Benson-Goldberg, S., Geist, L., & Erickson, K. (2022). Expressive Communication Over Time: A Longitudinal Analysis of the Project Core Implementation Model. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 45(1), 64-72. https://doi.org/10.1177/15257401221120790
Geist, L., Erickson, K., Greer, C., & Hatch, P. (2021). Initial evaluation of the Project Core implementation model. Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits, 15, 29-47. https://www.atia.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/V15_Geist_etal.pdf
Geist, L. (2020). Classroom-based communication instruction: The Project Core implementation model. Closing the Gap Solutions Annual Resource Directory, 38, 3-8.
Dorney, K. E., & Erickson, K. (2019) Transactions Within a Classroom-Based AAC Intervention Targeting Preschool Students with Autism Spectrum Disorders: A Mixed-Methods Investigation. Exceptionality Education International, 29, 42-58.
ASHA 2019
Bridging the Gap from the Universal Core to More Robust Solutions: Successful Researcher-Industry Collaborations (PDF) by Dr. Karen Erickson, Dr. Lori Geist, Dr. Penny Hatch, Kathryn Dorney, and Sofia Benson-Goldberg
Implementing Classroom-based Core Vocabulary Instruction for Beginning Communicators with Significant Cognitive Disabilities: Year Four Results (PDF) by Dr. Lori Geist, Dr. Karen Erickson, Dr. Penny Hatch, Kathryn Dorney, and Sofia Benson-Goldberg
ASHA 2018
Implementation of Classroom-based Core Vocabulary Instruction for Beginning Communicators with Significant Disabilities: Year Three Results (PDF) by Dr. Lori Geist, Dr. Karen Erickson, Dr. Penny Hatch, Kathryn Dorney, and Sofia Benson-Goldberg
ASHA 2017
Infusing the Universal Core into a Self-Contained Classroom (PDF) by Lisa Erwin-Davidson.
Classroom-wide Core Vocabulary Instruction for Students with Significant Cognitive Disabilities: Year Two Insights and Results (PDF) by Dr. Lori Geist, Dr. Karen Erickson, Dr. Penny Hatch, Lisa Erwin-Davidson, and Kathryn Dorney.
ASHA 2016
Classroom-Based Core Vocabulary Instruction for Students With Significant Cognitive Disabilities and Complex Communication Needs (PDF) by Dr. Lori Geist, Dr. Karen Erickson, Dr. Penny Hatch, and Lisa Erwin-Davidson.
ASHA 2016
Core Vocabulary for Students with Significant Cognitive Disabilities: Essential Tools, Teaching Strategies and Assessment Components (PDF) by Dr. Lori Geist, Dr. Karen Erickson, and Dr. Penny Hatch.
ATIA 2020
Implementing Classroom-based AAC Instruction for Beginning Communicators with Significant Disabilities (PDF) by Dr. Lori Geist, Dr. Claire Greer, Kathryn Dorney, and Sofia Benson-Goldberg
ATIA 2019
Core Vocabulary, Attribution and Aided Language with Preschool Students with ASD (PDF) by Kathryn Dorney and Dr. Karen Erickson
Project Core Implementation Model: Putting into Practice with Communication Apps and Devices (PDF) by Dr. Lori Geist
Project Core Reexamined: Year 3 Review (PDF) by Dr. Lori Geist, Dr. Karen Erickson, Kathryn Dorney, and Sofia Benson-Goldberg
ATIA 2018
Classroom-wide Communication Instruction for Students with Severe Disabilities: Year 2 (PDF) by Dr. Lori Geist, Dr. Karen Erickson, Dr. Claire Greer, and Kathryn Dorney.
ATIA 2017
A Case Analysis of Communication Intervention: Year 1 (PDF) by Lisa Erwin-Davidson.
Implementation Program Review for the Multi-Tiered System for Augmenting Language (PDF) by Dr. Lori Geist, Dr. Karen Erickson, Dr. Penny Hatch, and Dr. Claire Greer
Using Core Vocabulary in Emergent Literacy Instructional Routines (PDF) by Dr. Penny Hatch, Dr. Lori Geist, Dr. Karen Erickson, Dr. Claire Greer, and Lisa Erwin-Davidson.
ATIA 2016
Core Vocabulary AAC Instruction for Students with Significant Cognitive Disabilities (PDF) by Dr. Lori Geist, Dr. Karen Erickson, and Dr. Penny Hatch.
ISAAC 2018
Effects of Embedding Core Vocabulary in Emergent Literacy Instructional Routines (PDF) by Dr. Penny Hatch, Dr. Lori Geist, and Dr. Karen Erickson.
