Early Language Intervention for Children with Developmental Disabilities - Literature review Example

Implementing Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) in Early Language Intervention for Children with Developmental Disabilities Name Institution Implementing Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) in Early Language Intervention for Children with Developmental Disabilities Introduction During the first years of a child’s development, the first acquire speech and language related skills that enable them to communicate and express their wants and needs; while socializing with their peers and adults. This becomes the basic stage at which they develop the foundation to advanced language and literacy skills (Light&Drager, 2007). However, some children experience developmental disabilities relating to motor, sensory or language impairments, that delays or deters them from developing this important skill. Other conditions such as autism and the Down syndrome have also been linked to the causes of language and communication disabilities in children. Majority of children with developmental disabilities tend to have also a problem developing their language skills. This problem manifests itself in the behavioral, physical as well as medical characteristics relating to the child’s overall development. In view of the various developmental disabilities presentable in children, caregivers usually prioritize the physical, behavioral and medical issues in such children and forget to pay attention to their language development capabilities and any other emergent literacy issues. Based on research studies, such children eventually develop high literacy levels and acquire complex skills in communication if only they receive the most appropriate care and sufficient support. Continued lack of attention and inadequate support towards such cases has immensely contributed to the behavioral problems observed in children with developmental disabilities; because they lack the proper language and communication skills. This research study discusses the implementation of Augmentative and Alternative Communication in Early language intervention for children with developmental disabilities. According to Van der Schuit, et al. (2010), early interventions to stimulate the development of communication and language skills in children have proven very beneficial in such cases. Moreover with the introduction of the Augmentative and Alternative Communication technologies, children who have complex language needs now stand a chance of experiencing the magic and power of being able to communicate (Light & Drager, 2007). According to research done on children to develop their communication and language skills, the utilization of Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) technologies provided the necessary adjustments and successful results. This implies that the implementation of AAC in early interventions for children with language problems presents possible opportunities for meaningful communications Use of AAC as an Early Language Intervention Most cases of young children with developmental disabilities do not just rely on AAC technologies for effective communication. They instead incorporate a variety of communication modes that are used either simultaneously or sequentially to help them communicate in their daily routines. Some of these modes include signs, speech approximations, speech and non-electronic systems like communications boards. Research has revealed that they base such choices on an individual child’s skill level as well as the content of their communication, which they interact with, the tasks they perform and finally the intent of that mode. According to Light and Drager (2007), the combined use of AAC systems of communication with other alternative modes has proven quite successful in developing the language speech for children with developmental abilities. However, despite the documented benefits observed from utilizing AAC in early language interventions on children with developmental disabilities, some parents still remain adamant to adopt this strategy. They have attested that using AAC in early language interventions for such children may impede their natural speech development instead of enhancing the same. Based on the research findings on the use of AAC systems in young children, Light & Drager (2007) rule out the above statement as a mere assumption. They go ahead to support the use of AAC purporting that in the analysis to demonstrate the impact of using AAC in early language interventions none of the study group participants experienced or exhibited any signs of decreased natural speech production. On the contrary most of the participants gained their natural speech as they spoke at least twenty audible words and less. In a separate study involving children with autism and mental retardation, the use of AAC involved more than just using the AAC system to ensure effective communication. In this case early language interventions include the use of AAC systems together with manual signs or non-electronic aided systems like the communication board; in order to achieve desirable results. Barker, et al. (2013) further supported the use of AAC in early language intervention by describing how AAC helps children with severe cases of speech impairment and frequent communication difficulties; to gradually improve their communication. According to an intrusive research done on preschool children who had frequent difficulties in communicating and those with severe communication and speech impairments, the use of AAC improved these children’s communication significantly. Some of the AAC interventions that brought about this success include the non-aided or non-electronic approaches such as sign language or other alternative symbolic gesturing methods and aided approaches. Also this research reasserted the use of speech-generating devices (SGDs) in helping preschool teachers better facilitate language development in such children. Variables that Affect the Implementation of AAC’s Researchers have linked SGDs to AAC’s success in early interventions in children with developmental disabilities; because they provide a better alternative of augmented input as well as give the affected children opportunity to communicate. However, implementation of these strategies in the classroom context has proven more difficult due to the demand for teachers’ time. But with the introduction of partner instruction in AAC implementation research findings revealed that professional partners lack the necessary skill to implement successful communicative support. This existing gap creates an identifiable difference between children who receive direct communicative support from AAC systems and those who receive support from instructive partners. Therefore this implies that training variability, classroom staff and teachers may affect the implementation of AAC in early language interventions for such children; as well as the expected communication outcomes. Additionally, the relationship between a child’s AAC experience and the