pecs evaluation

pecs: supporting evidence

• charlop and christy: effect of pecs on development of speech on three ASD boys

• used pecs in two 15 minutes sessions every week

• all three children made significantly more spontaneous utterances after pecs

• one child improved from 28% → 100%

• however, study only included boys → lacking population validity

• though, valid supporting evidence, lack of PV can be critiqued

pecs: limited supporting evidence

• flippin et al reviewed research studies published between 1994 and 2009

• also evaluated scientific quality of each study that reached an acceptable standard

• findings only offered limited support (some cases speech was negatively affected ‘delayed’)

• weakness, method has no credible supporting evidence

pecs: physical prompter (ethics)

• must psychically encourage and nudge child in order for pecs to be effective

• can easily distress child + make them feel like they can’t verbally inform PP that they are uncomfortable

• weakness, if child is distressed, may refuse to continue with pecs

• ethical cost outweighs benefits

pecs: suitability of communication method in wider world

• allows for functional communication in controlled environments where ppl are aware of the method (home, school)

• however, not functional in wider world, can’t communicate effectively in society (work, supermarkets)

• negative social implication, pecs doesn’t allow people with asd to function better in social settings

pecs effectiveness conclusion

• somewhat effective in modifying asd

• fast progress, only for small amount of children with asd

• consider a wider range of interventions to help people with asd

pecs ethical/ social conclusion

• somewhat ethical/ socially relevant

• doesn’t force child

• cost can be justified for communication

• wc: should find better interventions that are more ethical