Evaluation of Project Core Professional Development Modules: Usage Data and Participant Reported Value (PDF) by Dr. Lori Geist, Dr. Penny Hatch, and Dr. Karen Erickson.
Classroom-based Communication Instruction: Project Core Year 3 (PDF) by Dr. Lori Geist, Dr. Penny Hatch, and Dr. Karen Erickson.
ISAAC 2016
Core Vocabulary for Students with Significant Cognitive Disabilities: Essential Tools, Teaching Strategies and Assessment Components (PDF) by Dr. Lori Geist, Dr. Karen Erickson, Dr. Penny Hatch, Dr. Claire Greer, and Lisa Erwin-Davidson.
This annotated collection of articles summarizes research support for the intervention practices that are central to the Project Core implementation model.
Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) is an intervention approach that addresses the needs of individuals with complex communication needs. The research studies below focus specifically on the research supporting the use of aided AAC. In contrast to unaided AAC, aided AAC involves the use of external supports such as, picture communication boards, line drawings, graphic-symbols, devices with speech output or speech-generating devices, or tangible objects to help the individual express thoughts, wants and needs, feelings, and ideas (ASHA, 2018).
Download this annotated bibliography on AAC here (.pdf)
Research
Ganz, J.B., Rispoli, M.J., Mason, R.A., & Hong, E.R. (2014). Moderation of effects of AAC based on setting and types of aided AAC on outcome variables: An aggregate study of single-case research with individuals with ASD. Developmental Neurorehabilitation, 17(3), 184-192. doi: 10.3109/17518423.2012.748097
The purpose of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the potential moderating effects of intervention setting and type of aided AAC on outcome variables for students with ASD. The results suggest that AAC is effective home, therapy room, self-contained classroom, and general education settings. However, the greatest gains were associated with intervention in general education settings. In addition, Picture Exchange Communication System (PECS), speech-generating devices, and other picture-based communication were compared. Each was beneficial with varying impacts on social, academic, communication, and challenging behaviors.
Romski, M.A., & Sevcik, R.A. (1996). Breaking the Speech Barrier: Language Development through Augmented Means. Baltimore, MA: Brookes Publishing.
This longitudinal intervention study examined the use of system of augmented language (SAL) to support school-age children with moderate or severe intellectual disabilities with complex communication needs in both school and home. The SAL approach was comprised of: (a) a speech-generating device with graphic symbols; (b) communication partners demonstrating the use of the graphic symbols; (c) communication partners responding to the children’s nonverbal communication; and (d) encouragement to use AAC in natural communicative exchanges. Students had access to multiple symbols from the beginning. The students’ communication initiations increased as they incorporated the use of aided AAC into their existing communicative repertoire. Through SAL, the students improved expressive and receptive vocabulary, use of spoken words, sight word recognition, and communication skills; thus, improving their participation in social and educational settings.
Romski, M.A., Sevcik, R.A., Adamson, L.B., Cheslock, M., … Bakeman, R. (2010). Randomized comparison of augmented and nonaugmented language interventions for toddler with developmental delays with their parents. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 53, 350-364. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2009/08-0156)
This experimental study compared the impact of interventions that did and did not include aided AAC on child communication outcomes. Children and their parents were randomly assigned to the different conditions. All parents received training and support. The children who were assigned to groups that included the use of aided AAC had larger expressive vocabularies and better communication outcomes than the children in the speech-only group.
Walker, V. L., & Snell, M. E. (2013). Effects of augmentative and alternative communication on challenging behavior: A meta-analysis. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 29(2), 117-131. doi:10.3109/07434618.2013.785020.
This meta-analysis examined 54 existing studies to determine the effectiveness of AAC as a means of reducing challenging behavior. Results suggest that AAC in general is an effective means of reducing challenging behaviors. However, AAC is generally more effective when implemented beginning in childhood.
Further References
Articles showing success in introducing AAC intervention to emergent communicators
Branson, D. & Demchak, M. (2009). The use of augmentative and alternative communication methods with infants and toddlers with disabilities: A research review. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 25 (4), 274-286. DOI: 10.3109/07434610903384529
Goossens, C. (1989). Aided communication intervention before assessment: A case study of a child with cerebral palsy. Augmentative and Alternative Communication. 5, 14 – 26. doi: 10.1080/07434618912331274926
Light, J., Collier, B., & Parnes, P. (1985). Communicative interaction between young nonspeaking physically disabled children and their primary caregivers: Part I—discourse patterns. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 1:2, 74-83.