augmented input introduce to them by a communication partner; may affect the implementation of AAC in early language interventions. This is because children are extremely receptive to whatever instruction they receive from another party. Therefore if a child feels threatened or scared by the AAC approach that will directly affect how they respond to the augmented input; hence affecting the overall communication outcome. In a U.S. school-based study investigating the relationship between these two variables, the results revealed that children who experienced stronger growth in language skills associated the successful outcome to the utilization of AAC in harmony with the provided augmented input. Comparative Effectiveness of Implemented AAC Systems Evidently, the implementation of ACC systems in early language intervention for children with developmental disabilities has commendable positive impact in the development of communication skills in such children. Even in children with multiple learning disabilities this strategy produces results through both aided and unaided systems such as SGDs and gestures respectively (Harding et al., 2010). In a comparison effectiveness of AAC’s implementation in children with special cases such as autism, evidence showed that unaided interventions, for example manual signs and gestures together with the AAC technologies, aided effective communication. Although the utilization of specific AAC systems in such children supports the development of individual communication skills, research results still reveal that careful planning and implementation of these systems remains a key issue to communication success. This implies that before implementing any AAC system in early language intervention for an autistic child for example, one needs to understand first the cognitive levels of an individual child in comparison to their receptive abilities. In determining the comparative effectiveness of ACC‘s in early language intervention for children with developmental disabilities, different variables factor in such as the intrinsic and extrinsic factors to the child. Determining the Intrinsic and Extrinsic Factors that affect the Effective Implementation of AAC’S Researchers have undertaken several studies in trying to find out the relationship between the effectiveness of AAC’s implementation and the intrinsic as well as extrinsic factors affecting the same. For instance, a case study done on twenty children do determine the pathologists’ perception on passive and active communication styles revealed that Speech Language Pathologists pick out different interventions for different children depending on their passive or active communication levels. This means that a child’s communication level, which qualifies an intrinsic factor, can either influence or affect the implementation of AAC implementation (Finke & Quinn, 2012). In a separate study focusing on preschool children with language developmental abilities, the study aimed at testing the successful implementation of AAC’s in early language interventions. This research saw the researchers also look into children with special disorders like the autism spectrum disorder among others (Barker et al., 2013). Discussion and conclusions The research investigated the effectiveness of implementing AAC in early language intervention to aid in language development for preschool children and found the strategy as effective. But a few intrinsic and extrinsic factors affect the effectiveness and implementation of AAC’s in such cases. In view of all the measures such as the receptive language skills and the productive syntax skills, the children in the intervention group exhibited significant levels of language development compared to the ones in the control group. A clear explanation for this implies that AAC interventions are primarily connected to the neurocognitive components of the recall memory. Therefore, when implementing the AAC systems the unification and control of components in a child’s learning environment can produce significant effect on their language development. (Van der Schuit et al., 2010). The stimulation of the participants’ language growth through multimodal AAC’s not only stimulated their need for language training but also, their building of their language networks (Harding, 2010). For instance, the intervention group exhibited higher and positive results in productive vocabulary development and productive syntax due to the implementation of the AAC in the early language intervention. The intervention showed positive outcomes mostly in the non-verbal participants because of the natural manner of AAC implementation in the intervention compared to the control group. For example AAC implemented through experiential learning or play activities, supported story-telling and normal conversations may influence more and better results in the development of communication skills for children with more severe communication difficulties. AAC implemented in the above mentioned manner helps the children significantly to communicate better through receptive and productive language stimulation On the other hand the utilization of AAC in such intervention creates challenging opportunities for children who are not yet verbal speakers. This is because the intervention group challenged them as well as encouraged them to learn and at the same time become active communicators. The outcome of such an implementation builds on the child’s vocabulary, their semantic network as well as improving their productive language in general. According to Light and Drager (2007), the effective implementation of various AAC strategies influences the development communication skills in such children. The follow-up measurements to determine the long-term effective of AAC in early language interventions showed no further developments in receptive or productive language skills. This aspect implies that when the learning environment changes, the new changes prolong the child’s ability to develop new positive responses to language development. In this situation, when the children left school for a new environment after the intervention, the change disrupted their cognitive skills; hence they took longer to adapt to another environment leading zero progression in language development. The other reason that may explain the absence in language development progress may involve the inadequate individualized support coming from the teachers or the environment that the children moved into after the intervention. Also because the children came from different learning environments and the intervention group forced them into actively participating, the discontinuation of the same may have led to the lack of sustained development. Since the children had gotten used to regular assessment during the intervention period, the lack of the same after the intervention might have caused the lack of language development sustenance. Dynamic assessment in the implementation of AAC’s not only provides a basis for developmental sustenance, it also provides a child with extra opportunities to enable them