Advertisement

Effect of Video Embedded with Hotspots with Dynamic Text on Single-Word Recognition by Children with Multiple Disabilities

  • Christine HolyfieldEmail author
  • Jessica Caron
  • Janice Light
  • David McNaughton
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
  • 5 Downloads

Abstract

The purpose of the study was to evaluate the effects of an intervention on single-word recognition. The intervention used an AAC app programmed with video visual scene displays (VSDs) embedded with hotspots with the Transition to Literacy (T2L) feature. Three school-aged children with multiple disabilities who had limited speech and limited literacy skills participated in a multiple baseline across participants design. Four names of characters in favorite movies and shows served as target words for each participant. All three children demonstrated an increase in accurate identification of target words from baseline to intervention. Tau-U effect sizes for the three participants were 0.69, 0.76, and 0.84, all of which were statistically significant (p < 0.05). Professionals can consider including the intervention evaluated in the current study as one component of literacy intervention for school-aged children with multiple disabilities. Future research should further evaluate video VSDs and the T2L feature for use with individuals with multiple disabilities.

Keywords

Augmentative and alternative communication Multiple disabilities Single-word recognition Mobile technology Video visual scene displays 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research (NIDILRR) under grant number #90RE5017 to the Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center on Augmentative and Alternative Communication (RERC on AAC). The video VSD app, the AAC technology utilized in the current study, was developed by InvoTek, Inc. under the RERC on AAC.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed involving human participants were approved by the first author's institutional review board.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from a guardian of each of the participants.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Axelsson, A. K., Granlund, M., & Wilder, J. (2013). Engagement in family activities: A quantitative, comparative study of children with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities and children with typical development. Child: Care, Health and Development, 39, 523–534.  https://doi.org/10.1111/cch.12044.Google Scholar
  2. Baer, D. M., Wolf, M. M., & Risley, T. R. (1968). Some current dimensions of applied behavior analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 91–97.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1968.1-91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boyle, S., McCoy, A., McNaughton, D., & Light, J. (2017). Using digital texts in interactive reading activities for children with language delays and disorders: A review of the research literature and pilot study. Seminars in Speech and Language, 38, 263–275.  https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0037-1604274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Browder, D. M., & Xin, Y. P. (1998). A meta-analysis and review of sight word research and its implications for teaching functional reading to individuals with moderate and severe disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 32, 130–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Browder, D. M., Mims, P. J., Spooner, F., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., & Lee, A. (2008). Teaching elementary students with multiple disabilities to participate in shared stories. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 33, 3–12.  https://doi.org/10.2511/rpsd.33.1-2.3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Caron, J., Holyfield, C., Light, J., & McNaughton, D. (2018a). “What have you been doing?”: Supporting displaced talk through augmentative and alternative communication video visual scene display technology. Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups, 3, 123–135.  https://doi.org/10.1044/persp3.SIG12.123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Caron, J., Light, J., Holyfield, C., & McNaughton, D. (2018b). Effects of dynamic text in an AAC app on sight word reading for individuals with autism spectrum disorder. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 34, 143–154.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07434618.2018.1457715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Copley, J., & Ziviani, J. (2004). Barriers to the use of assistive technology for children with multiple disabilities. Occupational Therapy International, 11, (4):229–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Grove, N., Bunning, K., Porter, J., & Olsson, C. (1999). See what I mean: Interpreting the meaning of communication by people with severe and profound intellectual disabilities. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 12, 190–203.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-3148.1999.tb00076.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Holyfield, C., Caron, J. G., Drager, K., & Light, J. (2018a). Effect of mobile technology featuring visual scene displays and just-in-time programming on communication turns by preadolescent and adolescent beginning communicators. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology. Advance online publication, 1–11.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17549507.2018.1441440.
  11. Holyfield, C., Light, J., Drager, K., McNaughton, D., & Gormley, J. (2018b). Effect of an AAC peer training on interpreting idiosyncratic behaviors from students with multiple disabilities. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 34, 301–310.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07434618.2018.1508306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Holyfield, C., Light, J., McNaughton, D., Caron, J., Drager, K., & Pope, L. (in review). Effect of AAC technology with dynamic text on the single-word recognition of adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities with limited speech.Google Scholar
  13. Jagaroo, V., & Wilkinson, K. (2008). Further considerations of visual cognitive neuroscience in aided AAC: The potential role of motion perception systems in maximizing design display. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 24, 29–42.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07434610701390673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kratochwill, T., Hitchcock, J., Horner, R., Levin, J., Odom, S., Rindskopf, D., & Shadish, W. (2010). Single-case designs technical documentation. What works clearinghouse.Google Scholar
  15. Light, J., & McNaughton, D. (2013). Literacy intervention for individuals with complex communication needs. In D. Beukelman & P. Mirenda (Eds.), Augmentative and alternative communication: Supporting children and adults with complex communication needs (pp. 309–351). Baltimore: Brookes.Google Scholar
  16. Light, J., McNaughton, D., & Jakobs, T. (2014a). Developing AAC technology to support interactive video visual scene displays. RERC on AAC: Rehabilitation engineering research center on Augmentative and Alternative Communication. Retrieved from https://rerc-aac.psu.edu/development/d2-developing-aac-technology-to-support-interactive-video-visual-scene-displays/. Accessed 24 Jan 2019.
  17. Light, J., McNaughton, D., Jakobs, T., & Hershberger, D. (2014b). Investigating AAC technologies to support the transition from graphic symbols to literacy. RERC on AAC: Rehabilitation engineering research center on Augmentative and Alternative Communication. Retrieved from https://rerc-aac.psu.edu/research/r2-investigating-aac-technologies-to-support-the-transition-from-graphic-symbols-to-literacy/
  18. Maes, B., Lambrechts, G., Hostyn, I., & Petry, K. (2007). Quality-enhancing interventions for people with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities: A review of the empirical research literature. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 32, 163–178.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13668250701549427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. O'Neill, T., Light, J., & McNaughton, D. (2017). Videos with integrated AAC visual scene displays to enhance participation in community and vocational activities: Pilot case study with an adolescent with autism spectrum disorder. Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups, 2, 55–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Parker, R. I., Vannest, K. J., Davis, J. L., & Sauber, S. B. (2011). Combining nonoverlap and trend for single-case research: Tau-U. Behavior Therapy, 42, 284–299.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2010.08.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Schlosser, R., & Lee, D. (2009). Promoting generalization and maintenance in augmentative and alternative communication: A meta-analysis of 20 years of effectiveness research. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 16, (4):208–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Zijlstra, H. P., & Vlaskamp, C. (2005). Leisure provision for persons with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities: Quality time or killing time? Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 49, 434–448.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2788.2005.00689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Rehabilitation, Human Resources, and Communication DisordersUniversity of ArkansasFayettevilleUSA
  2. 2.Department of Communication Sciences and DisordersPennsylvania State UniversityState CollegeUSA
  3. 3.Department of Educational Psychology, Counseling, and Special EducationPennsylvania State UniversityState CollegeUSA

Personalised recommendations