View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Accessing Quality Apps to Promote Basic Relational Concepts Acquisition among Young Children with Autism

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Accessing Quality Apps to Promote Basic Relational Concepts Acquisition among Young Children with Autism
Language: English
Authors: Mykyta, Anne D., Zhou, Zheng (ORCID 0000-0002-5359-0417)
Source: Psychology in the Schools. Dec 2017 54(10):1302-1311.
Availability: Wiley-Blackwell. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. Tel: 800-835-6770; Tel: 781-388-8598; Fax: 781-388-8232; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 10
Publication Date: 2017
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Autism, Computer Software, Intervention, Telecommunications, Handheld Devices, Pervasive Developmental Disorders, Qualitative Research, Content Analysis, Children, Young Children, Teaching Methods, Testing, Usability, Educational Quality, Concept Formation
Assessment and Survey Identifiers: Boehm Test of Basic Concepts
DOI: 10.1002/pits.22082
ISSN: 0033-3085
Abstract: Mobile applications (apps) are increasingly being used with children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) to supplement their intervention packages; however, the Apps' educational utility is not yet understood. The lack of such knowledge results in young children's inequity of accessing quality intervention. The present qualitative study addressed this gap by analyzing the content of popular apps being used with young children (ages 3-7) with ASD for the presence of basic relational concepts. After first identifying 15 target apps via surveys, the researchers analyzed the apps for the presence of the 50 basic relational concepts, according to the Boehm Test of Basic Relational Concepts-Third Edition). Results indicated that the prevalence of basic relational concepts in the analyzed apps ranged from 0 to 39 concepts. Apps that relied on community-generated material tended to incorporate more basic relational concepts, but use methods that could be confusing or invalid. Commercially developed apps incorporated fewer basic relational concepts, but employed teaching and testing methods that have better educational utility. These findings have implications to help closing the gaps in informing parents, professionals, and app developers on the use of apps with children with ASD.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2017
Accession Number: EJ1161223
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFeeKGs4GKAW6u9hctdXSAwAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDAGQa6D9lz6iqIRWsAIBEICBm3Man9df9GZanJpztp0vcous6Cdo6hCydrdr_QIAyh47F68e7heMJxHsnkWPxbx2GKFdnnC-AXfsFmPl3XtFzctZVY7vEPD2LGUeG-EKmRAPjZK4zP9U4i3CgXITEPu6elZJRATu7tjp73-tsvEIuauKd3ZPtPvVF7eXQW54GbLbYtw-W3YaFaZNAGBlWuEjDkHUrkmNKkGOOSKX
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0126316616;pis01dec.17;2018Jul20.08:29;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0126316616-1">Accessing quality apps to promote basic relational concepts acquisition among young children with autism. </title> <p>Mobile applications (apps) are increasingly being used with children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) to supplement their intervention packages; however, the Apps’ educational utility is not yet understood. The lack of such knowledge results in young children's inequity of accessing quality intervention. The present qualitative study addressed this gap by analyzing the content of popular apps being used with young children (ages 3–7) with ASD for the presence of basic relational concepts. After first identifying 15 target apps via surveys, the researchers analyzed the apps for the presence of the 50 basic relational concepts, according to the Boehm Test of Basic Relational Concepts—Third Edition). Results indicated that the prevalence of basic relational concepts in the analyzed apps ranged from 0 to 39 concepts. Apps that relied on community‐generated material tended to incorporate more basic relational concepts, but use methods that could be confusing or invalid. Commercially developed apps incorporated fewer basic relational concepts, but employed teaching and testing methods that have better educational utility. These findings have implications to help closing the gaps in informing parents, professionals, and app developers on the use of apps with children with ASD.</p> <p>apps; autism; basic relational concepts</p> <p>Current reports of the incidence of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) estimate that 1 in 68 children are diagnosed with ASD in the United States, which marks a 30% increase from 1 in 88 two years ago (Center for Disease Control and Prevention, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref1">7</reflink>] ). Although the rising numbers of children with ASD and their needs have stretched the resources of many schools systems (Ramdoss et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref2">22</reflink>] ), cost‐benefit analyses indicate that expenses can be significantly reduced if children with ASD receive appropriate early intervention (Chasson, Harris, & Neely, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref3">8</reflink>] ; Jacobson, Mulick, & Green, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref4">18</reflink>] ). Thus research aimed at developing efficient and effective interventions is a high priority (Burton, Anderson, Prater, & Dyches, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref5">6</reflink>] ; Fein, Barton, & Dumount‐Mathieu, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref6">10</reflink>] ; Perlman, Fusaroli, Fein, & Naigles, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref7">21</reflink>] ; Ramdoss et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref8">22</reflink>] ).