Assessing preferences for AAC options in communication interventions for individuals with developmental disabilities: a review of the literature.
Most people with developmental disabilities prefer SGD over picture exchange, so always test first.
01Research in Context
What this study did
van der Meer et al. (2011) looked at seven small studies that asked people with developmental disabilities which AAC tool they liked best. The studies compared speech-generating devices (SGD) and picture exchange systems.
Each study let the person try both tools, then picked the one they reached for most. The team counted how many chose SGD and how many chose pictures.
What they found
Across all seven studies, about two-thirds of participants preferred SGD. The other third liked picture exchange better.
No single tool won every time. Individual choice mattered more than the device itself.
How this fits with other research
MacNaul et al. (2021) add a time rule: run the same paired-choice test every 8–30 days so the pick stays fresh. Larah’s review did not repeat tests, so we now know to schedule follow-ups.
Verriden et al. (2016) show that paired-stimulus and MSWO formats give the steadiest rankings. That backs up the simple side-by-side method used in most of the AAC studies Larah found.
Curiel et al. (2024) stretch the idea to preschoolers with autism using MSWO to pick video reinforcers. The same ‘let the learner choose’ logic applies, just with a younger group and different modality.
Why it matters
Before you write an AAC plan, spend five minutes on a paired-stimulus preference test. Show the SGD and the picture board, let the client touch one, switch sides, repeat. Pick the winner, then re-test every month. This tiny step can save months of slow progress on a tool the learner never wanted.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Run a five-trial paired-choice test: SGD vs PECS, record the reach, and pick the device the client selects most.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
We synthesized studies that assessed preference for using different augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) options. Studies were identified via systematic searches of electronic databases, journals, and reference lists. Studies were evaluated in terms of: (a) participants, (b) setting, (c) communication options assessed, (d) design, (e) communication skill(s) taught to the participant, (f) intervention procedures, (g) outcomes of the intervention and outcome of the preference assessment, (h) follow-up and generalization, and (i) reliability of data collection and treatment integrity. Seven studies, involving 12 participants, met the inclusion criteria. In these studies, individuals were taught to use either speech-generating devices (SGD), (b) picture exchange (PE) systems, and/or (c) manual signs. Assessments to identify preferences for using each AAC option were conducted in each study. Sixty-seven percent (n=8) of participants demonstrated some degree (≥55%) of preference for using SGD compared to 33% (n=4) of participants who demonstrated some degree (≥55%) of preference for PE. The results indicate that individuals with developmental disabilities often show a preference for different AAC options. Incorporating an assessment of such preferences might therefore enable individuals to exert some degree of self-determination with respect to AAC intervention.
Research in developmental disabilities, 2011 · doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2011.02.003