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 .
PLAY Project Home Consultation Intervention Program for Young Children With Autism Spectrum Disorders: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Objective : To evaluate the effectiveness of the Play and Language for Autistic Youngsters ( PLAY ) Project Home Consultation model , in combination with usual community services ( CS ) , to improve parent-child interaction , child development , and autism symptomatology in young children with autism spectrum disorders ( ASDs ) compared with CS only . Methods : Children ( N = 128 ) with autism or PDD-NOS ( DSM-4 criteria ) aged 2 years 8 months to 5 years 11 months and recruited from 5 disability agencies in 4 US states were r and omized in two 1-year cohorts . Using videotape and written feedback within a developmental framework , PLAY consultants coached caregivers monthly for 12 months to improve caregiver-child interaction . CS included speech/ language and occupational therapy and public education services . Primary outcomes included change in parent-child interactions , language and development , and autism-related diagnostic category/symptoms . Secondary outcomes included parent stress and depression and home consultant fidelity . Data were collected pre- and post-intervention . Results : Using intent-to-treat analysis ( ITT ) , large treatment effects were evident for parent and child interactional behaviors on the Maternal and Child Behavior Rating Scales . Child language and developmental quotient did not differ over time by group , although functional development improved significantly . PLAY children improved in diagnostic categories on the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule ( ADOS ) . PLAY caregivers ' stress did not increase , and depressive symptomatology decreased . Home consultants administered the intervention with fidelity . Conclusions : PLAY intervention demonstrated substantial changes in parent-child interaction without increasing parents ' stress/depression . ADOS findings must be interpreted cautiously because results do not align with clinical experience . PLAY offers communities a relatively inexpensive effective intervention for children with ASD and their parents
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 .