</p> <p>Currently, one popular intervention trend for children with ASD is the use of mobile, touch‐screen devices and their applications (apps). The highly engaging and predictable nature of apps, combined with their affordability, portability, and ease of use make them an attractive and cost‐effective option (Kagohara et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref9">19</reflink>] ; Stephenson & Limbrick, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref10">27</reflink>] ). Despite the evidence that mobile devices and their apps are being used in interventions for children with ASD, there is very little research on the content of these apps. Most research available has focused on exploring these touch‐screen devices primarily as intervention delivery systems (e.g., to provide instructional video/prompts) or as a means for the person to access preferred stimuli, rather than using the devices as interventions themselves (Kagohara et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref11">19</reflink>] ). Additionally, research focusing specifically on apps for young children (ages 3–7) with ASD is lacking. Consequently, the increasing number of children being diagnosed with ASD at younger ages combined with the emphasis on early intervention has resulted in a growing demand for therapy that is often not met. In an attempt to stretch resources, parents and professionals are incorporating the growing quantity of special education apps (Shah, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref12">25</reflink>] ; Shuler, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref13">26</reflink>] ) into their intervention packages (Venkatesh, Greenhill, Phung, Adams, & Duong, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref14">29</reflink>] ). Additionally, early childhood is a critical intervention window not only because the minds of young children are most receptive to change, but also because the skills learned in this period represent the foundation for future learning and educational success. Therefore, it is particularly important to investigate the content of apps being used with this population to verify their educational relevance.</p> <p>Educational research with typically developing preschool children suggests that basic relational concepts, which refer to concepts of size, distance, position in space, time, and quantity (Boehm, 2004, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref15">4</reflink>] ) are critical for the development of cognitive and early literacy skills, as well as direction following (Boehm, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref16">4</reflink>] ). Furthermore, there is some evidence suggesting that children with ASD may have particular difficulty acquiring these concepts (Herschkorn, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref17">13</reflink>] ; Herschkorn & Zhou, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref18">14</reflink>] , [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref19">15</reflink>] ; Horwitz, McCarthy, Roth, & Marinellie, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref20">16</reflink>] ; Parish‐Morris, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref21">20</reflink>] ). It is unclear as to whether the popular apps are exposing children with ASD the critical concepts they need to learn. Based on the importance of basic relational concepts for young children's academic success, these concepts provided the lens through which educational content of apps was analyzed. The main purpose of this research study was to explore the content and organization of the apps used with young children (ages 3–7) diagnosed with ASD with a specific focus on how the apps present the basic relational concepts. The study addressed the following questions in two separate parts:</p> <p>Which basic relational concepts, if any, are incorporated into the apps used by children with ASD in early childhood (ages 3–7)?</p> <p>How are the concepts presented in the apps? Specific subquestions include: (a) Are the concepts systematically taught? (b) Are the concepts presented in the directions of tasks? (c) Are the concepts embedded in the stories/videos/games? and (d) What concepts are frequently used in teaching children with ASD social, academic, language, and functional skills?</p> <hd id="AN0126316616-2">2 METHOD</hd> <p>This qualitative study was carried out in two stages. In the first stage (Part 1), popular apps used with young children (ages 3–7) with ASD were identified. In the second stage (Part 2), the content of the selected apps was analyzed for (a) the presence of the basic relational concepts according to the Boehm Test of Basic Concepts, Third Edition (Boehm‐3) (Boehm, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref22">1</reflink>] ), a standardized tool for assessing young children's understanding of basic relational concepts, and (b) the way in which the concepts are presented in the context.</p> <hd id="AN0126316616-3">2.1 Part 1: App identification survey</hd> <p>To identify the most frequently used apps, a link to the digital survey was distributed to the interest groups using social media to: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref23">1</reflink>) the professionals who work with children with ASD and use apps in their work with this population, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref24">2</reflink>) parents of children with ASD between the ages of 3 and 7 who use apps with their children, and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref25">3</reflink>) distribution via Autism Speaks webpage, an autism advocacy agency. The purpose of the survey was to identify the names of the most popular apps being used. Therefore, it asked respondents to provide the names of the top five apps that they use the most with children with ASD (open response format). Then, for each app listed, respondents were asked to select a primary, secondary, and tertiary reason (from a drop down menu of 11 choices) that they use each app listed. Respondents were then asked to select from choices specified in the survey how they learned about the apps they provided, and again have an “other” option for those whose response does not fit the choices.</p> <p>Those apps that were mentioned by at least three respondents (28 apps) were further investigated in an effort to confirm their popularity in the field. To do so, the researcher cross‐referenced the survey‐generated list of apps with several sources because there is no existing guide for rigorous evaluation procedures. To cross‐reference, the researcher examined eight different Internet sources for a mention, review, or ranking of each of the 28 frequently cited apps yielded from the survey. Following this procedure, 15 apps were selected to be included in the content analysis. The 15 target apps vary in terms of the developer‐defined intended function (e.g., help children practice their receptive language skills, practice articulation, teach social skills, and practice early math skills and concepts), the type of content (i.e., whether the content is produced by the app developers, by app users, or a combination), and the way in which that content is presented (e.g., identify feeling faces to match certain scenarios, learning games, “webisodes” with accompanying “e‐books,” digitally manipulate food and kitchen materials).