A randomized trial comparison of the effects of verbal and pictorial naturalistic communication strategies on spoken language for young children with autism

Laura Schreibman, Aubyn Stahmer

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

35 Scopus citations

Abstract

Presently there is no consensus on the specific behavioral treatment of choice for targeting language in young nonverbal children with autism. This randomized clinical trial compared the effectiveness of a verbally-based intervention, Pivotal Response Training (PRT) to a pictorially-based behavioral intervention, the Picture Exchange Communication System (PECS) on the acquisition of spoken language by young (2-4 years), nonverbal or minimally verbal (≤9 words) children with autism. Thirty-nine children were randomly assigned to either the PRT or PECS condition. Participants received on average 247 h of intervention across 23 weeks. Dependent measures included overall communication, expressive vocabulary, pictorial communication and parent satisfaction. Children in both intervention groups demonstrated increases in spoken language skills, with no significant difference between the two conditions. Seventy-eight percent of all children exited the program with more than 10 functional words. Parents were very satisfied with both programs but indicated PECS was more difficult to implement.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1244-1251
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of Autism and Developmental Disorders
Volume44
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2014

Keywords

  • Augmentative communication
  • Autism
  • Behavioral intervention
  • Functional communication
  • Pictorial communication intervention
  • Vocal language intervention

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Developmental and Educational Psychology

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'A randomized trial comparison of the effects of verbal and pictorial naturalistic communication strategies on spoken language for young children with autism'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this