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 .
The effectiveness of Picture Exchange Communication System (PECS) training for teachers of children with autism: a pragmatic, group randomised controlled trial.
OBJECTIVE To assess the effectiveness of expert training and consultancy for teachers of children with autism spectrum disorder in the use of the Picture Exchange Communication System ( PECS ) . METHOD DESIGN Group r and omised , controlled trial ( 3 groups : immediate treatment , delayed treatment , no treatment ) . PARTICIPANTS 84 elementary school children , mean age 6.8 years . TREATMENT A 2-day PECS workshop for teachers plus 6 half-day , school-based training sessions with expert consultants over 5 months . OUTCOME MEASURES Rates of : communicative initiations , use of PECS , and speech in the classroom ; Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule-Generic ( ADOS-G ) domain scores for Communication and Reciprocal Social Interaction ; scores on formal language tests . RESULTS Controlling for baseline age , developmental quotient ( DQ ) and language ; rates of initiations and PECS usage increased significantly immediately post-treatment ( Odds Ratio ( OR ) of being in a higher ordinal rate category 2.72 , 95 % confidence interval 1.22 - 6.09 , p < .05 and OR 3.90 ( 95%CI 1.75 - 8.68 ) , p < .001 , respectively ) . There were no increases in frequency of speech , or improvements in ADOS-G ratings or language test scores . CONCLUSIONS The results indicate modest effectiveness of PECS teacher training/consultancy . Rates of pupils ' initiations and use of symbols in the classroom increased , although there was no evidence of improvement in other areas of communication . TREATMENT effects were not maintained once active intervention ceased
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 .