</p> <hd id="AN0126316616-4">3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION (PART 1): APP IDENTIFICATION AND SURVEY</hd> <hd id="AN0126316616-5">3.1 Demographic information</hd> <p>A total of 246 individuals responded to the surveys. Of those responses, 122 (49.6%) surveys were used for final analyses. The rest were discarded due to their incompleteness. To be considered “complete,” a survey respondent had to provide the name of at least one app. The 122 respondents included: speech language pathologists or speech language pathologist assistants (48.4%), parents of children with ASD (27.0%), teachers or special education teachers (13.9%), psychologists or school psychologists (3.3%), behavior specialists (2.5%), occupational therapists (1.6%), a teacher assistant (.8%), a physical therapist (.8%), an autism mentor (.8%), and a paraprofessional (.8%).</p> <hd id="AN0126316616-6">3.1.1 Apps identified by the survey</hd> <hd id="AN0126316616-7">Varieties</hd> <p>Collectively, the respondents provided the names of 251 apps, and only 77 (30.7%) were mentioned more than once. The fact that the majority (69.3%) of apps were listed only once is consistent with the research suggesting that there has been a recent surge in the market for apps targeting young children and children with special needs (Shah, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref26">25</reflink>] ; Shuler, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref27">26</reflink>] ). The 251 apps provided by survey respondents are also diverse and vary in terms of their: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref28">1</reflink>) intended functions, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref29">2</reflink>) content origin, and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref30">3</reflink>) presentation of content. The amount and diversity of educational apps available on the market may be overwhelming for consumers attempting to select apps for particular children/needs.</p> <hd id="AN0126316616-8">App identification methods by users</hd> <p>When survey respondents were asked how they learned about the apps that they provided, respondents reported that they choose apps based on: a colleague's recommendation (24.5%), the app's awards or ratings (23.6%), hearing about the app at a convention or workshop (13.6%), the recommendation of a child's therapist or teacher (10.0%), and the recommendation of a school district or employer (8.1%). A large percentage (20%) of respondents chose the “other” option for this question and listed things such as: social media groups, blogs and websites, and recommendations from individuals with ASD or from parents of children with ASD. Results suggested that most people rely on “word of mouth” methods to find apps, including recommendations from colleagues, employers, teachers, therapists, and parents, as well as personal research of social media groups, blogs, and websites.</p> <hd id="AN0126316616-9">Reasons for using the apps</hd> <p>Respondents were asked to select up to three reasons for each app they named. Not every respondent provided the names of five apps or three reasons for using each app that they named.</p> <p>The reasons available to select included: expressive language, as an augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) device, receptive language, articulation, cognitive skills, social skills, motor skills, self‐regulation skills, adaptive behavior, for fun or as incentive, and none of the above. First, researchers analyzed all three reasons (first, second, and third reasons for using each app) for all five most used apps identified by the respondents. Results showed that expressive language was the primary reason (20.9%), followed by using apps for fun or as incentive (16.8%), receptive language (16.3%), cognitive skills (11.0%), as an AAC device (7.3%), social skills (6.9%), none of the above (6.0%), motor skills (6.0%), self‐regulation skills (4.0%), articulation (3.0%), and adaptive behavior (1.9%).</p> <p>It is important to note that across all respondents, using apps for receptive language constituted the third most endorsed reason (16%) for choosing the apps. It is possible that this finding reflects a lack of awareness of the deficit in receptive language compared to expressive language in early childhood ASD populations (Hudry et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref31">17</reflink>] ). Contrary to the emphasis on expressive language deficits, research suggests that word comprehension is delayed relative to production in children with ASD, and this pattern is particularly apparent in early childhood (Tager‐Flusberg, Paul, & Lord, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref32">28</reflink>] ). This could also be due to the fact that, because delayed speech is typically the first sign that causes parents concern (Tager‐Flusberg et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref33">28</reflink>] ), they may focus their intervention efforts on getting their children to produce, rather than understand language.</p> <hd id="AN0126316616-10">3.2 App content analysis: Basic concepts prevalence and presentation context (Part 2)</hd> <hd id="AN0126316616-11">3.2.1 Boehm's test of basic concepts—third edition (Boehm‐3)</hd> <p>The Boehm‐3 was used as the criterion for the analysis of the concepts’ presence in the apps. The Boehm‐3 is standardized for children in kindergarten through second grade (Boehm, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref34">1</reflink>] ). There are 50 basic relational concepts in the measure, including 25 spatial concepts, 18 quantitative concepts, five temporal concepts, and two concepts categorized as “Other” (Boehm, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref35">1</reflink>] ; Brassard & Boehm, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref36">5</reflink>] ). The Boehm‐3 has been shown to be a valid and reliable indicator of performance across grade levels (kindergarten to second grade). Reliability has been evidenced by good internal consistency (coefficient alphas range from.80 to.91), low variability (standard error of measurement ranges from 1.14 to 2.43), and good test–retest reliability (coefficients range from.80 to.89; Boehm, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref37">3</reflink>] ).</p> <hd id="AN0126316616-12">3.2.2 App content analysis</hd> <p>Two studies that analyzed test directions for the presence of basic relational concepts served as models for the methods of the present study (Cummings & Nelson, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref38">9</reflink>] ; Flanagan, Alfonso, Kaminer, & Rader, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref39">11</reflink>] ). In these studies, researchers systematically searched directions of standardized tests for the 50 concepts identified within the Boehm‐3. Consistent with the above‐described approaches and to address the central research question of the present study, the researcher systematically analyzed each identified app for the presence of the 50 basic relational concepts.