Comparing Two Vocabulary Interventions for Children Who Use Augmentative and Alternative Communication.

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to compare the effects of two vocabulary interventions (a structured, explicit instruction intervention and a naturalistic, incidental teaching intervention) for children who use robust, high-tech augmentative and alternative communication (AAC). Method: This study used an adapted alternating-treatments single-subject design to compare the effects of both interventions for early language learners with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities who use AAC. Three children who use robust, high-tech AAC devices participated in this study across 9 weeks. All participants attended two intervention sessions weekly: one explicit instruction session and one incidental teaching session. The order that children received the intervention sessions within each week was randomized. One word list (containing 10 words) was taught in each session; different word lists were used for explicit instruction and incidental teaching sessions. All target words were probed prior to intervention and after intervention to determine the total number of words learned in each intervention. Results: All children learned words in both interventions. However, all children learned words more efficiently in the structured, explicit instruction intervention. Conclusion: These preliminary data suggest that a structured, explicit instruction intervention yields better vocabulary outcomes than a naturalistic, incidental teaching intervention for early language learners who use robust, high-tech AAC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]