speech generating devices

8/14/2019 Speech Generating Devices

1/35

EFFECTS OF ACCESS TO A SPEECHGENERATING DEVICE, A VIDEO MODEL AND

DIRECT TEACHER TRAINING ONCOMMUNICATION ATTEMPTS BY

STUDENTS WITH SIGNIFICANT DISABILITIES

Patricia WrightNational Director, Autism Services


2/35

Definition of Terms

Augmentative and AlternativeCommunication (AAC)

Systems

Support

Speech Generating Device (SGD)

Significant Disability Communication Attempts


3/35

Statement of the Problem

Statement of the Problem

Professional development in specialeducation has not kept pace with best

practice in augmentative andalternative communication intervention

Methods to encourage professionals to

utilize speech generating devices withindividuals with significant disabilitiesneeds to be investigated


4/35

Purpose

To determine which of three levelsof intervention intensity is needed toget teachers to provide their

students with an SGD

Provision of an SGD

Video observation of successful users

of SGD Direct instruction on the use of an SGD


5/35

Brief Literature Review


6/35

Success with SpeechGenerating Devices

Obtain preferred items

Obtain access to preferred activities

Functional communication training More interaction/turns during a

conversational exchange


7/35

Speech Generating Devices inComparison with Other AACMethods

More successful than pictographiccommunication for gaining attentionin community

User preference

More effective than sign-languagealone


8/35

Professional Development

Training of educational personnel isprerequisite to AAC use

Lack of time for training is an

identified barrier Outcome Management is an

effective approach

Use of video for training Milieu teaching/incidental teaching

is effective for AAC instruction


9/35

Methods


10/35

Participants

Criteria for Students

Age 3-21

Receiving services under an IDEAeligibility category

No meaningful verbalizations

Sufficient motor skills to use a simple

switch No access to speech generating device

for expressive communication


11/35

NoneEnglishVietnameseAutismVietnameseM19Tom

NoneEnglishEnglishMultipleDisability

MicronesianF9Mary

60minutesper week

EnglishJapaneseAutismJapanese/African-American

M5Sam

30minutesper week

EnglishMicronesian(actuallanguagewithheld toprotect con-

fidentiality)

DevelopmentalDisability

MicronesianM3Doug

SpeechandLanguageServiceson IEP

LanguageSpokenatSchool

LanguageSpoken atHome

IDEA EligibilityEthnicityGen-der

Age


12/35

Participants

Criteria for Teachers

Licensed in special education


13/35

11-207BA MusicProfessional Diplomain Education

Sally

11-205BA Education

Professional Diplomain Education

Joan

>5027BA Speech PathologyProfessional Diplomain Education

Kelly

11-203BA EducationProfessional Diploma

in Education

Darlene

# of Studentswith SignificantDisabilities

Taught

Number ofYears ofExperienc

e

Education LevelTeacher


14/35

Settings

Criteria for Selection

Public School


15/35

19%1574Grade 9 Grade 12Tom

81%288Kindergarten Grade5

Mary

56%531Preschool Grade 5Sam

56%531Preschool Grade 5Doug

% of EnrollmentReceiving Free

and ReducedLunch

EnrollmentGrade Levels onCampus

Student


16/35

Research Design

Multiple Probe

Replication across subjects


17/35


18/35

Procedures

Prior to Baseline

Consent

Activity identification

1 hour observation for currentcommunication

Baseline


19/35


20/35

Procedures

Generalization

Social Validity/Teacher Interview


21/35

Results


22/35


23/35


24/35


25/35


26/35


27/35

Communication Attempts

2.4.75(.20).02(.03).01(.02).03(.02)

Doug

1.43.1(.85).66(.09).51(.24).55(.22)

Tom

.18.74(.01).02(.03).01(.02).02(.03)

Mary

23.07(.85)1.87(.22)1.86(.21)1.3 (.21)Sam

GeneralizationIntervention IIIInterventionII

InterventionI

Baseline


28/35

Teacher Provision of SGD

100% (1)100% (3)0% (3)0% (5)Tom

100% (1)100% (3)0% (3)0% (4)Mary

100% (1)75% (4)0% (3)0% (3)Sam

100% (1)100% (3)0% (3)0%(4)Doug

Gener-alizatio

n

Intervention III

Intervention II

Intervention

I

Student


29/35

Discussion


30/35

Discussion

When an SGD was providedcommunication attempts increased

Direct instruction is required for useof SGD

Generalization

Untrained setting

Higher rates for Doug


31/35

Teacher Interview

Beliefs:

Student capable of more communication

SGD is an appropriate method

Sam and Tom (higher level device) Mary and Doug (infused throughout the day)

Intervention I

Fear of breakage

Intervention II Impressed by users, hoped same success for

their student


32/35

Teacher Interview

Intervention III

Direct instruction was needed prior touse

Message selection Social message, a novel concept

Barriers

Determining message selectionTime to record


33/35

Limitations

Multiple baseline

Limited generalization data

Device selection Single message

Lack of feature matching

Unable to assess cumulative effect


34/35

Future Research

Communication attempts vs.communication

Generalization of SGD use acrosssettings

Home/School language

Longevity of SGD use


35/35

speech generating devices

Documents