Individuals with developmental disabilities tend to prefer speech-generating devices over picture exchange and manual signs, with substantial individual differences¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · review r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2018 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Evidence quality · No study behind this claim is a peer-reviewed article with a DOI: it rests on a source with no registered publication record (a web page, book or unpublished report). It is kept because 4 design pages cite it; treat it as a lead to check, not an established finding.

Subclaims¶

q2 i? In the studies comparing SGD vs. PE, 50% of participants showed high preference for SGD versus 30% for PE; across three options, 67% preferred SGDs. → Nam 2018 q2 i? Lorah et al.'s review found the vast majority of participants preferred using the SGD to PE or manual signs. → Nam 2018 (2)

Evidence¶

Nam 2018¶

Nam, S., Kim, J., & Sparks, S. (2018). An Overview of Review Studies on Effectiveness of Major AAC Systems for Individuals with Developmental Disabilities Including Autism. The Journal of Special Education Apprenticeship, 7(2). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1185374

q2 · overview of a systematic review · i? · percentages of participants, no effect size · review · r2

Overview of the van der Meer et al. (2011) review of 7 studies with 12 individuals with developmental disabilities assessing AAC preference; the 50% and 30% figures are for studies comparing SGDs with PE, and the 67% and 33% figures for comparisons of all three options (SGD, PE and manual signs); and the review modestly concluded individuals often show preferences for different AAC options.

"For the studies that compared preference for SGD vs. PE, 50% of the participants demonstrated a high preference for the SGD over PE whi le 30% of the participants demonstrated a high preference for PE."

Nam 2018 (2)¶

Nam, S., Kim, J., & Sparks, S. (2018). An Overview of Review Studies on Effectiveness of Major AAC Systems for Individuals with Developmental Disabilities Including Autism. The Journal of Special Education Apprenticeship, 7(2). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1185374

q2 · i? · review · r2

Overview of the Lorah et al. (2015) review of 17 empirical studies on handheld computers as SGDs for individuals with developmental disabilities; device preference was reported alongside acquisition outcomes.

"the vast majority of participants preferred using the SGD to PE or manual signs (Lorah et al., 2015)."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Learning Disabilities and Developmental Differences — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes
• Autism Spectrum Disorder — population: instruction studied with autistic learners, not a comparison with non-autistic learners

Related Claims¶

• Aided AAC systems show advantages over manual signs for acquiring requests, and motor imitation and matching skills predict manual sign acquisition — related
• Heterogeneity across reviewed single-subject studies limits broad AAC comparisons, warranting more focused syntheses — related
• Review evidence shows no consistent differences between picture exchange and speech-generating devices for communication and request outcomes — related
• Included qualitative studies find smaller special education class sizes are the preferred option because they allow more individualised instruction time and increased teacher attention — related
• PECS and speech-generating devices produced larger effects than other picture-based AAC systems, which nonetheless showed small effects — related