Parimala Raghavendra1, Rebecca Oaten. 1. Clinical Research, Novita Children's Services, P.O. Box 2438, Regency Park, SA. parimala.raghavendra@novita.org.au
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to investigate the effectiveness of three feedback conditions, using a speech-generating device, on spelling performance of Tom, an 11-year-old boy with cerebral palsy and complex communication needs. METHOD: Tom was taught to spell 12 words under three feedback conditions. In the SPEECH condition, he received only speech feedback from the device and in the PRINT condition he received only the orthographic feedback on the display of the device. In the SPEECH-PRINT condition, Tom received both speech output and orthographic feedback. An adapted alternating treatment design was used to investigate the effects of the three-feedback conditions. To strengthen the reliability and increase the internal validity of the findings, an intrasubject direct replication was carried out using the same procedure, but teaching 12 different spelling words to Tom. RESULTS: Tom reached criterion with the PRINT feedback condition first, followed by SPEECH and SPEECH-PRINT conditions simultaneously for the first 12 words, and the same order for the second set of 12 words. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the PRINT condition was most efficient for Tom. The results are discussed in terms of evidence for learning style preferences within spelling instruction for a child with complex communication needs. Furthermore, the implications for targeting intervention to optimise spelling achievement amongst this group are considered.
PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to investigate the effectiveness of three feedback conditions, using a speech-generating device, on spelling performance of Tom, an 11-year-old boy with cerebral palsy and complex communication needs. METHOD:Tom was taught to spell 12 words under three feedback conditions. In the SPEECH condition, he received only speech feedback from the device and in the PRINT condition he received only the orthographic feedback on the display of the device. In the SPEECH-PRINT condition, Tom received both speech output and orthographic feedback. An adapted alternating treatment design was used to investigate the effects of the three-feedback conditions. To strengthen the reliability and increase the internal validity of the findings, an intrasubject direct replication was carried out using the same procedure, but teaching 12 different spelling words to Tom. RESULTS:Tom reached criterion with the PRINT feedback condition first, followed by SPEECH and SPEECH-PRINT conditions simultaneously for the first 12 words, and the same order for the second set of 12 words. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the PRINT condition was most efficient for Tom. The results are discussed in terms of evidence for learning style preferences within spelling instruction for a child with complex communication needs. Furthermore, the implications for targeting intervention to optimise spelling achievement amongst this group are considered.