Articles providing evidence that AAC intervention supports individuals of all ages, disability types, and cognitive profiles with no required prerequisites
Ganz, J.B., Earles-Vollrath T.L., Mason, R.A., Rispoli, M.J., Heath, A.K., & Parker, R.I. (2011). An aggregate study of single-case research involving aided AAC: Participant characteristics of individuals with autism spectrum disorders. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders,5, 1500-1509. doi: 10.1016/j.rasd.2011.01.011
Ganz, J.B., Morin, K.L., Foster, M.J., Vannest, K.J., Tosun, D.G., Gregori, E.V., & Gerow, S.L. (2017). High-technology augmentative and alternative communication for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities and complex communication needs: A meta-analysis. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 33, 224–238. doi:10.1080/07434618.2017.1373855
Millar, D.C., Light, C., & Schlosser, R.W. (2006). The impact of augmentative and alternative communication intervention on the speech production of individuals with developmental disabilities: A research review. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49 (2), 248-254. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2006/021)
Romski, M.A. & Sevcik, R.A. (2005). Augmentative Communication and Early Intervention: Myths and Realities. Infants and Young Children, 18, 174-185. doi: 10.1097/00001163-200507000-00002
Zeina, R., AL-Ayadhi, L., & Bashir, S. (2005). The impact of IQ on using high-tech augmentative alternative communication (AAC) in children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences,171, 366-373. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.134
Aided Language Input is a communication strategy that requires a communication partner to teach symbol meaning and model symbolic communication by pairing speech with graphic symbols or other forms of aided augmentative and alternative communication (AAC). Modeling shows where graphic symbols are located and how they can be used to communicate various messages are critical to aided language input. The approach also involves observing the individual with complex communication needs, attributing meaning to their behaviors, and modeling symbolic alternatives using speech paired with the graphic symbols. Aided Language Input helps students: (1) understand that their behaviors carry meaning; (2) learn how they can use symbols to communicate more conventionally; and (3) develop language by showing how to expand messages by adding additional symbols.
Download this annotated bibliography on Aided Language Input here (.pdf)
Research
Sennot, S.C., Light, J.C., & McNaughton, D. (2016). AAC modeling intervention research review. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 41, 101-115.
This systematic review sought to understand the impact of aided language input. For the purpose of this review, modeling was defined as communication partners (1) pointing to aided AAC as they speak and (2) implementing intervention in the context of natural communication interactions. Participants in the studies reviewed ranged in ages from 2:11 to 12:1 years and represented a variety of developmental disability diagnoses (e.g.: Autism, Prader-Willi, DiGeorge syndrome, Cerebral Palsy, Childhood Apraxia of Speech). The results from the 10 studies reviewed indicate that aided language input led to meaningful gains across language domains. Specifically, children took more communication turns, gained vocabulary knowledge, increased multi-symbol utterances, and demonstrated knowledge of early morphological markers. Overall, this study strengthens the argument for using aided language input as a foundation for AAC intervention.
Romski, M.A., & Sevcik, R.A. (1996). Breaking the Speech Barrier: Language Development Through Augmented Means. Baltimore, M.D.: Brookes Publishing.
This book describes the results of a multi-year study of thirteen adolescent students with intellectual developmental disabilities and complex communication needs as they used the System for Augmenting Language (SAL) at school and home. During all activities, parents and teachers pointed to symbols when speaking to the students. They did this while encouraging but did not require the students to use the voice output system to communicate in return. As a result, the students were successful using both the speech-generating device and nonverbal communication (e.g. vocalizations, gestures, and words) to gain attention, answer questions, request items, name objects, and respond to communication partners. Despite aided language input emphasis on symbol use, the students continued to use existing communication abilities. Existing skills were primarily used to initiate communication, whereas SAL promoted the continuation of conversation and addition of new information with adults and peers.
Barker, R.M., Akaba, S., Brady, N.C.,& Thieman-Bourque, K. (2013) Support for AAC use in preschool, and growth in language in young children with developmental disabilities. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 29(4), 334-346.
This longitudinal study examined AAC use by 83 preschool children with significant developmental disabilities, including autism spectrum disorder, down syndrome, global developmental delays, cerebral palsy, and spina bifida. Surveys were used to collect information about how teachers and students used the students’ devices to communicate, while standard assessments were given to assess the student’s current language skills. Results showed that children whose peers and teachers used their devices to speak to them had better language growth than children whose teachers used prompting and questioning as their primary teaching methods. In fact, the more teachers prompted use of AAC systems, the worse children performed on language assessments. Most notably, increased prompting was related to reduced size and use of vocabulary. This study is important in demonstrating the relationship between aided language input and language growth for children with a variety of developmental disabilities who use AAC.
