Language and Communication Intervention for Children with Autism
Children with autism who have little or no functional speech may be
taught pointing skills through modeling or physical prompting. An effective
touch or point can be used to access single symbols expressing different communicative
functions. Once a child has learned to use single symbols effectively, a transition
from single- to multisymbol use will enable the child to express numerous semantic
relationships encoded with two or more symbols. For children with autism who
use AAC and have achieved single-symbol proficiency, using multisymbol combinations
should enhance their communicative competence and socialization skills.
Approaches for Teaching Early Multisymbol Combinations
One of the goals of language intervention for children with autism who
are using single-word or single-symbol utterances is to train them to comprehend
and express, either using speech or using AAC, word combinations they have
never heard or been taught before. It is not feasible to train each combination
of symbols; therefore, language intervention strategies should focus on the
understanding and production of novel word combinations with the least amount
of training. In this section, two approaches that are useful in the instruction
of early symbol combinations to children with autism are discussed.
These approaches are useful during dynamic assessment to determine the potential
for multisymbol productions.
Matrix Strategy
The matrix strategy employs linguistic elements (e.g., nouns, verbs, adjectives)
arranged in systematic combination matrices that are designed to induce generalized,
rule-like behavior. The clinician combines a limited set of words in one semantic
category with another set in a related semantic category to help the child
combine lexical items in unique communicative ways and to generalize these
skills to new content and contexts (Nelson, 1973). The matrix strategy helps
children with disabilities maximize their abilities to recombine lexical items.
The matrix strategy has been successfully used as one of the intervention
procedures to teach generalized word combining skills to children with mental
retardation and other developmental disabilities. Trained semantic relations
using a matrix strategy include action-object (e.g., Striefiel, Wetherby, & Karlan,
1976, 1978; Karlan, Brenn-White, Lentz, Hodur, Egger, & Frankoff, 1982;
Romski & Ruder, 1984), object-location or preposition-object (e.g., Bunce,
Ruder, & Ruder, 1985; Ezell & Goldstein, 1989; Light, Watson, & Remington,
1990), and descriptor-object (e.g., Remington, Watson, & Light, 1990).
Although attempts have been made to teach word combining skills to children
with little or no functional speech using a matrix strategy with unaided systems
such as Signed English (Karlan et al., 1982), speech + sign (Romski & Ruder,
1984), and manual signs (Light ct al., 1990; Remington et al., 1990), more
research is needed to develop strategies for incorporating matrix training
strategies into language interventions in naturalistic contexts (Goldstein,
1993). An example of a 4 x 4 matrix with action-object combinations is
shown in Figure 1. A row represents an action and a column represents an object.
Each cell of the matrix represents a unique action-object combination with
the possibility of 16 action-object combinations. A clinician trains a subset
of symbol combinations, and once the child has learned the subset the training
starts on the next subset. The stepwise progression in the matrix provides
the discriminative stimuli, and the child's response to the items of the matrix
that are not in training subsets determines the generalization.
The matrix strategy is clearly an effective way of teaching manual sign (Light
et al., 1990; Remington et al., 1990) and graphic symbol combinations (Nigam,
1999) to children with disabilities, but there is insufficient empirical evidence
to support the efficacy of the matrix strategy for teaching children with autism.
To date, only Nigam (1999) has demonstrated the efficacy of matrix instruction
with children with autism, and his small sample (n = 2) prevents the
generalization of findings. Further systematic replication studies are needed
to determine the effectiveness of the matrix strategy to teach word, manual
signs, and graphic symbol combinations to children with autism. Because
each child possesses different strengths and weaknesses, the case study method
and single-participant design would be suitable approaches to strengthen the
existing knowledge base regarding the use of the matrix strategy.
Milieu Language Teaching Strategies
Intervention approaches applying naturalistic strategies have been used effectively
to teach lexical forms, early semantic relational forms, and requesting as
well as to increase spontaneous use of language in children with language deficits
(Kaiser & Hester, 1994). Milieu language teaching is a general model of
language intervention, used to teach both the content and the pragmatic use
of language; it includes specific techniques such as incidental teaching (Hart & Risley,
1968), the mand-model procedure (Rogers-Warren & Warren, 1980), time-delay
(Halle, Marshall, & Spradlin, 1979), focused stimulation (Leonard, 1981),
and systematic commenting (Warren & Bambara, 1989). Milieu language teaching "is
characterized by use of dispersed teaching 'episodes' that are embedded in
ongoing activities and interactions... and an orientation toward teaching the
form and content of communication and language in the context of typical use" (Warren,
Gazdag, Bambara, & Jones, 1994, p. 924). Like the matrix strategy, milieu
teaching appears to provide instructional options for teaching multisymbol
combinations during dynamic assessment.
Milieu language teaching has been effective in teaching children with language
disorders who do not speak frequently and who are learning early vocabulary
and early semantic relations (Kaiser, Yoder, & Keetz, 1992). Early semantic
relationships taught using specific milieu teaching approaches include agent-action,
action-object, modifier-noun, and agent-action-object (Cavallaro & Bambara,
1982; Charlop, Schreibman, & Thibodeau, 1985; Hart & Risely, 1974;
Warren & Gazdag, 1990; Warren et al., 1994). Specific training techniques
such as incidental teaching, time delay and the mand-model procedure have been
integrated into systematic approaches for early communication intervention.
