Type of communication mode shows only a marginal, non-robust moderation of AAC effects, with aided AAC descriptively outperforming manual signs/gestures¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · quant-synthesis r3 · q3
Currency · newest study 2022 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Differences in average LRR by communication mode were statistically significant in model A (F(4,12.3) = 3.3, p = 0.049) but not in models B or C. → Ganz 2022 q3 i? Tau differences by mode type were not statistically distinct in any model, with low- and mid-to-high-tech aided AAC descriptively highest and manual signs/gestures lowest. → Ganz 2022 (2)

Evidence¶

Ganz 2022¶

Ganz, J. B., Pustejovsky, J. E., Reichle, J., Vannest, K. J., Foster, M., Fuller, M. C., Pierson, L. M., Wattanawongwan, S., Bernal, A. J., Chen, M., Haas, A. N., Skov, R., Smith, S. D., & Yllades, V. (2022). Augmentative and Alternative Communication Intervention Targets for School-Aged Participants with ASD and ID: a Single-Case Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Review Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. doi:10.1007/s40489-022-00326-6

q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r3

LRR meta-regression across mode categories (low-tech aided, mid-to-high-tech aided, manual sign/gestures, verbalization/vocalization, multiple). The model A test was significant at p = 0.049, but the article states differences were "not statistically distinguishable" once controls were added.

"Differences between communication modes were statistically significant based on model A, F (4, 12.3) = 3.3, p = 0.049. However, differences were not statistically distinguishable when controlling for additional participant or intervention characteristics in models B or C."

Ganz 2022 (2)¶

Ganz, J. B., Pustejovsky, J. E., Reichle, J., Vannest, K. J., Foster, M., Fuller, M. C., Pierson, L. M., Wattanawongwan, S., Bernal, A. J., Chen, M., Haas, A. N., Skov, R., Smith, S. D., & Yllades, V. (2022). Augmentative and Alternative Communication Intervention Targets for School-Aged Participants with ASD and ID: a Single-Case Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Review Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. doi:10.1007/s40489-022-00326-6

q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r3

Tau meta-regression showed larger descriptive effects for low-tech (0.831) and mid-to-high-tech aided AAC (0.797) than manual sign/natural gestures (0.655), but "differences between categories were not statistically distinct in any of the models examined".

"However, differences between categories were not statistically distinct in any of the models examined, and a high degree of between-study heterogeneity remained even in models B and C"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• AAC interventions yield moderately large average effects on communication outcomes for school-aged participants with ASD and/or ID, with substantial between-study heterogeneity — related
• Aided versus unaided AAC does not statistically moderate AAC effects, though exclusive aided AAC descriptively yields the largest estimates — related
• Aided AAC systems show advantages over manual signs for acquiring requests, and motor imitation and matching skills predict manual sign acquisition — related
• The number of communication modes used during intervention does not statistically moderate AAC treatment effects — related