Goossens, C. (1985). Aided communication intervention before assessment: A case study of a child with cerebral palsy. Augmentative and Alternative Communication,5, 14-26. doi:10.1080/07434618912331274926
This case study describes augmentative alternative communication (AAC) intervention for a 6-year-old child with severe spastic-athetoid cerebral palsy. Through interactive aided language stimulation by parents and clinicians in naturalistic contexts, the child learned to rapidly demonstrate emergent use of eye gaze and head-switch access selection. The benefit of aided language stimulation was two-fold as the child not only received frequent contextually relevant models but it also encouraged the adults to select vocabulary that fostered increased communicative interactions across contexts. This was demonstrated by the evolution of the AAC system from category-based vocabulary, to activity-based boards, and ultimately to a system of core and fringe vocabulary. In this way, the study highlights the importance of adult’s ability to navigate a students’ system. Goossens noted the importance of adult familiarity with children’s aided AAC system because adults who are unable to use a child’s device in an interactive manner, provide few opportunities for the child to learn.
Further References
Articles showing that aided language input builds receptive understanding and expressive use of graphic symbols
Brady, N. C., Thiemann-Bourque, K., Fleming, K., & Mathews, K. (2013). Predicting language outcomes for children learning augmentative and alternative communication: Child and environmental factors. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 56, 1595-1612. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388.
Romski, M.A., Sevcik, R.A., & Pate, J.L. (1988). Establishment of symbolic communication in persons with severe retardation. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 53, 94-107.
Sevcik, R. (2006). Comprehension: An overlooked component in augmented language development. Disability and Rehabilitation. 28, 159-167. doi:10.1080/09638280500077804
Articles showing that teachers and classroom staff can learn to implement aided language input
Cafiero, J. (2001). The Effect of an Augmentative Communication Intervention on the communication, behavior, and academic program of an adolescent with autism. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 16, 179-183. doi:10.1177/108835760101600306
Clendon, S. A., & Anderson, K. (2016). Syntax and morphology in aided language development. In M. Smith, & J. Murray (Eds.) The silent partner? Language, interaction, and aided communication (pp. 119-140). Surrey, UK: J & R Press
Douglas, S., Light, J., & McNaughton, D. (2012). Teaching paraeducators to support the communication of young children with complex communication needs. Topics in Early Childhood Education, 33, 91-101. doi: 10.1177/0271121712467074
Kent-Walsh, J., Murza, K., Malani, M., & Binger, C. (2015). Effects of communication partner instruction on the communication of individuals using AAC. A meta-analysis. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 31, 271-284. doi: 10.3109/07434618.2015.1052153
Sonnenmeier, R., McSheehan, M., & Jorgensen, C.M. (2005). A case study of team supports for a student with autism’s communication and engagement within the general education curriculum: Preliminary report of the Beyond Access model. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 21, 101-115. doi: 10.1080/07434610500103608
Articles showing that aided language input leads to gains for beginning communicators
Binger, C., Kent-Walsh, J., Ewing, C., & Taylor, S. (2010). Teaching educational assistants to facilitate the multisymbol message productions of young students who require augmentative and alternative communication. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 19, 108–120. doi: 10.1044/1058-0360(2009/09-0015)
Binger, C. & Light, J. (2007). The effect of aided AAC modeling on the expression of multi-symbol messages by preschoolers who use AAC. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 23, 30-43. doi:10.1080/07434610600807470
Drager, K., Postal, V., Carrolus, L., Castellano, M., Gagliano, C., & Glynn, J., (2006). The effect of aided language modeling on symbol comprehension and production in two preschoolers with autism. American Journal of Speech-language Pathology, 15, 112-125. doi: 10.1044/1058-0360(2006/012)
Romski, M. A., Sevcik, R. A., Adamson, L. B., Cheslock, M., Smith, A., Barker, R. M., & Bakeman, R. (2010). Randomized comparison of augmented and nonaugmented language interventions for toddlers with developmental delays and their parents. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 53, 350-364. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2009/08-0156)
Articles showing increased communicative turn-taking in response to aided language input
Binger, C., Kent-Walsh, J., Berens, J., Del Campo, S., & Rivera, D. (2008). Teaching latino parents to support the multi-symbol message productions of their children who require AAC. AAC: Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 24(4), 323–338. doi.org/10.1080/07434610802130978
Romski, M.A., Sevcik, R.A., Robinson, B., & Bakeman, R. (1994) Adult-directed communications of youth with mental retardation using the system for augmenting language. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 37, 617-628. doi: 10.10.1044/jshr.3703.617
Rosa-Lugo, L.I. & Kent-Walsh, J. (2008). Effects of parent instruction on communication turns of latino children using augmentative and alternative communication during storybook reading. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 30, 49-61. doi: 10.1177/1525740108320353
Attributing meaning to communication acts is an important part of all early communication development. It happens whenever an adult assigns meaning to behaviors they observe. These behaviors include facial expressions, vocalizations, body movements, and gestures. The child or older student with significant disabilities may or may not be using the behaviors with the intent to communicate. However, they learn that they can communicate and control their environment when adults attribute meaning and respond meaningfully to the communication acts.
