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 .
Communication interventions for minimally verbal children with autism: a sequential multiple assignment randomized trial.
OBJECTIVE This study tested the effect of beginning treatment with a speech-generating device ( SGD ) in the context of a blended , adaptive treatment design for improving spontaneous , communicative utterances in school-aged , minimally verbal children with autism . METHOD A total of 61 minimally verbal children with autism , aged 5 to 8 years , were r and omized to a blended developmental/behavioral intervention ( JASP+EMT ) with or without the augmentation of a SGD for 6 months with a 3-month follow-up . The intervention consisted of 2 stages . In stage 1 , all children received 2 sessions per week for 3 months . Stage 2 intervention was adapted ( by increased sessions or adding the SGD ) based on the child 's early response . The primary outcome was the total number of spontaneous communicative utterances ; secondary measures were the total number of novel words and total comments from a natural language sample . RESULTS Primary aim results found improvements in spontaneous communicative utterances , novel words , and comments that all favored the blended behavioral intervention that began by including an SGD ( JASP+EMT+SGD ) as opposed to spoken words alone ( JASP+EMT ) . Secondary aim results suggest that the adaptive intervention beginning with JASP+EMT+SGD and intensifying JASP+EMT+SGD for children who were slow responders led to better posttreatment outcomes . CONCLUSION Minimally verbal school-aged children can make significant and rapid gains in spoken spontaneous language with a novel , blended intervention that focuses on joint engagement and play skills and incorporates an SGD . Future studies should further explore the tailoring design used in this study to better underst and children 's response to treatment . Clinical trial registration information-Developmental and Augmented Intervention for Facilitating Expressive Language ( CCNIA ) ; http:// clinical trials.gov/ ; NCT01013545
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 .