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 .
Language training with autistic children using four different modes of presentation.
The purpose of this study was to determine ( 1 ) whether comprehension , production , and spontaneous use of language are greater following language training by sign-alone , speech-alone , simultaneous communication , or alternating between speech and sign ; ( 2 ) whether high- and low-verbal imitators benefit from the same mode of treatment ; and ( 3 ) whether retention of the language skills differs among the four training conditions . Subjects were 60 moderate to severe autistic children r and omly assigned to one of four treatment conditions . Subjects were divided into high- and low-verbal imitators based on verbal imitation performances . The results indicated that the high-verbal imitators did equally well in all four treatment conditions , while the low-verbal imitators did poorest in the speech-alone condition . The high-verbal imitators performed better than did the low-verbal imitators in all of the treatment conditions . Words or signs learned were retained for three months after treatment regardless of the treatment condition or level of imitative ability . The results were discussed in terms of the efficacy of using sign language with autistic children
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 .