Download this annotated bibliography on attributing meaning here (.pdf)
Research
Yoder, P., McCathren, R.B., Warren, S.F. & Watson, A. (2001). Important distinction in measuring maternal responses to communication in prelinguistic children with disabilities. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 22(3), 135-147. doi: 10.1177/152574010102200303
This study supports the need to attribute meaning to child communication acts, and provides guidance for focusing the response based on the child’s communication intent. When children’s communication behaviors are not intentional, the best outcomes were achieved when parents first attributed meaning and complied with the children’s communication (i.e., giving them to the toy they were looking at) and then responding verbally (i.e., “I see you looking at the toy.”). When children used behaviors to communicate intentionally parents’ use of both verbal (I.e., stating what the child is communicating) and nonverbal responses (i.e., complying with the presumed meaning of the child’s nonverbal message) were positively correlated later expressive and receptive language outcomes.
Cress, C.J., Arens, K.B., & Zajicek, A.K. (2007). Comparison of engagement patterns of young children with developmental disabilities between structured and free play. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 42(2), 152-164.
This study used guided strategies to help adults elicit child communication behaviors during play. When adults successfully elicited, responded to, and repeatedly encouraged the child’s preintentional communication, the young children with complex communication needs learned to actively engage in their environment. These extended periods of more complex engagement increased the number of opportunities adults had to promote communication development.
Yoder, P.J., Warren, S.F., Kim, K., & Gazdag, G.E. (1994). Facilitating prelinguistic communication skills in young children with developmental delays II: Systematic replication and extension. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 37, 841-851. doi: 10.1044/jshr.3704.841
This goal of this study was to examine the relationship between increasing children’s intentional communication acts (e.g., reaching for a cup) and adults’ attributing meaning and verbally labeling the act (e.g., “You want the cup.”). Arranging the environment to encourage communication (e.g., putting things out of reach), following the children’s attentional lead, and encouraging the child to communicate all led to an increase in child communication acts. Over time, spontaneous, intentional communication increased in frequency and generalized to interactions with parents, who were naïve to the intervention.
Dennis, R. (2002). Nonverbal narratives: Listening to people with severe intellectual disability. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 27 (4), 239-249. doi: 10.2511/rpsd.27.4.239
The purpose of this study was to examine the perspectives of practitioners who successfully listen to and interpret the communication acts of individuals with severe intellectual disabilities. Focus group results indicate personal values had a strong influence on the listening practices. Focus group members also expressed issues including physical traits, and examples of personal experiences of the individual with severe disabilities that impact their ability to communicate successfully. This study highlights the need for practitioners to be aware of environmental, personal, or behavioral factors impacting successful AAC intervention with individuals who are communicating via preintentional and intentional behaviors.
Cress, C. J., Grabast, J., Jerke, K. B. (2011). Contingent interactions between parents and young children with severe expressive communication impairments. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 34 (2), 81-96. doi: 10.1177/1525740111416644
The objective of this study was to examine successful contingent response patterns of parents and their children with severe expressive communication during play interactions. Although parents were observed to respond to non-adult-directed communication acts, parents responded more often to child behaviors that were adult-directed and comprised of a broad range of communication signals including vocalizations combined with gestures, body movements, eye gaze, and facial expressions. The children with severe expressive communication impairments used more communication signals within communication goal-directed activities such as, requests, social routines, and functional action routines.
Yoder, P. J. & Warren, S.F. (1999). Maternal responsivity mediates the relationship between prelinguistic intentional communication and later language. Journal of Early Intervention, 22(2), 126-136. doi: 10.1177/105381519902200205
The findings of this study demonstrate that maternal responsiveness impacts children’s use of intentional prelinguistic communication and is related to later language levels. Maternal responses were characterized as complying and verbally labeling the children’s communicative intent, which resulted in increased intentional acts by the children with developmental delays. Maternal responsiveness was related to both later language and earlier intentional communication.