</p> <p>In the present study, frequency of basic relational concepts refers to the frequency of appearance across, not within, apps because some of the apps included in this analysis have content that is dynamic (due to the ongoing contributions of lessons from its users). Thus, each basic relational concept was counted as having appeared or not, and the way in which it appeared was documented. For apps with static content, the researcher reviewed all content possible (i.e., reviewed all available lessons at the levels appropriate for the target 3–7 age group). For apps with dynamic content, the researcher used the same set of search terms (50 items on BTBC‐3) to identify lessons in which the basic relational concepts were expected to appear.</p> <p>The presence of each concept was documented and next, its use was coded according to how the concept was presented, thereby addressing the researcher's secondary questions. Specifically, concepts were counted as having been presented if the app (a) explicitly taught the concepts (e.g., “This ball is medium‐sized” or “The cat is on top of the table”), (b) tested for an understanding of the concepts (e.g., “Touch the tree on the left” or “Put the ball above the table”), or (c) embedded concepts in directions of tasks or content that serve a purpose other than teaching the basic relational concepts (e.g., “Every time Bobby wants a turn with the ball, he first needs to ask before he can take”). In this way, content analysis identified the extent to which different categories of apps being used with young students with ASD incorporate basic relational concepts, as well as the way in which these concepts are presented.</p> <hd id="AN0126316616-13">4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION (PART 2): ANALYSES OF APP CONTENT</hd> <p>In the second phase of the study, the content of the most popular apps was analyzed to determine (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref40">1</reflink>) which and how many of the basic relational concepts, as defined by Boehm ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref41">1</reflink>] ), are present and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref42">2</reflink>) the way in which the apps present the concepts.</p> <hd id="AN0126316616-14">4.1 Prevalence of the basic relational concepts in the apps</hd> <p>When analyzing the 15 apps, the focus was on documenting whether the 50 basic relational concepts were present in each app and, if present, what category of presentation method was used for each concept. The presentation methods were categorized as: embedded, taught, and/or tested. These three categories are not mutually exclusive. In other words, the same concept could be presented by using more than one method within a given app. So, the “Total Number of Apps Across Methods” represented the sum of the single occurrences of each concept (as either taught, tested, or embedded) across the 15 apps. Across all presentation methods (i.e., embedded, taught, and tested) the most prevalent concept was “first” (appeared in 10 of the 15 apps reviewed), followed by “next” (appeared in nine apps), “last,” “front,” “behind,” “before” (appeared in seven apps), “top,” “through,” “bottom,” “some,” “second,” “different” (appeared in six apps), “side,” “above,” “over,” “left,” “every,” and “half” (appeared in five apps). One possible explanation for why these concepts were the most prevalent in the apps is that these are the concepts that tend to be used in everyday classroom directions (e.g., “First, take your coat off,” “Next, sit on the carpet,” “Stand in front of /behind Bobby”). Results showed that the concepts present in the apps were more often embedded in the content/directions of the apps than explicitly taught or tested. This is likely due to the fact that the apps we analyzed serve a wide range of functions, and many of them target skill areas that would not be expected to include the basic relational concepts (e.g., articulation, social skills, emotion identification).</p> <hd id="AN0126316616-15">4.2 Apps containing the basic relational concepts</hd> <p>Of the 15 apps analyzed, 11 contained at least one of Boehm's ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref43">1</reflink>] ) 50 basic relational concepts. The app that contained the most concepts was Proloquo2Go (39 concepts), followed by Bitsboard Pro (37 concepts), Articulation Station Pro (27 concepts), See.Touch.Learn Pro (24 concepts), Fun with Directions HD (<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref44">11</reflink>), Preschool and Kindergarten Splash Math (<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref45">9</reflink>), Injini Child Development Suite (<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref46">8</reflink>), Emotions from I Can Do (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref47">6</reflink>), Endless Alphabet by Originator (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref48">6</reflink>), and Choiceworks (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref49">5</reflink>). LetterSchool, Starfall ABCs, Toca Kitchen, and My PlayHome contained none of the basic relational concepts. Again, the concepts were categorized into the nonmutually exclusive presentation methods: embedded, taught, and/or tested. Just as before, because the same concept could be in multiple categories within an app, the “Total Number of Concepts in App” represented the sum of the single instances of concepts (as either taught, tested, or embedded).</p> <hd id="AN0126316616-16">4.3 Concept presentation methods: Embedded, taught, and tested</hd> <hd id="AN0126316616-17">4.3.1 Embedded concepts: The importance of context</hd> <p>Exposing children to the basic relational concepts by embedding them in various contexts could provide advantageous opportunities for learning, as most word learning is done from context (Schafer, Williams, & Smith, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref50">24</reflink>] ). However, because research suggests that children with ASD have difficulty integrating context to facilitate their comprehension of language in discourse (Schafer et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref51">24</reflink>] ; Tager‐Flusberg et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref52">28</reflink>] ), this presentation format could actually be disadvantageous for young children with ASD. Due to these comprehension difficulties, and the tendency for children with ASD to interpret language as isolated units of meaning (Happé & Frith, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref53">12</reflink>] ), it is important to present language in a context that facilitates integration. Thus, when basic relational concepts are embedded in the content and/or directions of apps, the way in which the concepts are embedded is critical. If a concept is embedded along with strong context clues and stimuli that clearly convey the meaning of the concept, then children could benefit from the exposure to concepts even in lessons that are targeting other skills. However, in the absence of strong context clues and clear visuals, children may have difficulty deciphering the meaning of concepts embedded in content.