ArticleJournal of autism and developmental disorders2025
Using Speech-Generating Devices to Improve Manding With One Icon in Children With Autism: A Systematic Review.
Article in Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis is a systematic review investigating factors that influence children's learning of speech-generating devices (SGDs) for manding with a single icon. The review addressed three questions: (1) the demographic characteristics of participants involved in SGD studies, (2) the effectiveness of different teaching strategies, and (3) the impact of intervention dosage on the acquisition of manding responses using Tau-U.
methodsThis review focused on peer-reviewed journal articles that studied Mand learning with SGDs in children with autism, employing a single-case design and behavioral teaching procedures. ProQuest, the Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), and PsycINFO were accessed in September 2023 for this review. Through a comprehensive analysis of 14 peer-reviewed studies from these databases, the progress of 42 participants was compared across different instructional methods. The review contrasted three major instructional methods with time delays: least-to-most prompting, most-to-least prompting, and full physical prompting.
resultsParticipants' demographics aligned with statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The settings of the studies indicated a potential literature gap in teaching manding in naturally occurring settings. The Tau-U scores suggested similar effectiveness between the most-to-least and least-to-most prompting procedures, but peer mediation was recommended.
conclusionNo linear relationship was found between the effectiveness of the treatment and treatment dosage based on Tau-U scores. Several research trends were identified. This study noted an uneven distribution of intervention methods across the studies, and the total number of participants was limited. The findings could inform practitioners on teaching manding with a single icon from an SGD and suggest directions for future research on teaching the use of SGDs for manding in children with autism.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41165949What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.