Further References:
Articles demonstrating that use of attributing meaning facilitates meaningful communication outcomes
McCathren, R.B. (2000). Teacher implemented prelinguistic communication intervention. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 15, 21-29. doi: 10.1177/108835760001500103
Warren, S. F., Yoder, P. J., Gazdag, G., Kim, K. & Jones, H. (1993). Facilitating prelinguistic communication skills in young children with developmental delay. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 36, 83-97. doi: 10.1044/jshr.3601.83
Yoder, P. & Warren, S.F. (1998) Maternal responsivity predicts the prelinguistic communication intervention that facilitates generalized intentional communication. Journal of Speech Language Hearing Research, 41, 1207-1219. doi: 10.1044/jslhr.4105.1207
Yoder, P., & Stone, W. L. (2006). A randomized comparison of the effect of two prelinguistic communication interventions on the acquisition of spoken communication in preschoolers with ASD. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49(4), 698-711. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2006/051)
Articles demonstrating that individuals with severe and profound cognitive disabilities use communication repair strategies and nonsymbolic communication for a variety of communicative intent
Brady, N.C., McLean, J.E., Mclean, L. K & Johnston, S. (1995). Initiation and repair of intentional communication acts by adults with severe to profound cognitive disabilities. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 38, 1334-1348. doi: 10.1044/ /jshr.3806.1334
Core Vocabulary is a term used to describe a relatively small set of words that are used most frequently in oral and written language. The words in a core vocabulary can be used to communicate for a broad range of purposes, from basic requesting of desired items to building social relationships, sharing opinions and exchanging information on topics of interest. Because of its flexibility and relatively small size, core vocabulary is featured in Project Core as it maximizes opportunities for teaching and learning across purposes, contexts, and communication partners.
Download this annotated bibliography on core vocabulary here (.pdf)
Research
Beukelman, D. R., Jones, R. S., Rowan, M. (1989). Frequency of word usage by nondisabled peers in integrated preschool classrooms. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 5, 243-248. doi:10.1080/07434618912331275296
This was one of the first studies focused on the words preschoolers use to communicate across activities. The authors recorded 3000-word language samples for each of 6 children without disabilities in an integrated preschool classroom. The 250 most frequently occurring words made up 85% of the total language sample, while the 25 most frequently occurring words made up nearly half (45%). The top 25 words did not include any nouns and were used by all six children. This was one of the first studies to document young children’s use of abstract referents (e.g., it, that, more) to communicate with each other about a variety of activities across contexts.
Banajee, M., Dicarlo, C., Stricklin, S. (2003). Core vocabulary determination for toddlers. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 19, 67-73. doi:10/1080/0743461031000112034
The goal of this study was to identify the words that toddlers use most frequently across a variety of contexts. The authors recorded 50 typically developing toddlers (24-36 months) as they engaged in two different activities across three days. A total of 23 words accounted for 96% of the words this group of children used. The words, in descending frequency of use were: I, no, yes/yea, my, the, want, is, it, that, a, go, mine, you, what, on, in, here, more, out, off, some, help, all done/finished. This study strengthens the premise that core vocabulary can be applied across activities and environments. The fact that no nouns appeared on the list supports the understanding that even very young children depend on abstract vocabulary to communicate across contexts, purposes, and partners.
Clendon, S. A., & Erickson, K. A. (2008). The vocabulary of beginning writers: Implications for children with complex communication needs. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 24, 281-293. doi:10.1080/07434610802463999
The purpose of this study was to examine the vocabulary typically developing early-elementary school children use when they write about self-selected topics. Across seven schools (k-3), 125 children in the US and in 113 New Zealand wrote about self-selected topics at least three times per week for 6 weeks. A total of 2,721 writing samples with 85,759 total words and 5,724 different words were analyzed to determine which words were used most frequently. The set of 163 words accounted for 70% of the total words used, with 39 of those words accounting for 50% of the total words used. While this study focused on written language, it adds to our understanding that a small set of words comprise the vast majority of the total words used in oral and written language.
This paper outlines the process for identifying a comprehensive list of core vocabulary for school-aged students with significant cognitive disabilities in academic settings. Core words lists from 23 commercial and public domain sources were combined to determine the words that appeared across sources. Then, the Common Core State Standards in English language arts and math were analyzed one-by-one to identify words that students had to say to meet a standard. In total, 596 words were each weighted for: (1) the core vocabulary sources that included the word; (2) the frequency of appearance in written English (U-score); and (3) number of open- and closed- word classes the word addresses. The resulting ranked list resulted in the DLM First 40, which was an important precursor to the Universal Core vocabulary and other commercially available AAC software and apps.
Snodgrass, M. R., Stoner, J. B., & Angell, M. E. (2013). Teaching conceptually referenced core vocabulary for initial augmentative and alternative communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 29, 322-333. doi:10.3109/07434618.2013.848932
This study demonstrated that a child with severe intellectual disability and vision impairments could learn to use conceptual, core words to communicate across a variety of activities. Chad, a nine-year-old boy with multiple disabilities participated in the study with his school team. The team selected and used three words (more, done, and new) throughout Chad’s daily routines at school. Chad learned to use all three symbols to communicate spontaneously and independently during targeted and novel activities. This study is important because Chard learned to use words without concrete referents (e.g., nouns) and generalized his use of the core words to new activities without direct instruction.
