The Effectiveness of iPad Handwriting Applications in Improving Visual–Motor and Handwriting Skills in Children With Autism Spectrum Disorder

Data of 107 children (84 males and 23 females) who received occupational therapy services were collected. Data collected included age, gender, prescribed frequency of occupational therapy, number of sessions attended within the six-month timeframe, pre and post Beery Visual Motor Integration scores.

Download Full-text

No evidence of a minimal clinically important difference for the Beery-Buktenica Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration in children with autism spectrum disorder

British Journal of Occupational Therapy ◽

10.1177/03080226211057834 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 030802262110578

Author(s):

Alisha Ohl ◽

David Schelly

Keyword(s):

Autism Spectrum Disorder ◽

Minimal Clinically Important Difference ◽

Occupational Therapists ◽

Children With Autism ◽

Autism Spectrum ◽

Spectrum Disorder ◽

Change Scores ◽

Children With Asd ◽

Clinically Important Difference ◽

Visual Motor

The Beery Visual-Motor Integration (VMI) battery of tests are some of the most commonly used assessments in pediatric occupational therapy, often used to measure change over time. However, the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) has not been estimated for interpreting change scores. We estimated the MCID for the Beery VMI battery of tests in children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Four occupational therapists collected data in a public elementary school on 64 children with ASD. The Beery VMI battery was administered to children with ASD twice, approximately 11 months apart. To estimate MCID values, Beery VMI battery scores were anchored to 15-point Likert questions measuring occupational therapists’ ratings of functional change over three domains: fine motor skills, handwriting, and activities of daily living (ADLs). Using this anchor-based method, we were unable to estimate MCID values for the Beery VMI battery. Children’s Beery VMI battery scores did not change significantly over the course of the school year, and there was only one weak correlation between VMI battery change scores and therapists’ ratings of change. The inability to estimate Beery VMI battery MCID values for children with ASD adds further support for research cautioning the use of the Beery VMI as an outcome measure.

Download Full-text

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

American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology ◽

10.1044/2019_ajslp-19-00045 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 29 (2) ◽

pp. 586-596 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

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.

Download Full-text