Sibling Intervention for Children who use Augmentative and Alternative Communication

• In Event: Language and Communication Across Development

Abstract

Children with typical development provide extensive language samples to their peers that use augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) (Huttenlocher et al., 1991). However, AAC users often do not have the same number of language samples. Current literature supports the effectiveness of the aided language modeling (ALM) strategy to promote communication acts of children who use AAC in schools, however, there is limited research on the use of this strategy with typically developing siblings and children with disabilities. It is evident that AAC intervention should be integrated across contexts and communication partners (Biggs et al., 2019). Children with disabilities often communicate at a much lower rate than their typically developing peers (Kamps et al., 2014).
The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of a training and coaching program that aimed to increase the high-fidelity use of the ALM strategy with siblings in supporting social communication of children with disabilities who use AAC during semi-structured activities in the natural environment. This single-case multiple-probe intervention include 4 dyads of siblings to better understand the phenomena of interest and found that the sibling training and coaching was effective in answering the research questions focused on: (a) increasing the high fidelity and rate of the implementation of the ALM strategy, (b) increasing the rate of symbolic social communication by the child who uses AAC, and (c) accepting the social significance and meaningfulness of the intervention by the family members. Using a multiple probe design, behavior assessment data was collected to evaluate the effects over time (Kazdin, 2011).
The study included a baseline, intervention, and maintenance phase across participants. During the baseline phase, siblings were not given any specific instructions. When there was a stable baseline, participants moved to intervention. The intervention had two parts, training and coaching. The training consisted of two 20-minute sessions learning about the ALM strategy and then practicing with the researcher. After training, the dyads then moved to coaching. Coaching consisted of a short planning session, uninterrupted observation of the siblings interacting, and then a reflection period about the interactions. When the typically developing sibling met the performance criteria of at least 80% high-fidelity use of the ALM strategy for at least three consecutive sessions, the dyad was moved into the maintenance phase. Preliminary data demonstrates that there is a functional relation between training and coaching siblings and the high-fidelity use of the ALM strategy. It also demonstrated an increase in symbolic communication in the AAC user. Overall, parents and family members were very pleased with goals procedures and outcomes of the study. All findings and implications will be discussed with attendees. Threats to internal validity were addressed by features of the multiple baseline design (e.g., introducing the intervention at three points in time addresses the threats of maturation and history), having sufficient data points in each phase, and completing procedural fidelity checklists both for the interventionist and the sibling (What Works Clearinghouse [WWC], 2020).

Authors

• Rebecca Hacker, University of Kansas
  Presenting Author

• Hedda Meadan, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign

• Adriana Kaori Terol