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 controlled trial of Pivotal Response Treatment Group for parents of children with autism.
BACKGROUND With rates of autism diagnosis continuing to rise , there is an urgent need for effective and efficient service delivery models . Pivotal Response Treatment ( PRT ) is considered an established treatment for autism spectrum disorder ( ASD ) ; however , there have been few well-controlled studies with adequate sample size . The aim of this study was to conduct a r and omized controlled trial to evaluate PRT parent training group ( PRTG ) for targeting language deficits in young children with ASD . METHODS Fifty-three children with autism and significant language delay between 2 and 6 years old were r and omized to PRTG ( N = 27 ) or psychoeducation group ( PEG ; N = 26 ) for 12 weeks . The PRTG taught parents behavioral techniques to facilitate language development . The PEG taught general information about ASD ( clinical trial NCT01881750 ; http://www . clinical trials.gov ) . RESULTS Analysis of child utterances during the structured laboratory observation ( primary outcome ) indicated that , compared with children in the PEG , children in the PRTG demonstrated greater improvement in frequency of utterances ( F(2 , 43 ) = 3.53 , p = .038 , d = 0.42 ) . Results indicated that parents were able to learn PRT in a group format , as the majority of parents in the PRTG ( 84 % ) met fidelity of implementation criteria after 12 weeks . Children also demonstrated greater improvement in adaptive communication skills ( Vinel and -II ) following PRTG and baseline Mullen visual reception scores predicted treatment response to PRTG . CONCLUSIONS This is the first r and omized controlled trial of group-delivered PRT and one of the largest experimental investigations of the PRT model to date . The findings suggest that specific instruction in PRT  results in greater skill acquisition for both parents and children , especially in functional and adaptive communication skills .  Further research in PRT is warranted to replicate the observed results and address other core ASD symptoms
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 .