key: cord-0823406-i8mb1yml
authors: Douglas, Sarah N.; Meadan, Hedda; Biggs, Elizabeth E.; Bagawan, Atikah; Terol, Adriana Kaori
title: Building Family Capacity: supporting multiple family members to implement aided Language modeling
date: 2022-04-18
journal: J Autism Dev Disord
DOI: 10.1007/s10803-022-05492-4
sha: 3c8c64dd23b88498f7a577dcf8bcb8ae002ccbf8
doc_id: 823406
cord_uid: i8mb1yml

Family-centered capacity-building practices have been shown to benefit children and families. However, limited research explores these practices for children who use augmentative and alternative communication. This study explored an intervention to teach family members to implement an Aided Language Modeling (ALM) strategy across natural activities at home. A single case multiple probe design was used to evaluate the intervention with five family members and a girl with autism. Results showed the intervention increased family members’ percentage of high-fidelity ALM strategy use and rate of ALM. Descriptively, a modest increase was also observed in the proportion of the child’s communication using the speech-generating device. Social validity interviews suggested the goals, procedures, and outcomes were socially valid and supported family capacity building.

the importance of involving family members to implement communication interventions in natural environments, particularly when incorporating AAC techniques with young children. Focusing AAC interventions on natural settings and with natural communication partners can increase motivation and opportunities for the child to practice and generalize communication skills across environments. Evidence-based strategies such as ALM can be embedded within children's daily routines, activities, and social interactions (Biggs & Meadan, 2018; Coogle et al., 2013; Gevarter & Zamora, 2018) . To engage family members in interventions, the Division for Early Childhood (2014) recommends using family-centered capacity-building practices. These practices draw on a number of theories including family systems (Turnbull et al., 2015) , social support (Cohen & Wills, 1985) , ecological (Bronfenbrenner, 1992) , and empowerment (Rappaport, 1987) . Family-centered capacity-building practices emphasize active family participation in decision-making processes, focus on building family members' skills and confidence supporting the child, and help families achieve the goals they have for their child and family-thereby increasing family capacity. Research indicates that these practices can benefit the child, family members, and the whole family unit (Dunst et al., 2007) .

Research indicates family-centered capacity-building models can support parents in learning to implement communication strategies with fidelity (i.e., strategies carried out as intended; Biggs & Meadan, 2018; Douglas et al., 2017; 2018a; Meadan et al., 2016) . However, parents are not the only important family members for children with disabilities. According to Turnbull et al. (2015) child development is impacted bi-directionally by all family members. Therefore, involving many different family members may participate in the study due to their age. Each family participant was paired with Amber to form five dyads. Participants are described below in the order in which they participated in the intervention.

Target child. Amber was a 7-year-old White female who was diagnosed with autism (Level 3, requiring very substantial support) at age 4 and also had a rare chromosomal duplication. At the beginning of the study, Amber attended a public self-contained special education school for students with cognitive impairments where she received occupational, speech, and physical therapy. Amber communicated through sign language (approximately 20 familiar signs), common gestures (e.g., head nod, pointing), and also used a SGD. Although Amber had the SGD, she communicated primarily using sign language at home. However, the family expressed a desire for her to become more proficient in her SGD so she could communicate with unfamiliar partners. Amber's SGD, a Proloquo2go application on an iPad with SymbolStix images to represent words and phrases, had been in use for approximately 1.5 years at the start of the study. The SGD was obtained through an evaluation with a community-based SLP and funded through public and private insurance. Amber used the SGD at school and occasionally at home with mom and dad, but not other family members. The school provided technical support and periodically added necessary vocabulary to the SGD for Amber. Family members did not have any training related to modeling the SGD prior to the study and did not provide intentional models of Amber's SGD in the home. Vocabulary included high-frequency core words such as help and want (36 symbols) and content vocabulary (over 200 additional symbols) to represent basic needs (e.g., food, bathroom), common things/places in her environment (e.g., park), adjectives (e.g., pretty, little), social conventions (e.g., thank you, hello), and favorite activities and items (e.g., music, headphones). The layout of symbols allowed highfrequency vocabulary to remain visible while navigating to other pages. Results from the Communication Matrix indicated that Amber performed at the concrete symbol level related to obtaining and refusing actions and objects, but the conventional communication level (pre-symbolic) for social and information areas. Amber was able to navigate across screens in her SGD and occasionally used symbols on the SGD spontaneously to obtain her wants (food items) and needs (favorite activities such as music). However, her communication rarely included use of her SGD to engage in social interactions or gain information.