Further References
Articles concluding that a relatively small set of core words makes up 80% of what English speakers say across contexts
Beukelman, D., Jones, R., & Rowan, M. (1989) Frequency of word usage by nondisabled peers in integrated preschool classrooms. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 5, 243-248. doi:10.1080/07434618912331275296
Robillard, M., Mayer-Crittenden, C., Minor-Corriveau, M., & Bélanger, R. (2014). Monolingual and bilingual children with and without primary language impairment: Core vocabulary comparison. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 30, 267–278. doi:10.3109/07434618.2014.921240
Stuart, S., Beukelman, D., & King, J. (1997). Vocabulary use during extended conversations by two cohorts of older adults. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 13, 40-47/ doi: 10.1080/07434619712331277828.
Trembath, D., Balandin, S., & Togher, L. (2007). Vocabulary selection for Australian children who use augmentative and alternative communication. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 32(4), 291-301. doi:10.1080/13668250701689298
Articles concluding that children’s written language includes a core vocabulary that is similar to the core vocabulary in spoken language
Clendon, S.A., Sturm, J.M., & Cali, K.S., (2013). Vocabulary use across genres: implications for students with complex communication needs. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 44, 61-71. doi:10.1044/0161-1461(2-12/10-0112).
McGinnis, J.S., & Beukelman, D.R. (1989). Vocabulary requirements for writing activities for the academically mainstreamed students with disabilities. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 5, 183-191. doi: 10.1080/07434618912331275186.
Witkowski, D., & Baker, B. (2012). Addressing the content vocabulary with core: Theory and practice for non literate or emerging literate students. Perspectives on Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 21, 74–81. doi: 10.1044/aac21.3.74
Articles that support the understanding that core words are useful to communicate about a variety of topics across a variety of activities and contexts
Balandin, S., & Iacono, T. (1999). Crews, wusses, and whoppas: Core and fringe vocabularies of Australian meal-break conversations in the workplace. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 15, 95-109. doi:10.1080/07434619912331278605
Crestani, C. M., Clendon, S. A., Hemsley, B. (2010). Words needed for sharing a story: Implications for vocabulary selection in augmentative and alternative communication. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 35(4), 268-278. doi:10.3109/13668250.2010.513966
Marvin, C., Beukelman, D., & Bilyeu, D. (1994). Vocabulary-use patterns in preschool children: Effect of context and time sampling. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 10, 224-236. doi: 10.1080/07434619412331276930
Naturalistic teaching includes interventions that occur during daily routine activities and capitalize on children’s preferred interests, needs, and abilities as expressed in the moment. Children’s initiations always begin naturalistic teaching interactions. Rather than creating specific times for communication intervention, teachers incorporate the strategies throughout the school day. Emphasis is on naturally occurring routines and interactions such as morning arrival, mealtime, play and leisure activities and personal care, as well as academic instructional routines. Naturalistic teaching is featured in Project Core as it encourages generalization of communication across contexts and communication partners.
Download this annotated bibliography on naturalistic teaching here (.pdf)
Research
Romski, M. A. & Sevcik, R. A. (1996). Breaking the speech barrier: Language development through augmented means. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
This was one of the first multi-year studies of adolescents with moderate to severe cognitive disabilities who had not yet been successful learning to communicate with symbols. The authors observed 13 students, their parents, and their school team for two years as they implemented the System for Augmenting Language (SAL) at home and school. SAL is one of the first systems to prioritize teaching device and symbol use through natural communication exchanges. This study demonstrated that embedding communication into everyday settings and activities, and encouraging, but not requiring students to use symbols, allowed students to learn to communicate with symbols across settings and communication partners.
Pindiprolu, S. S. (2012). A review of naturalistic interventions with young children with autism. The Journal of International Special Education, 12(1), 69-78.
This systematic review of the literature sought to understand the effect of naturalistic interventions. Children in all twelve studies reviewed were able to learn and use the targeted language skills, including core vocabulary (e.g. prepositions). They were better able to use these skills to communicate with new partners or in new settings than their peers who were taught in isolated contexts with highly structured, prompt dependent approaches. This study also demonstrated that the approaches that included turn-taking and giving children multiple examples of what they might communicate were shown to have the biggest effect on students’ ability to use these skills in new contexts with new communication partners.