</p> <hd id="AN0126316616-18">4.3.2 Methods of teaching the basic relational concepts in the apps</hd> <p>Only two apps, Bitsboard Pro and Proloquo2Go, were coded as having taught the concepts. Although these apps teach a large number of basic concepts (37 and 39, respectively), they generally only teach concepts in isolation and the quality of the “lessons” is variable. To teach concepts, both Bitsboard Pro and Proloquo2Go depict the concept along with a picture that is supposed to convey the meaning of the word. However, because the concepts are usually presented without any context clues, the quality of the lesson is determined by the extent to which the picture clearly demonstrates the meaning of the concept and was found to be related to the origin of content (i.e., developer‐designed vs. community‐designed). Proloquo2Go, whose content is designed and protected by its developer, generally has stimuli that more clearly demonstrate the basic relational concepts (see Figure [NaN] a and b) than do the stimuli from Bitsboard (see Figure [NaN] c and d), whose content is designed predominantly by the community.</p> <hd id="AN0126316616-19">Developer‐designed presentation</hd> <p>Proloquo2Go is an AAC device that functions to help nonverbal children with ASD communicate. It was coded as teaching the concepts because the app provides a keyboard of pictographs depicting the basic relational concepts (among a wide range of vocabulary words). The concepts appear as simple visual images portraying the meaning, accompanied by the concept's written label (see the example in Figure [NaN] a and b). When the child selects a picture showing the concept, the app produces a verbal label of that word. The concept presentation is comparable to traditional flashcards, in that the words/images are static and presented in isolation. The advantage of these stimuli is that the images are clear. Concepts are portrayed with very simple visuals using consistent stimuli (i.e., colors, font, size of images) and omitting unnecessary stimuli (i.e., placing all stimuli on white backgrounds so that the concept cannot be confused for extraneous stimuli in the background), thereby reducing ambiguity in determining the image's meaning. Proloquo2Go is able to maintain content that explicitly demonstrates the meaning of its words.</p> <hd id="AN0126316616-20">Community‐designed presentation</hd> <p>Unlike Proloquo2Go, only a fraction of Bitsboard's content is produced and controlled by its developers. The vast majority of the content is community‐designed “boards,” or lessons. This means that any user of the app may contribute lessons that he/she created using the app's interface. Thus, the creators largely determine the content and presentation methods of lessons. Because there is no “quality control” for these community‐designed boards, the usefulness of the lessons may vary considerably. For each board that a Bitsboard user creates, there are several potential options for how to present that content (the app refers to these options as “games”). Despite the potential that the app provides for creating individualized lessons with several presentation formats, much of the content may be inadequate in its methods of teaching the basic relational concepts. For example, the “Flashcards” method features an image that is supposed to depict the written word accompanying that image, but the images on the Flashcards do not clearly demonstrate the concept's meaning (see Figure [NaN] ). In Figure [NaN] a, the person could be “between” or “above” the rocks; in Figure [NaN] b, it is not clear which of the three people holds the “most” balloons without some sign (e.g., arrow) pointing to the child on the right; In Figure [NaN] c, the hummingbird could be perceived as “above” or “on the right” of the flower.</p> <hd id="AN0126316616-21">4.3.3 Methods of testing the basic relational concepts in the apps</hd> <p>Four apps: Bitsboard Pro, See.Touch.Learn. Preschool and Kindergarten Splash Math, and Fun with Directions HD, tested for an understanding of the basic relational concepts. The quality of the “tests” again varied and was impacted by not just the clarity of visual depictions, but also the validity of testing methods and utility of the apps. In general, the apps that design and protect their own content (Preschool and Kindergarten Splash Math and Fun with Directions HD) seem to have the strongest educational utility. However, the content presented in these apps is relatively limited compared to the apps that allow their users to contribute content (Bitsboard and See.Touch.Learn Pro). Although Bitsboard and See.Touch.Learn. test for 36 and 22 of the basic relational concepts, respectively, Fun with Directions HD and Preschool and Kindergarten Splash Math only address six and eight concepts, respectively.</p> <p>For developer‐designed presentation, such as Fun with Directions HD and Preschool and Kindergarten Splash Math, there may be more “quality control” in terms of the content and the testing methods. Consequently, their methods of assessing users’ understanding of concepts are generally valid, meaning they clearly assess what they intend to assess. However, community‐designed presentation, such as Bitsboard Pro and See.Touch.Learn. Pro, rely heavily on community‐designed content, which results in access to large amounts of content, but content that is of inconsistent pedagogical quality. Thus, even though Bitsboard and See.Touch.Learn. test for the most number of basic relational concepts (36 and 22, respectively), the way in which those concepts are presented is not always educationally beneficial. In general, the content and presentation of material in See.Touch.Learn. are more suitable to eliciting a demonstrating of one's understanding of a concept than that of Bitsboard. This is because the stimuli explicitly exhibit the meaning of the concepts and the tests are more valid, in that they clearly assess what they intend to assess.