reflect and rehearse the learnt skills; hence further developing their existing skills. When both intervention and dynamic assessments are stopped then the expected outcome diminishes gradually as well as the developmental progress. The most important considerations to make when implementing AAC’s on a smaller group of children is the heterogeneity sense that comes with children being in small groups. The assessment needs to happen under extreme caution so as not to disrupt the learning adaptability of the child. Recommendations Indeed the primary purpose for using AAC in early language interventions for children with developmental disabilities involves provide potential modalities; through which these children can communicate with other individuals in their lives. Despite the remarkable results and impact observed from the utilization of AAC’s in such cases, there is the urgent need to carry out further research on the evidence supporting the successful use of other AAC intervention strategies such as PECS, instructive training and the use of SGDs. Future research is also required to delineate the natural speech effects associated with the implementation of AAC technologies on children with a wide range of disabilities. This is because the existing speculations and debates regarding this aspect pose a threat to the future successful adoption of the AAC strategies in improving communication. To date, research has found limited evidence of the comparative effectiveness of a variety of AAC systems such as the aided and unaided AAC systems. This aspect has received minimal exploration in relation to children with special disorders like autism spectrum disorders. Therefore I recommend a more practical exploration of AAC system’s potential in ensuring effective communication in children with special disorders such as autism among others. It is highly unlikely that a single ACC system will meet the overall needs of all children with complex communication problems. Despite the limited evidence on the comparative effectiveness of different AAC systems, I recommend the incorporation of a variety of alternative intervention strategies in the implementation of AAC in early language intervention for children with developmental disabilities. An area that has not received any attention involves follow-up studies carried out on larger groups of children. Therefore I recommend the undertaking of other researches on larger groups of children, with different disabilities, age and a vast number of differing etiologies; to determine the effectiveness of AAC implementing in other existing populations. In determining the effectiveness of AAC implementation in early language interventions, follow-up data needs to consider balancing the assessment between the two groups. Therefore I recommend an added follow-up done on the control group as well to see if they exhibit the same outcomes as the intervention group. Naturalistic observation approach undertaken in addition to the sample testing may enable the research obtain a more clear picture of the children’s communication and language development compared to the standardized norm referencing that the research employed in analyzing the data. Conclusion The implementation of AAC in early language intervention purposes to stimulate the basic communication, language and emergent literacy in children with different etiological differences; to help parents effectively implement the same in their disabled children. However, the effect of the AAC in early language intervention seems to disappear immediately after the completion of the intervention. This research has highlighted reasons supporting the same which implies to parents and learning professional that AAC intervention need to remain a continuous process throughout the entire learning period; for a child with developmental disabilities. There are also existing variables that influence and affect the effective implementation of the AAC in early language intervention; therefore when dealing with this strategy an individual has to ensure, they create a balance of such variables. This includes deciding which techniques works best for which developmental disability and vice versa. References Barker, R., Akaba, S., Brady, N., & Thiemann-Bourque, K. (2013). Support for AAC use in preschool, and growth in language skills, for young children with developmental disabilities. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 334-346. DOI: 10.3109/07434618.2013.848933 Cannella-Malone, H., DeBar, R., & Sigafoos, J. (2009). An examination of preference for augmentative and alternative communication devices with two boys with significant intellectual disabilities. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 25(4), 262-273. doi:10.3109/07434610903384511 Finke, E., & Quinn, E. (2012). Perceptions of communication style and influences on intervention practices for young children with AAC needs. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 117-126. DOI: 10.3109/07434618.2012.677959 Harding, C., Lindsay, G., O'Brien, A., Dipper, L., & Wright, J. (2010). Implementing AAC with children with profound and multiple learning disabilities: A study in rationale underpinning intervention. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 11(2), 120-129. doi:10.1111/j.1471-3802.2010.01184.x Kaiser, A., & Roberts, M. (2011). Advances in early communication and language intervention. Journal of Early Intervention, 33(4), 298-309. doi:10.1177/1053815111429968 Light, J., & Drager, K. (2007). AAC Technologies for Young Children with Complex Communication Needs: State of the Science and Future Research Directions. Augmentative and Alternative Communication 23(3), 204-216. Schuit, M., Segers, E., Balkom, H., & Verhoeven, L. (2010). Early language intervention for children with intellectual disabilities: A neurocognitive perspective. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 705-712. doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2010.11.010 van der Meer, L., Sigafoos, J., O’Reilly, M., & Lancioni, G. (2011). Assessing preferences for AAC options in communication interventions for individuals with developmental disabilities: A review of the literature. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 32(5), 1422-1431. doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2011.02.003 van der Meer, L., & Rispoli, M. (2010). Communication interventions involving speech-generating devices for children with autism: A review of the literature. Developmental Neurorehabilitation, 13(4), 294-306. doi:10.3109/17518421003671494 Van der Schuit et al. (2010). Research in Developmental Disabilities; Early language intervention for children with intellectual disabilities: A neurocognitive perspective. 32(2011), 705-712. doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2010.11.010 Whitmore, A., Romski, M., & Sevcik, R. (2014). Early augmented language intervention for children with developmental delays: Potential secondary motor outcomes. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 30(3), 200-212. doi:10.3109/07434618.2014.940466 Read More