iPads as the Universal AAC Device for Students with

Developmental Disabilities: How Revolutionary is it?

Presented by Elise CrawfordContemporary Issues Conference 2012

What is AAC?

VOCA

PECS

The potential

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2LnUxFAaMQ&feature=relatedhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-eWvnWMx6c&feature=related

InexpensiveFlexible

Socially appropriate

IncentivesCombines PECS and

VOCA

Social isolation

Social isolation

What is the problem?

Frustration

Challenging behaviour

Social isolation

Educational deficits

Lack of functional communication

Aggression

Why is it a problem?

Literature Review

Students

Implementation Plan

Potential of iPads in

classrooms

Selecting and implementing traditional AAC

devices

Selected communication

apps

Case Study

• 8 Students from two classrooms in a special school

• Criteria for student inclusion:• Developmental Disability• Aged between 6 – 8 years• Speech Language Impairment (non verbal)• Notable fine motor, gross motor and hand eye coordination deficits• No visual impairment• Previous iPad experience• No functional communication system • Challenging and aggressive behaviours with identified communicative

function

Design Methodology

Trial classrooms

Students Implementation Plan Setting Reinforcement Data collection Frequency

Classroom 1 A, B, C, D iPad Management Plan (Ed. QLD) and SETT Framework

Lunch time Food Discrete trial 10 sessions of 10 trials

Classroom 2 E, F, G, H None Structured construction play

Preferred toy Goal Attainment Scaling

3 sessions per week

Classroom 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100

2

4

6

8

10

12

Classroom 1 Data

Student AStudent BStudent CStudent D

Corr

ect

tri

als

per

sessio

n

Classroom 2

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

Classroom 2 Data

Student EStudent FStudent GStudent H

Go

al

Att

ain

me

nt

Sca

lin

g

What does this tell us? 4 of 8 students demonstrated communicative

success For these students:

◦ Challenging behaviour (biting, spiting) decreased◦ iPad is an appropriate AAC

4 of 8 students demonstrated no communicative improvement

For these students:◦ The reinforcer was in appropriate◦ The device was inappropriate◦ The AAC did not meet the communicative needs

Possible conclusions

Difference in results could be due to:

• Teacher confidence in using iPads

• Teacher skill in selecting and implementing

AAC

• The use of a systematic management plan

• Individual student motor skills

1. iPads are a possible AAC devices for students with developmental disabilities

2. Detailed observation is required in selecting an AAC

3. A specific assessment, selection, implementation and management plan is necessary for teachers to be confident in implementing in classrooms

4. One device is not a universal answer to AAC

Where to from here?

Cannella-Malone, H. I., DeBar, R. M., & Sigafoos, J. (2009). An Examination of Preference for Augmentative and Alternative Communication Devices with Two Boys with Significant Intellectual Disabilities. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 25(4), 262-273. doi: doi:10.3109/07434610903384511

Chapple, D. (2011). The Evolution of Augmentative Communication and the Importance of Alternate Access. Perspectives on Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 20(1), 34-37.

Harding, C., Lindsay, G., O'Brien, A., Dipper, L., & Wright, J. (2011). Implementing AAC with children with profound and multiple learning disabilities: a study in rationale underpinning intervention. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 11(2), 120-129. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-3802.2010.01184.

Hyatt, G. W. (2011). The iPad: A Cool Communicator on the Go. Perspectives on Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 20(1), 24-27.

Kennedy, C. H. (2005). Single-case designs for educational research. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Millar, D. C., Light, J. C., & Schlosser, R. W. (2006). The Impact of Augmentative and Alternative Communication Intervention on the

Speech Production of Individuals With Developmental Disabilities: A Research Review. Journal of Speech, Language & Hearing Research, 49(2), 248-264. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2006/021)

Rispoli, M. J., Franco, J. H., van der Meer, L., Lang, R., & Camargo, S. P. H. (2010). The use of speech generating devices in communication interventions for individuals with developmental disabilities: A review of the literature. Developmental Neurorehabilitation, 13(4), 276-293. doi: doi:10.3109/17518421003636794

Rummel-Hudson, R. (2011). A Revolution at Their Fingertips. Perspectives on Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 20(1), 19-23.

Schlosser, R. W., & Sigafoos, J. (2009). Navigating Evidence-Based Information Sources in Augmentative and Alternative Communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 25(4), 225-235. doi: doi:10.3109/07434610903360649

Schlosser, R. W., Wendt, O., Angermeier, K. L., & Shetty, M. (2005). Searching for evidence in augmentative and alternative communication: Navigating a scattered literature. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 21(4), 233-255. doi: doi:10.1080/07434610500194813

Sigafoos, J., Arthur-Kelly, M., & Butterfield, N. (2006). Enhancing everyday communication for children with disabilities. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Sigafoos, J., Green, V. A., Payne, D., Son, S.-H., O'Reilly, M., & Lancioni, G. E. (2009). A Comparison of Picture Exchange and Speech-Generating Devices: Acquisition, Preference, and Effects on Social Interaction. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 25(2), 99-109. doi: doi:10.1080/07434610902739959

Van der Meer, L. A. J., & Rispoli, M. (2010). Communication interventions involving speech-generating devices for children with autism: A review of the literature. Developmental Neurorehabilitation, 13(4), 294-306. doi: doi:10.3109/17518421003671494

Further reading