</p> <hd id="AN0126316616-22">5 IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PRACTICE</hd> <p>In light of the previously described findings and research, the following evidence‐based guidelines are recommended for developing and using apps with young children with ASD.</p> <hd id="AN0126316616-23">5.1 Recommendations for app developers</hd> <p>In its most optimum form, an app that intends to teach the basic relational concepts to children with ASD should follow best practice strategies from early intensive behavioral intervention (EIBI). More specifically, app developers should consider the following:</p> <p>It is critical that the stimuli be clear and concrete (Whalon & Hart, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref54">30</reflink>] ). Research suggests that children with ASD have a tendency to focus on minute, often unimportant details of images to the neglect of the whole (Reed, Stahmer, Suhrheinrich, & Schreibman, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref55">23</reflink>] ).</p> <p>Keep the stimuli as consistent as possible across concepts. When color, shape, size, and reference points are consistent, it reduces the possibility of the child developing a false understanding and makes it easier for children to comprehend that the difference between images is key to understanding the concept.</p> <p>Because basic relational concepts are often difficult to depict in static pictures, consider creating short animations that clearly demonstrate the meaning of the word.</p> <p>Teach children about the use of basic relational concepts in the context of phrases and eventually longer discourse/directions by varying the contexts and stimuli, so that children are required to generalize their knowledge to various situations. In addition, use stimuli and contexts that are concrete and familiar to children.</p> <hd id="AN0126316616-24">5.2 Recommendations for parents and professionals</hd> <p>Presently, there is no formal guidance in app selection and use. Results from our study suggest that even the “most popular apps” have flaws that limit their educational utility. Thus, users should carefully review apps before using them with children. If employing apps that provide content designed by community members (e.g., Bitsboard and See.Touch.Learn), app users are cautioned against relying on others’ material due to its inconsistent quality. Instead, users are encouraged to use the apps as platforms for creating their own lessons. If users are careful to choose clear visual depictions of concepts and ensure that their lessons and tests teach and assess for the intended concepts, then these apps have great potential as intervention tools.</p> <p>Parents and professionals could assist children with ASD in expanding their knowledge of basic relational concepts by incorporating them into directions that children follow when using these apps. My PlayHome and Toca Kitchen, in particular, offer opportunities to generalize receptive language skills (i.e., following directions that incorporate basic relational concepts) and practice following directions in a digital world that closely resembles real‐world home settings.</p> <ref id="AN0126316616-25"> <title>REFERENCES</title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref22" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext>Boehm, A. E. ( 2001 ). Boehm‐3: Examiner's manual. New York : Psychological Corporation. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref24" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext>Boehm, A. E. ( 2004 ). Assessment of basic relational concepts. In B. A. Bracken (Ed.), The psychoeducational assessment of preschool children ( 3rd ed., pp. 186 – 203 ). Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref25" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext>Boehm, A. E. ( 2011 ). Boehm Test of Basic Concepts‐3: Technical Report. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.pearsonassessments.com/hai/images/Products/Boehm3/BoehmIII%5fTechRPT.pdf">www.pearsonassessments.com/hai/images/Products/Boehm3/BoehmIII%5fTechRPT.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref15" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext>Boehm, A. E. ( 2014 ). Basic relational concepts: Essential building blocks for learning at school and at home [PowerPoint slides ]. Retrieved from https://downloads.pearsonclinical.com/videos/boehm3overview041714/Boehm-3OverviewWebinarHandout04172014.pdf </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref36" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext>Brassard, M. R., & Boehm, A. E. ( 2007 ). Preschool assessment: Principles and practices. New York, NY US : Guilford Press. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref5" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext>Burton, C. E., Anderson, D. H., Prater, M., & Dyches, T. T. ( 2013 ). Video self‐modeling on an iPad to teach functional math skills to adolescents with autism and intellectual disability. Focus on Autism & Other Developmental Disabilities, 28 ( 2 ), 67 – 77. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088357613478829 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref1" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext>Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. ( 2014 ). Autism spectrum disorder: Data and statistics. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/data.html">www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/data.html</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref3" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext>Chasson, G. S., Harris, G. E., & Neely, W. J. ( 2007 ). Cost comparison of early intensive behavioral intervention and special education for children with autism. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 16 ( 3 ), 401 – 413. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-006-9094-1 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref38" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext>Cummings, J. A., & Nelson, R. ( 1980 ). Basic concepts in the oral directions of group achievement tests. Journal of Educational Research, 73 ( 5 ), 259 – 261. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib10" idref="ref6" type="bt">10</bibl> <bibtext>Fein, D., Barton, M., & Dumount‐Mathieu, T. ( 2017 ). Optimizing outcome in autism spectrum disorders, 4 ( 1 ), 71 – 78. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib11" idref="ref39" type="bt">11</bibl> <bibtext>Flanagan, D. P., Alfonso, V. C., Kaminer, T., & Rader, D. E. ( 1995 ). Incidence of basic concepts in the directions of new and recently revised American intelligence tests for preschool children. School Psychology International, 16 ( 4 ), 345 – 364. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034395164003 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib12" idref="ref53" type="bt">12</bibl> <bibtext>Happé, F., & Frith, U. ( 2006 ). The weak coherence account: Detail‐focused cognitive style in autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 36 ( 1 ), 5 – 25. https://doi.org.jerome.stjohns.edu:81/10.1007/s10803-005-0039-0 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib13" idref="ref17" type="bt">13</bibl> <bibtext>Herschkorn, H. A. ( 2014 ). Basic relational concepts acquisition among children with and without autism spectrum disorder (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). St. John's University, New York. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib14" idref="ref18" type="bt">14</bibl> <bibtext>Herschkorn, H. A., & Zhou, Z. ( 2013 ). Cognitive strategies in understanding basic relational concepts among children with and without autism. Abstract submitted to American Psychological Association Annual Convention, Honolulu, HI. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib15" idref="ref19" type="bt">15</bibl> <bibtext>Herschkorn, H. A., & Zhou, Z. ( 2014 ). Strategies in basic relational concept acquisition among children with ASD. Poster to be presented at National Association of School Psychologist (NASP) Annual Convention, Washington, DC. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib16" idref="ref20" type="bt">16</bibl> <bibtext>Horwitz, L., McCarthy, J. W., Roth, M. A., & Marinellie, S. A. ( 2014 ). The effects of an animated exemplar/nonexemplar program to teach the relational concept on to children with autism spectrum disorders and developmental delays who require AAC. Contemporary Issues in Communication Science and Disorders, 41, 83 – 95. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib17" idref="ref31" type="bt">17</bibl> <bibtext>Hudry, K., Leadbitter, K., Temple, K., Slonims, V., McConachie, H., Aldred, C., & Charman, T. ( 2010 ). Preschoolers with autism show greater impairment in receptive compared with expressive language abilities. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 45 ( 6 ), 681 – 690. https://doi.org/10.3109/13682820903461493 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib18" idref="ref4" type="bt">18</bibl> <bibtext>Jacobson, J. W., Mulick, J. A., & Green, G. ( 1998 ). Cost–benefit estimates for early intensive behavioral intervention for young children with autism—General model and single state case. Behavioral Interventions, 13 ( 4 ), 201 – 226. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib19" idref="ref9" type="bt">19</bibl> <bibtext>Kagohara, D. M., van der Meer, L., Ramdoss, S., O'Reilly, M. F., Lancioni, G. E., Davis, T. N., … Sigafoos, J. ( 2013 ). Using iPods and iPads in teaching programs for individuals with developmental disabilities: A systematic review. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 34, 147 – 156. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib20" idref="ref21" type="bt">20</bibl> <bibtext>Parish‐Morris, J. ( 2011 ). Relational vocabulary in preschoolers with autistic spectrum disorder: The role of dynamic spatial concepts and social understanding. Dissertation Abstracts International, 72, 1 – 112. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib21" idref="ref7" type="bt">21</bibl> <bibtext>Perlman, M., Fusaroli, R., Fein, D., & Naigles, L. ( 2017 ). The use of iconic words in early child‐parent interactions. In G. Gunzelmann, A. Howes, T. Tenbrink, & E. Davelaar (Eds.), Proceedings of the 39th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci 2017), Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society, 913–918. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib22" idref="ref2" type="bt">22</bibl> <bibtext>Ramdoss, S., Lang, R., Mulloy, A., Franco, J., O'Reilly, M., Didden, R., & Lancioni, G. ( 2011 ). Use of computer‐based interventions to teach communication skills to children with autism spectrum disorders: A systematic review. Journal of Behavioral Education, 20 ( 1 ), 55 – 76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-010-9112-7 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib23" idref="ref55" type="bt">23</bibl> <bibtext>Reed, S. R., Stahmer, A. C., Suhrheinrich, J., & Schreibman, L. ( 2013 ). Stimulus overselectivity in typical development: Implications for teaching children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 43 ( 6 ), 1249 – 1257. Retrieved from https://doi.org.jerome.stjohns.edu:81/10.1007/s10803-012-1658-x </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib24" idref="ref50" type="bt">24</bibl> <bibtext>Schafer, G., Williams, T. I., & Smith, P. T. ( 2013 ). Which words are hard for autistic children to learn? Mind & Language, 28 ( 5 ), 661 – 698. https://doi.org.jerome.stjohns.edu:81/10.1111/mila.12038 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib25" idref="ref12" type="bt">25</bibl> <bibtext>Shah, N. ( 2011 ). iPads become learning tools for students with disabilities. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2011/03/02/22ipad.h30.html">www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2011/03/02/22ipad.h30.html</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib26" idref="ref13" type="bt">26</bibl> <bibtext>Shuler, C. ( 2012 ). iLearn II: An analysis of the education category of Apple's app store. New York: The Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.joanganzcooneycenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/ilearnii.pdf">www.joanganzcooneycenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/ilearnii.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib27" idref="ref10" type="bt">27</bibl> <bibtext>Stephenson, J., & Limbrick, L. ( 2015 ). A review of the use of touch‐screen mobile devices by people with developmental disabilities. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 45 ( 12 ), 3777 – 3791. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib28" idref="ref32" type="bt">28</bibl> <bibtext>Tager‐Flusberg, H., Paul, R., & Lord, C. ( 2005 ). Language and communication in autism. In F. R. Volkmar (Ed.), Handbook of autism and pervasive developmental disorders. Diagnosis, development, neurobiology, and behavior ( 3rd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 335 – 364 ). Hoboken, NJ : John Wiley. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib29" idref="ref14" type="bt">29</bibl> <bibtext>Venkatesh, S., Greenhill, S., Phung, D., Adams, B., & Duong, T. ( 2012 ). Pervasive multimedia for autism intervention. Pervasive and Mobile Computing, 8 ( 6 ), 863 – 882. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmcj.2012.06.010 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib30" idref="ref54" type="bt">30</bibl> <bibtext>Whalon, K. J., & Hart, J. E. ( 2011 ). Children with autism spectrum disorder and literacy instruction: An exploratory study of elementary inclusive settings. Remedial and Special Education, 32 ( 3 ), 243 – 255. Retrieved from https://doi.org.jerome.stjohns.edu:81/10.1177/0741932510362174 </bibtext> </blist> </ref> <p>Graph: Examples of depictions of the basic relational concepts from Proloquo2Go (a and b) (an AssistiveWare product) and Bitsboard Pro (<ulink href="http://www.Bitsboard.com">www.Bitsboard.com</ulink>) (c and d)</p> <p>Graph: Examples of Bitsboard “Flashcards”</p> <aug> <p>By Anne D. Mykyta and Zheng Zhou</p> </aug>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1161223
