Autistic children exposed to simultaneous communication training: a follow-up.
Speech-plus-sign classes can turn mute preschoolers with autism into long-term speakers when parents and schools stay in the game.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team tracked kids who had taken part in earlier speech-plus-sign classes.
All were mute before the training began.
One to four years later the researchers asked: who is still talking, and why?
What they found
At least half of the once-mute children were still using words.
Kids who started with more skills, trained longer, had good schooling, and had involved parents did best.
How this fits with other research
Spriggs et al. (2016) extends this story. They followed one boy for 40 years and saw the same result: early signs can last a lifetime.
Koenen et al. (2016) supersedes the 1987 work. Their larger study of 61 minimally verbal children shows that adding a speech-generating device to play-based sessions speeds language growth even more.
Capio et al. (2013) seems to disagree. Their parent-coaching trial improved social play but did not lift standard language scores. The clash fades when you see the methods: 2013 taught toddlers through parents only, while 1987 gave direct speech-plus-sign lessons to preschoolers.
Why it matters
If you serve non-speaking preschoolers with autism, pair signs with spoken words and keep parents in the room.
Plan for at least six months of lessons and pick classrooms that reinforce the system.
When progress stalls, trial a speech-generating device; later studies show it can give an extra push.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Pick one non-verbal client and add a sign to each directive you give today, then teach parents to do the same at dinner.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Fourteen originally mute, low-functioning autistic children, exposed to intensive simultaneous communication training, were followed up 1 to 4 years later. Psychometric testing, communication assessment, and teacher and parent interviews were employed. Results showed that at least half of the children who had become verbal by program termination remained verbal at follow-up. Higher-functioning and verbal children performed overall better than their lower-functioning and mute peers. Children exposed longer to the intensive program and those exposed to good schooling after termination fared better at follow-up, as did those whose parents were more involved in their training. Yet teachers and parents employed mainly speech rather than signs to communicate with these children, despite the children's difficulty with speech. Compared to the verbal children, who recalled signs and words equally well, the mute children recalled signs better than words. The findings are discussed for their relevance to choice of communication training with different subgroups of autistic children.
Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 1987 · doi:10.1007/BF01487264