Implementing Aided Augmentative Communication Systems With Persons Having Complex Communicative Needs.

Bathelt et al. (2019) wrote a narrative review. They looked at what makes aided AAC work for people with autism, intellectual disability, or developmental delay. They did not run a new experiment. Instead they pulled together best-practice pieces and listed gaps that still need research.

The paper gives a checklist of AAC parts: voice output, picture size, layout, and teaching steps. It says you must match each part to the learner's motor, vision, and daily needs. The authors also flag five weak spots: tele-delivery, parent training, long-term use, sparse single-case data, and poor fit for adults with profound needs.

Early et al. (2012) drew a similar map seven years earlier, but only for autism. Joe widens the lens to all complex communicators and adds fresh tech like tablet apps. Giesbers et al. (2020) took Joe's parts and tested them in a short caregiver program. Minimally verbal preschoolers gained joint attention and kept social gains four months later. Howard et al. (2023) and de Jonge et al. (2025) filled the telehealth gap Joe flagged. Both used parent coaching over Zoom to teach girls with Rett syndrome to ask for items and link pages on AAC devices. Ghaziuddin et al. (1996) and Bracken et al. (2014) supply the single-case muscle Joe asked for. Adults with profound ID or deaf-blindness learned voice-output or enlarged PECS requests, proving the checklist works when features are matched.

You now have a ready-made AAC checklist plus real studies that back each step. Before you pick a device, run through the checklist: voice on or off, picture size, grid size, and teaching protocol. If the client has Rett, low vision, or lives far away, borrow the telehealth scripts from L et al. or E et al. The review tells you what to teach; the single-case studies tell you it can work. Match first, then train, then measure.