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Accessing Quality Apps to Promote Basic Relational Concepts Acquisition among Young Children with Autism
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Mykyta%2C+Anne+D%2E%22">Mykyta, Anne D.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Zhou%2C+Zheng%22">Zhou, Zheng</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5359-0417">0000-0002-5359-0417</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Psychology+in+the+Schools%22"><i>Psychology in the Schools</i></searchLink>. Dec 2017 54(10):1302-1311.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley-Blackwell. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. Tel: 800-835-6770; Tel: 781-388-8598; Fax: 781-388-8232; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 10
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2017
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Autism%22">Autism</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Computer+Software%22">Computer Software</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Intervention%22">Intervention</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Telecommunications%22">Telecommunications</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Handheld+Devices%22">Handheld Devices</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Pervasive+Developmental+Disorders%22">Pervasive Developmental Disorders</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Qualitative+Research%22">Qualitative Research</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Content+Analysis%22">Content Analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Children%22">Children</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Young+Children%22">Young Children</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teaching+Methods%22">Teaching Methods</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Testing%22">Testing</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Usability%22">Usability</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Quality%22">Educational Quality</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Concept+Formation%22">Concept Formation</searchLink>
– Name: SubjectThesaurus
  Label: Assessment and Survey Identifiers
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SU" term="%22Boehm+Test+of+Basic+Concepts%22">Boehm Test of Basic Concepts</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1002/pits.22082
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0033-3085
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Mobile applications (apps) are increasingly being used with children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) to supplement their intervention packages; however, the Apps' educational utility is not yet understood. The lack of such knowledge results in young children's inequity of accessing quality intervention. The present qualitative study addressed this gap by analyzing the content of popular apps being used with young children (ages 3-7) with ASD for the presence of basic relational concepts. After first identifying 15 target apps via surveys, the researchers analyzed the apps for the presence of the 50 basic relational concepts, according to the Boehm Test of Basic Relational Concepts-Third Edition). Results indicated that the prevalence of basic relational concepts in the analyzed apps ranged from 0 to 39 concepts. Apps that relied on community-generated material tended to incorporate more basic relational concepts, but use methods that could be confusing or invalid. Commercially developed apps incorporated fewer basic relational concepts, but employed teaching and testing methods that have better educational utility. These findings have implications to help closing the gaps in informing parents, professionals, and app developers on the use of apps with children with ASD.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2017
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1161223
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1161223
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1002/pits.22082
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 10
        StartPage: 1302
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Autism
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Computer Software
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Intervention
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Telecommunications
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Handheld Devices
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Pervasive Developmental Disorders
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Qualitative Research
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Content Analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Children
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Young Children
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teaching Methods
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Testing
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Usability
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Quality
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Concept Formation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Boehm Test of Basic Concepts
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Accessing Quality Apps to Promote Basic Relational Concepts Acquisition among Young Children with Autism
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Mykyta, Anne D.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Zhou, Zheng
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 12
              Type: published
              Y: 2017
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0033-3085
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 54
            – Type: issue
              Value: 10
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Psychology in the Schools
              Type: main
ResultId 1