4. The Acquisition of Sign Language by Deaf Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder

2014 ◽  
pp. 90-122 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aaron Shield ◽  
Richard P. Meier
Keyword(s):  
Autism Spectrum Disorder ◽  
Sign Language ◽  
Children With Autism ◽  
Autism Spectrum ◽  
Spectrum Disorder ◽  
Deaf Children

scholarly journals Sign Language Echolalia in Deaf Children With Autism Spectrum Disorder

2017 ◽  
Vol 60 (6) ◽  
pp. 1622-1634 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aaron Shield ◽  
Frances Cooley ◽  
Richard P. Meier
Keyword(s):  
Autism Spectrum Disorder ◽  
Sign Language ◽  
Children With Autism ◽  
Receptive Language ◽  
Autism Spectrum ◽  
Spectrum Disorder ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Children With Asd ◽  
Language Modality ◽  
Hearing Children

Purpose We present the first study of echolalia in deaf, signing children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). We investigate the nature and prevalence of sign echolalia in native-signing children with ASD, the relationship between sign echolalia and receptive language, and potential modality differences between sign and speech. Method Seventeen deaf children with ASD and 18 typically developing (TD) deaf children were video-recorded in a series of tasks. Data were coded for type of signs produced (spontaneous, elicited, echo, or nonecho repetition). Echoes were coded as pure or partial, and timing and reduplication of echoes were coded. Results Seven of the 17 deaf children with ASD produced signed echoes, but none of the TD deaf children did. The echoic children had significantly lower receptive language scores than did both the nonechoic children with ASD and the TD children. Modality differences also were found in terms of the directionality, timing, and reduplication of echoes. Conclusions Deaf children with ASD sometimes echo signs, just as hearing children with ASD sometimes echo words, and TD deaf children and those with ASD do so at similar stages of linguistic development, when comprehension is relatively low. The sign language modality might provide a powerful new framework for analyzing the purpose and function of echolalia in deaf children with ASD.

Differences in praxis performance and receptive language during fingerspelling between deaf children with and without autism spectrum disorder

Autism ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 271-282 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anjana N Bhat ◽  
Sudha M Srinivasan ◽  
Colleen Woxholdt ◽  
Aaron Shield
Keyword(s):  
Autism Spectrum Disorder ◽  
Sign Language ◽  
Language Production ◽  
Children With Autism ◽  
Receptive Language ◽  
Autism Spectrum ◽  
Spectrum Disorder ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Motor Deficits ◽  
Therapeutic Implications

Children with autism spectrum disorder present with a variety of social communication deficits such as atypicalities in social gaze and verbal and non-verbal communication delays as well as perceptuo-motor deficits like motor incoordination and dyspraxia. In this study, we had the unique opportunity to study praxis performance in deaf children with and without autism spectrum disorder in a fingerspelling context using American Sign Language. A total of 11 deaf children with autism spectrum disorder and 11 typically developing deaf children aged between 5 and 14 years completed a fingerspelling task. Children were asked to fingerspell 15 different words shown on an iPad. We coded various praxis errors and fingerspelling time. The deaf children with autism spectrum disorder had greater errors in pace, sequence precision, accuracy, and body part use and also took longer to fingerspell each word. Additionally, the deaf children with autism spectrum disorder had poor receptive language skills and this strongly correlated with their praxis performance and autism severity. These findings extend the evidence for dyspraxia in hearing children with autism spectrum disorder to deaf children with autism spectrum disorder. Poor sign language production in children with autism spectrum disorder may contribute to their poor gestural learning/comprehension and vice versa. Our findings have therapeutic implications for children with autism spectrum disorder when teaching sign language.

scholarly journals Impaired praxis in gesture imitation by deaf children with autism spectrum disorder

2017 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 239694151774567 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aaron Shield ◽  
Krista Knapke ◽  
Morgan Henry ◽  
Sudha Srinivasan ◽  
Anjana Bhat
Keyword(s):  
Autism Spectrum Disorder ◽  
Children With Autism ◽  
Autism Spectrum ◽  
Spectrum Disorder ◽  
Deaf Children

scholarly journals Adapting and validating the Autism Diagnostic Interview - Revised for use with deaf children and young people

