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 .
A randomized comparison of the effect of two prelinguistic communication interventions on the acquisition of spoken communication in preschoolers with ASD.
PURPOSE This r and omized group experiment compared the efficacy of 2 communication interventions ( Responsive Education and Prelinguistic Milieu Teaching [ RPMT ] and the Picture Exchange Communication System [ PECS ] ) on spoken communication in 36 preschoolers with autism spectrum disorders ( ASD ) . METHOD Each treatment was delivered to children for a maximum total of 24 hr over a 6-month period . Spoken communication was assessed in a rigorous test of generalization at pretreatment , posttreatment , and 6-month follow-up periods . RESULTS PECS was more successful than RPMT in increasing the number of nonimitative spoken communication acts and the number of different nonimitative words used at the posttreatment period . Considering growth over all 3 measurement periods , an exploratory analysis showed that growth rate of the number of different nonimitative words was faster in the PECS group than in the RPMT group for children who began treatment with relatively high object exploration . In contrast , analogous slopes were steeper in the RPMT group than in the PECS group for children who began treatment with relatively low object exploration
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 .