There was no evidence that AAC improved frequency of speech , verbal expressive vocabulary or children 's social communication or pragmatic language immediately postintervention .
Overall , neither of the interventions ( PECS or FPI ) result ed in maintained improvements in spoken or non-verbal communication in most children .
AUTHORS ' CONCLUSIONS There is limited evidence that verbally based and ACC interventions improve spoken and non-verbal communication in minimally verbal children with ASD .
In the study that used an AAC intervention , there were significant gains in frequency of PECS use and verbal and non-verbal initiations , but not in expressive vocabulary or social communication immediately postintervention .
In the study that investigated a verbally based intervention , there were no significant gains in expressive language postintervention , but children with lower expressive language at the beginning of the study improved more than those with better expressive language at baseline .
Neither study investigated adverse events , other communication skills , quality of life or behavioural outcomes .
BACKGROUND Autism spectrum disorder ( ASD ) has an estimated prevalence of around 1.7 % of the population .
People with ASD often also have language difficulties , and about 25 % to 30 % of children with ASD either fail to develop functional language or are minimally verbal .
The ability to communicate effectively is an essential life skill , and difficulties with communication can have a range of adverse outcomes , including poorer academic achievement , behavioural difficulties and reduced quality of life .
Historically , most studies have investigated communication interventions for ASD in verbal children .
We can not assume the same interventions will work for minimally verbal children with ASD .
OBJECTIVES To assess the effects of communication interventions  for ASD in minimally verbal children .
Parent-Implemented Social Intervention for Toddlers With Autism: An RCT
OBJECTIVES : To compare the effects of two 9-month  parent-implemented interventions within the Early Social Interaction ( ESI ) Project . Both individual-ESI , offered 2 or 3 times per week at home or in the community , and group-ESI , offered once per week in a clinic , taught parents how to embed strategies to support social communication throughout everyday activities . METHODS : Participants in the r and omized controlled trial included 82 children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder at 16 to 20 months . Children were matched on pretreatment nonverbal developmental level and pairs were r and omly assigned to treatment condition . Child outcomes included measures of social communication , autism symptoms , adaptive behavior , and developmental level . Child outcomes are reported from baseline to the end of the 9-month interventions . RESULTS : Children in individual-ESI showed differential change on a st and ardized examiner-administered observational measure of social communication , as they improved at a faster rate than children in group-ESI . Individual-ESI also showed differential efficacy on a parent report measure of communication , daily living , and social skills , as they showed improvement or stability , whereas group-ESI led to worsening or no significant change on these skills . Finally , individual-ESI showed differential change on examiner-administered measures of receptive language skills , as children in individual-ESI improved significantly , whereas group-ESI showed no change . CONCLUSIONS : These findings support the efficacy of individual-ESI compared with group-ESI on child outcomes , suggesting the importance of individualized parent coaching in natural environments . The efficacy of a parent-implemented intervention using little professional time has potential for community viability , which is particularly important in light of the lack of main effects on child outcomes of most other parent-implemented interventions
There was no evidence that AAC improved frequency of speech , verbal expressive vocabulary or children 's social communication or pragmatic language immediately postintervention .
Overall , neither of the interventions ( PECS or FPI ) result ed in maintained improvements in spoken or non-verbal communication in most children .
AUTHORS ' CONCLUSIONS There is limited evidence that verbally based and ACC interventions improve spoken and non-verbal communication in minimally verbal children with ASD .
In the study that used an AAC intervention , there were significant gains in frequency of PECS use and verbal and non-verbal initiations , but not in expressive vocabulary or social communication immediately postintervention .
In the study that investigated a verbally based intervention , there were no significant gains in expressive language postintervention , but children with lower expressive language at the beginning of the study improved more than those with better expressive language at baseline .
Neither study investigated adverse events , other communication skills , quality of life or behavioural outcomes .
BACKGROUND Autism spectrum disorder ( ASD ) has an estimated prevalence of around 1.7 % of the population .
People with ASD often also have language difficulties , and about 25 % to 30 % of children with ASD either fail to develop functional language or are minimally verbal .
The ability to communicate effectively is an essential life skill , and difficulties with communication can have a range of adverse outcomes , including poorer academic achievement , behavioural difficulties and reduced quality of life .
Historically , most studies have investigated communication interventions for ASD in verbal children .
We can not assume the same interventions will work for minimally verbal children with ASD .
OBJECTIVES To assess the effects of communication interventions  for ASD in minimally verbal children .