A systematic quality review of high-tech AAC interventions as an evidence-based practice

• Published in: Augmentative and alternative communication 2018-06, Vol.34 (2), p.104-117
• Main Authors: Morin, Kristi L., Ganz, Jennifer B., Gregori, Emily V., Foster, Margaret J., Gerow, Stephanie L., Genç-Tosun, Derya, Hong, Ee Rea
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Augmentative and alternative communication; Autism; autism spectrum disorder; Communication disorders; Evidence-based medicine; Evidence-based practice; high-tech AAC; Intellectual disabilities; intellectual disability; quality of design and evidence; quality of methodology; Research design; Systematic review
• ISSN: 0743-4618; 1477-3848
• DOI: 10.1080/07434618.2018.1458900

Although high-tech augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) is commonly used to teach social-communication skills to people with autism spectrum disorder or intellectual disabilities who have complex communication needs, there is a critical need to evaluate the efficacy of this approach. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the quality of single-case experimental design research on the use of high-tech AAC to teach social-communication skills to individuals with autism spectrum disorder or intellectual disabilities who have complex communication needs, to determine if this intervention approach meets the criteria for evidence-based practices as outlined by the What Works Clearinghouse. Additionally, information on the following extended methodological standards is reported on all included studies: participant description, description of setting and materials, interventionist description, baseline and intervention description, maintenance, generalization, procedural integrity, and social validity. The results from 18 multiple-baseline or multiple-probe experiments across 17 studies indicate that using high-tech AAC to teach social-communication skills to individuals with autism spectrum disorder or intellectual disabilities and complex communication needs can be considered an evidence-based practice, although the review of comparison (i.e., alternating treatment) design studies did not indicate that high-tech AAC is significantly better than low-tech AAC.