Cowan, R.J. & Allen, K.D. (2007). Using naturalistic procedures to enhance learning in individuals with autism: A focus on generalized teaching within the school setting. Psychology in the Schools, 44(7), 701-715. doi: 10.1002/pits.20259
This article reviews the literature base for using naturalistic teaching with children with autism. Across the reviewed literature, naturalistic teaching begins by arranging the teaching environment to encourage interest as teaching interactions are initiated by the student. Results indicate that children who are engaged by materials that interest them and interact with adults who follow their lead by attributing meaning to their attempts to communicate, make gains in language that are generalized across context, activity, and communication partner. This article not only supports the premise that children with autism can learn in naturalistic contexts, but that when teachers use a naturalistic approach, their students will be able to use what they learn outside of the classroom.
Woods, J., Kashinath, S., & Goldstein, H. (2004). Effects of embedding caregiver-implemented teaching strategies in daily routines on children’s communication outcomes. Journal of Early Intervention, 26, 175-193. doi:10.1177/105381510402600302
This study investigated the impact of training caregivers to use teaching strategies within their everyday play routines with their toddlers with developmental disabilities. Parents of four toddlers with developmental disabilities worked with interventionists to identify play routines they already engaged in with their children. Teaching strategies were individualized to match the parent’s communication goals for their children, as well as their own preference based on their comfort at using a strategy. The children used the targeted communication skill more frequently when caregivers embedded teaching strategies into daily routines. These increases in communication also generalized to new play and care-taking routines.
Yoder, P. J., Kaiser, A. P., & Alpert, C. L. (1991). An exploratory study of the interactions between language teaching methods and child characteristics. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 34, 155-167. doi:10.1044/jshr.3401.155
This study explored the impact of different teaching approaches on language outcomes for children with developmental disabilities. Forty children enrolled in schools serving preschoolers with severe disabilities were randomly assigned to participate in either naturalistic or behavioral teaching sessions. Naturalistic teaching episodes occurred during small group activities and free play, while the behavioral teaching episodes occurred with children sitting one on one with a teacher at a small table. The analysis revealed that the children who began the study with the most restricted vocabulary, who did not initiate speech, had poor speech intelligibility, and who overall rarely spoke, made the most gains when they were taught using the naturalistic, rather than the behavioral approach. Specifically, these children made gains in vocabulary when instruction was embedded into conversations during familiar routines that were of high interest to the children.
Further References
Articles demonstrating that embedding naturalistic teaching principles into everyday classroom routines leads to increased language and communication for children and adolescents who use AAC systems
Thiemann-Bourque, K. S., McGuff, S., & Goldstein, H. (2017). Training peer partners to use speech-generating device with classmates with autism spectrum disorder: Exploring communication outcomes across preschool contexts. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 60, 2648-2662. doi: 1044/2017_JSLHR-L-17-0049
Romski, M. A., Sevick, R. A., Robinson, B., & Bakeman, R. (1994). Adults-directed communications of youth with mental retardation using the system for augmenting language. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 37, 617-628. doi:10.1044/jshr.3703.617
Schepis, M. M., Reid, D. H., Behrmann, M. M., & Sutton, K. A. (1998). Increasing communication interactions of young children with autism using a voice output communication aid and naturalistic teaching. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 31, 561-578. doi:10.1901/jaba.1998.31-561
Yoder, P. J., Kaiser, A. P., Alpert, C., & Fischer, R. (1993). Following the child’s lead when teaching nouns to preschoolers with mental retardation. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 36, 158-167. doi:10.1044/jshr.3601.158
Articles demonstrating that teaching in natural contexts increases the frequency of learning opportunities
Dunst, C. J., Bruder, M. B., Trivette, C. M., & Hamby, D. W. (2005). Young children’s natural learning environments: contrasting approaches to early childhood intervention indicate differential learning opportunities. Psychological Reports, 96, 231-234. doi:10.2466/pr0.96.1.231-234
Dunst, C. J., Bruder, M. B, Trivette, C. M., Hamby, D., & Raab, M. (2001). Characteristics and consequences of everyday natural learning opportunities. Topics in Early Special Education, 21(2), 68-92. doi:10.1177/027112140102100202
Articles demonstrating that teaching language and communication in natural contexts allows children to gain skills they can use across contexts and communication partners
Roper, N. & Dunst, C. J. (2003). Communication intervention in natural learning environments: Guidelines for practice. Infants and Young Children, 16(3), 215-226.
Trembath, D., Balandin, D., Togher, L., & Stancliffe, R. J. (2009). Peer-mediated teaching and augmentative and alternative communication for preschool-aged children with autism. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 34, 173-186. doi: 10.1080/13668250902845210
Erickson, K., Geist, L., Hatch, P., & Quick, N. (2019). The Universal Core Vocabulary [Technical Report]. Chapel Hill, NC: Center for Literacy & Disability Studies, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.