Strategies investigated have included the following:
A combination of the mand-model procedure and incidental
teaching (Warren & Bambara,
1989; Warren & Gazdag, 1990; Warren et al., 1994).
A combination of incidental teaching, the mand-model procedure,
and time delay (Warren, Yoder, Gazdag, Kim, & Jones, 1993).
A combination of child-cued modeling, the mand-model procedure,
time delay, and incidental teaching (Kaiser & Hester, 1994).
Incidental Teaching. Incidental teaching
has strong empirical support to validate its effectiveness in developing generalized
communication skills in children with autism (McGee, Daly, Izeman,
Mann, & Risley, 1991; McGee, Krantz, Manson, & McClannahan, 1983;
McGee, Krantz, & McClannahan, 1999). Incidental teaching and the mand-model
procedure are similar except that incidental teaching is child initiated, whereas
the mand-model procedure is adult initiated through open-ended questions (e.g., "What
is this?") or mands (e.g., "Tell me what do you want?"). The
incidental-teaching strategy uses the naturally arising interactions between
an adult and a child (e.g., play activity), and the adult systematically provides
language instruction to develop communication skills (Hart & Risley, 1975).
The child controls the incidence or activity in which language teaching occurs.
A single, incidental-teaching episode with a child using graphic symbols might
work like this:
(Context: During snack time, a child points to the symbol
for "juice." The goal is to teach the graphic symbol combination
with an action [verb] and object [noun].)
Child: Gains attention of an adult by vocalization and
points to the symbol for "juice."
Adult: Focuses attention on the child and asks, "What
do you want?"
Child: Points to the symbol for "juice."
Adult: Points to the symbol for "want" followed
by the symbol for "juice" (modeling).
Child: Imitates the adult model by pointing to the symbol
for "want" followed by the symbol for "juice."
Adult: Gives the child juice and says, "Alright. You
want some juice. Here it is" (verbal acknowledgement + expansion).
Mand-Model.The mand-model strategy is a variation of
incidental teaching in which teaching interactions are adult or clinician
controlled rather than child initiated. The adult chooses a time to approach
the child and request verbal behavior by using mands (a non-yes/no question)
and if the child's response is incomplete or incorrect, provides a model
(imitative prompts). A typical episode using the mand-model procedure with
a child using graphic symbols might work like this:
(Context: Child is washing face after a snack activity.
The goal is to teach the graphic symbol combination with an action [verb]
and object [noun].)
Adult: "What are you doing?" (an open-ended question
that requires more than a "yes" or "no" answer).
Child: No response
Adult: "Tell me by pointing to symbols" (mand).
Child: "Face" (points to the symbol for "face").
Adult: "Wash face" (provides a model by pointing
to the symbol for "wash" followed by the symbol for "face").
Child: "Wash face" (imitates adult's model by
first pointing to the symbol for "wash" followed by the symbol
for "face").
Adult: "That's right, you are washing your face" (positive
feedback + verbal acknowledgement + expansion).
The adult will wait for another opportunity to use the procedure if the child
does not respond to the model. After an open-ended question, mand, and model,
an expectant pause of 3 to 4 seconds is provided.
Conclusions
Each child with autism has different strengths and weaknesses and
poses unique challenges for speech and language practitioners considering the
use of AAC. It is this author's hope that this article will encourage readers
to consider the use of dynamic assessment when evaluating children for AAC
systems. Furthermore, this author encourages practitioners to try the instructional
strategies reviewed in the paper both during and after dynamic assessment to
determine the potential for, and facilitate, multisymbol productions in children
with autism. - Nigam, Ravi; Dynamic assessment of graphic symbol combinations
by children with autism; Focus on Autism & Other Developmental Disabilities,
Fall 2001, Vol. 16, Issue 3.
Personal
Reflection Exercise #8
The preceding section contained information
about intervention strategies useful during and after dynamic assessment. Write
three case study examples regarding how you might use the content of this section
in your practice.
Update
Sensory Integration Training
and Social Sports Games Integrated
Intervention for the Occupational Therapy
of Children with Autism
- Wang, Z., Gui, Y., & Nie, W. (2022). Sensory Integration Training and Social Sports Games Integrated Intervention for the Occupational Therapy of Children with Autism. Occupational therapy international, 2022, 9693648.
Peer-Reviewed Journal Article References:
Crown, N. J. (2021). Oh no! I see a pit: Making sense of the sensory on the autism spectrum. Psychoanalytic Psychology. Advance online publication.
Proff, I., Williams, G. L., Quadt, L., & Garfinkel, S. N. (2021). Sensory processing in autism across exteroceptive and interoceptive domains. Psychology & Neuroscience. Advance online publication.
Ungar, W. J., Tsiplova, K., Millar, N., & Smith, I. M. (2018). Development of the Resource Use Questionnaire (RUQ–P) for families with preschool children with neurodevelopmental disorders: Validation in children with autism spectrum disorder. Clinical Practice in Pediatric Psychology, 6(2), 164–178.
QUESTION
15 What is one of the goals of language intervention for children with autism
who are using single-word or single-symbol utterances? To select and enter your answer go to Test.