Autism ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 136236132110291
Author(s):  
Barry Wright ◽  
Helen Phillips ◽  
Victoria Allgar ◽  
Jennifer Sweetman ◽  
Rachel Hodkinson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Autism Spectrum Disorder ◽  
Expert Panel ◽  
Diagnostic Algorithm ◽  
Children With Autism ◽  
Autism Spectrum ◽  
Diagnostic Interview ◽  
Spectrum Disorder ◽  
Deaf Children ◽  
Clinical Assessments ◽  
Autism Diagnostic Interview

A Delphi consensus methodology was used to adapt the Autism Diagnostic Interview–Revised for the assessment of deaf children with suspected autism spectrum disorder. Each Autism Diagnostic Interview–Revised item was considered by a panel of nine international experts in terms of relevance and acceptability. Modifications were proposed and agreed by the expert panel for 45% of items. The pre-specified criterion for agreement between experts was set at 80% for each item. A first validation of the revised version, adapted for deaf children (Autism Diagnostic Interview–Revised Deaf Adaptation), was undertaken with a UK sample of 78 parents/carers of deaf children with autism spectrum disorder and 126 parents/carers with deaf children without autism spectrum disorder. When compared to National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline standard clinical assessments, the Autism Diagnostic Interview–Revised Deaf Adaptation diagnostic algorithm cut-off/threshold scores achieved a sensitivity of 89% (79%–96%) and specificity of 81% (70%–89%) for autism spectrum disorder. The alpha coefficients for each algorithm symptom domain ranged from 0.80 to 0.91, suggesting that the items had high internal consistency. Our findings indicate that the Autism Diagnostic Interview–Revised Deaf Adaptation is likely to be a useful measure for the assessment of deaf children with suspected autism spectrum disorder, although further research is needed. Lay abstract Autism assessment processes need to improve for deaf children as they are currently being diagnosed later than their hearing counterparts and misdiagnosis can occur. We took one of the most commonly used parent developmental interviews for autism spectrum disorder the Autism Diagnostic Interview–Revised and adapted it using international expert advice. Modifications were proposed and agreed by the expert panel for 45% of items; the remaining 55% of items were unchanged. We then tested the revised version, adapted for deaf children (Autism Diagnostic Interview–Revised Deaf Adaptation), in a UK sample of 78 parents/carers of deaf children with autism spectrum disorder and 126 parents/carers with deaf children without autism spectrum disorder. When compared to National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline standard clinical assessments, the Autism Diagnostic Interview–Revised Deaf Adaptation diagnostic algorithm threshold scores could identify those deaf children with a definite diagnosis (true autism spectrum disorder positives) well (sensitivity of 89% (79%–96%)) and those deaf children who did not have autism spectrum disorder (true autism spectrum disorder negatives) well (specificity of 81% (70%–89%)). Our findings indicate that the Autism Diagnostic Interview–Revised Deaf Adaptation is likely to prove a useful measure for the assessment of deaf children with suspected autism spectrum disorder and that further research would be helpful.

Instruction Using Augmentative and Alternative Communication Supports: Description of Current Practices by Speech-Language Pathologists Who Work With Children With Autism Spectrum Disorder

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 586-596 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kaitlyn A. Clarke ◽  
Diane L. Williams
Keyword(s):  
Autism Spectrum Disorder ◽  
Augmentative And Alternative Communication ◽  
Communication Systems ◽  
Diagnostic Category ◽  
Children With Autism ◽  
Autism Spectrum ◽  
Spectrum Disorder ◽  
Alternative Communication ◽  
Speech Language Pathologists ◽  
Processing Differences

Purpose The aim of this research study was to examine common practices of speech-language pathologists (SLPs) who work with children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) with respect to whether or not SLPs consider processing differences in ASD or the effects of input during their instruction. Method Following a qualitative research method, how SLPs instruct and present augmentative and alternative communication systems to individuals with ASD, their rationale for method selection, and their perception of the efficacy of selected interventions were probed. Semistructured interviews were conducted as part of an in-depth case report with content analysis. Results Based on completed interviews, 4 primary themes were identified: (a) instructional method , (b) input provided , (c) decision-making process , and (d) perceived efficacy of treatment . Additionally, one secondary theme, training and education received , was identified . Conclusions Clinicians reported making decisions based on the needs of the child; however, they also reported making decisions based on the diagnostic category that characterized the child (i.e., ASD). The use of modeling when teaching augmentative and alternative communication to individuals with ASD emerged as a theme, but variations in the method of modeling were noted. SLPs did not report regularly considering processing differences in ASD, nor did they consider the effects of input during instruction.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document