenda and Santogrossi (1985, Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 1, 143-150) were instituted with the subjects over a 6 week period. None of the subjects acquired the desired response as a result of the prompt-free intervention. One of the subjects acquired the desired communicative response after a verbal prompt-free modification was instituted. The results are discussed in terms of the preintervention assessment information and the instructional strategies employed.
AB - A series of investigations was conducted with three nonspeaking subjects with severe intellectual disabilities to teach use of a pictorial communication device. The interventions were preceded by assessments of the subjects receptive language and matching abilities, as well as by assessments related to their leisure preferences and sensorimotor status. Individualized interventions based on the prompt-free strategy reported by Mirenda and Santogrossi (1985, Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 1, 143-150) were instituted with the subjects over a 6 week period. None of the subjects acquired the desired response as a result of the prompt-free intervention. One of the subjects acquired the desired communicative response after a verbal prompt-free modification was instituted. The results are discussed in terms of the preintervention assessment information and the instructional strategies employed.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84961429020&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84961429020&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/07434618712331274429
DO - 10.1080/07434618712331274429
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:84961429020
SN - 0743-4618
VL - 3
SP - 143
EP - 152
JO - Augmentative and Alternative Communication
JF - Augmentative and Alternative Communication
IS - 3
ER -