When Working With Students Who Have Specific Expressive Diso ✓ Solved

When Working With Students Who Have Specified Expressive Or Receptive

When working with students who have specified expressive or receptive language deficits and other communication challenges, knowing how to select appropriate augmentative or alternative communication (AAC) devices is an important part of helping students overcome communication challenges. Understanding that the use of AAC often involves trial and error before finding what truly helps a student be successful is an important part of working with students with ASD. Imagine that you are a teacher in a K-12 school, and you are starting a new school year. The students in the “Autism Programmatic Case Studies” are on your caseload for the year. Consider what you learned from the research you conducted as part of the Topic 2 “Communication Support Strategy Reference Guide” assignment and create a chart that recommends communication assessments and AAC that would be appropriate for each student.

The chart should include the following: Identify each student by name and summarize their language and/or communication challenges. Select an appropriate communication assessment for each student and justify the selection. Remember that assessments should be selected based on the specific needs of each student. Recommend appropriate AAC supports for each student and justify the selections. Support the assignment with a minimum of three scholarly resources.

Sample Paper For Above instruction

Effective communication is fundamental for the social, emotional, and academic development of students with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), especially those with expressive or receptive language deficits. Selecting appropriate assessment tools and augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) supports tailored to each student's needs is critical for fostering meaningful communication and participation within the classroom setting (Alzrayer, Banda, & Koul, 2014). This paper presents a comprehensive analysis of Thalia, an 8-year-old student with autism, who exhibits significant language and communication challenges, and recommends suitable assessments and AAC strategies based on her profile.

Thalia’s case exemplifies the multifaceted nature of communication challenges faced by students with ASD. Her triannual assessment at age six employed the Autism Spectrum Screening Questionnaire (ASSQ), the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals (CELF-4), and the Adaptive Behavior Assessment System (ABAS-3), revealing severe deficits across multiple domains. Her ASSQ scores indicated elevated levels of behavioral rigidity, sensory sensitivity, and social/emotional reciprocity issues, impacting her interactions with peers and adults. Her CELF-4 scores demonstrated prominent receptive and expressive language impairments, notably in following directions and overall language use. The ABAS-3 further highlighted her struggles with communication, self-direction, and functional academic skills (Gotham et al., 2014). Together, these assessments provide a comprehensive profile necessary for selecting targeted interventions.

Communication Assessment Recommendations

Given Thalia’s extensive language impairments, the first step is to utilize a comprehensive language assessment that evaluates both expressive and receptive language skills. The Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals—Fifth Edition (CELF-5) is well-suited for this purpose, as it assesses core language abilities across multiple domains (Wiig, Secord, & Semel, 2013). The prior use of CELF-4, which revealed extreme deficits, suggests revisiting and reassessing her language skills with the updated CELF-5 to monitor progress and inform intervention planning. This assessment provides standardized scores, detailed subtest analyses, and helps identify specific areas requiring support, such as understanding directions or expressive language capabilities (McGregor & Romer, 2014).

Additionally, to assess Thalia’s social communication skills comprehensively, administering the Social Communication Questionnaire (SCQ) or the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS-2) would be beneficial (Lord et al., 2012). These tools evaluate pragmatic language skills, social reciprocity, and behavioral aspects of communication, which are areas of concern for Thalia based on her ASSQ ratings. The ADOS-2, in particular, offers an observational-based assessment that allows for nuanced understanding of her communication style in clinical and naturalistic contexts.

Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) Supports

Based on her profile, Thalia would benefit from multimodal AAC supports that promote both receptive and expressive communication. A robust picture exchange communication system (PECS) is recommended because it has shown efficacy in fostering functional communication in children with ASD and severe language impairments (Bondy & Frost, 2011). PECS can serve as a bridge to verbal communication, emphasizing functional use of symbols to exchange information about needs, wants, and social interactions. Considering her limited expressive language, additional evidence-based supports such as high-tech augmentative devices equipped with speech-generating capabilities may further enhance her expressive skills (Harper et al., 2013).

Furthermore, incorporating visual supports into her daily routine—such as visual schedules, social stories, and choice boards—can help Thalia better understand expectations, routines, and social cues, thereby reducing behavioral rigidity and sensory sensitivities that interfere with communication (Kasari et al., 2015). Transitioning from picture-based systems to devices that generate speech allows her to participate more actively in classroom conversations and social exchanges, fostering greater independence and social engagement (Ganz et al., 2012).

Justification for AAC Support Choices

The selection of PECS is supported by substantial research indicating its efficacy in improving communication initiation and social interactions among children with ASD who have minimal verbal skills (Chen et al., 2017). Its visual and systematic approach aligns with Thalia’s profile, where sensory sensitivities and behavioral rigidity are prominent issues. High-tech speech-generating devices are justified because they offer flexible, customizable communication modalities that adapt to her evolving needs, providing opportunities for both receptive comprehension and expressive output (Baxter et al., 2012). Visual supports augment her understanding and facilitate engagement in classroom routines, thereby addressing her low self-direction and socialization scores.

Conclusion

Thalia’s case underscores the importance of individualized assessment and intervention planning in supporting students with autism who face complex communication challenges. Employing comprehensive assessment tools like CELF-5 and observational measures ensures a thorough understanding of her language capabilities. Complementing these assessments with multimodal AAC supports, particularly PECS and speech-generating devices, can significantly enhance her communicative competence. Visual supports further facilitate understanding and social interaction, ultimately promoting her participation in classroom activities and social life. Future interventions should be revisited regularly to adapt strategies that best serve her communication development milestones (Schreibman & Kasari, 2016).

References

• Alzrayer, N., Banda, D. R., & Koul, R. (2014). Systematic review of augmentative and alternative communication use with children with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 44(10), 2769–2784.
• Baxter, S., MacDonald, O., & Connoly, M. (2012). Speech-generating devices for children with autism spectrum disorder: A systematic review. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 54(1), 23-30.
• Bondy, A., & Frost, L. (2011). The picture exchange communication system training manual. Pyramid Educational Products.
• Gotham, K., Pickles, A., & Lord, C. (2014). Standardizing diagnoses on the autism spectrum and beyond. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 44(8), 1965-1973.
• Harper, T., Shalev, R. S., & Wadsworth, D. (2013). Technology interventions for children with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 43(12), 2798–2807.
• Kasari, C., Rotheram-Fuller, E., Locke, J., & Gulsrud, A. (2015). Play and language development in children with autism spectrum disorder: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 56(11), 1172-1180.
• Lord, C., Rutter, M., DiLavore, P. C., Risi, S., Gotham, K., & Bishop, S. (2012). Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (2nd ed.). Western Psychological Services.
• McGregor, K. K., & Romer, J. (2014). Assessment of language impairment in children with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 57(3), 953-967.
• Schreibman, L., & Kasari, C. (2016). The science and practice of autism intervention. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 46(2), 529-534.
• Wiig, E. H., Secord, W. A., & Semel, E. (2013). Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals—Fifth Edition (CELF-5). Pearson.