Mom. Megan was a 35-year-old, married, White woman. She had a bachelor's degree and was a stay-at-home mom. She had no formal AAC training prior to the start of the study. Megan selected shared storybook reading as her target activity, which usually took place in the living room and to explore the feasibility of interventions in which more than one family member is trained and coached to use AAC intervention strategies with children with autism (Douglas et al., 2021) .

Given the limited research investigating family-centered capacity-building practices for children who use AAC, this study investigated the effectiveness and social validity of an ALM coaching intervention with both immediate and extended family members. Specifically, we explored the effect of the mother acting as the trainer and coach for other family members. Our primary research question was: Is there a functional relation between a family capacitybuilding coaching intervention and the fidelity and rate with which family members use the ALM strategy during target routine activities? We also had two secondary research questions: (a) Descriptively, are there changes in the proportion of the target child's total independent communication that involves the SGD?; (b) How do family members perceive the social validity of the goals, procedures, and outcomes of ALM training and coaching?

Following institutional research board approval at the first author's institution, participants were recruited for the study through AAC evaluation centers across a mid-western state in the United States. Families who were interested in participating contacted the first author and were screened using the following eligibility criteria: (a) had a child with complex communication needs, 4-8 years old, in the home who had access to a SGD (high-tech dynamic display) and communication skills at the unconventional communication, conventional communication, or concrete symbol level based on the Communication Matrix assessment completed by the primary caregiver (Rowland, 2004; Rowland & Fried-Oken, 2010) ; and (b) had at least four family members, age 8 or older (which was required for experimental control within the single-case design). We report on one family who indicated interest, qualified, and participated in this study which took place in the target child's home.

Participants were the target child, Amber, and five family members: mom, dad, brother, great aunt, and aunt. A second aunt consented to participate in the study, but stopped during baseline because COVID-19 restrictions prevented her from visiting Amber in the home. Four younger siblings, ages 5, 2, and 1 (twins) also lived in the home, but did not

This study began in early March 2020, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, and continued during the pandemic to end in early September 2020. Prior to the start of the study (February 2020), home visits were conducted by the first and fourth author. During home visits, the research team provided further details about the study and conducted study intake, which included: (a) obtaining informed consent; (b) collecting data about participant demographics; (c) collecting copies of the child's Individualized Education Program (IEP), evaluations, medical diagnoses, and private therapy treatment plans, and (d) documenting routine activities in the home with the family participants (e.g., shared reading, play) to identify target activities.

A single case multiple probe design (Ledford & Gast, 2018) was used across five dyads to evaluate the effects of a family-centered capacity-building intervention on family member ALM implementation. This design allowed each family member to serve as their own control. Prior to the start of the study, an iPad was provided to the family with access to Zoom, a secure online video conferencing platform, which allowed us to collect data remotely in the target child's home, at times convenient to each family member. The study was conducted in three phases: baseline, intervention, and maintenance. All data were recorded through Zoom by the fourth author. Sessions occurred about once a week in baseline, twice a week in intervention, and every other week in maintenance. Interaction with the Amber occurred for a mean of 9.5 min (mom 10.2, brother 9.4, dad 9.8, great aunt 9.1, aunt 9.2).

The fourth author, a doctoral student in child development who held a master's degree in special education with an autism certificate and worked under the supervision of the first author, provided training and coaching to Amber's mom, Megan, through Zoom. Megan was provided with online training materials to use with family members. Given the focus on family capacity-building, the intervention involved Megan first meeting criterion for using ALM (i.e., 80% high fidelity), and then carrying out the role of instructional coach with the other family participants. The introduction of the intervention was staggered across family members to ensure experimental control as required by the study design. The fourth author monitored all training and coaching sessions provided by Megan via Zoom to ensure training fidelity.

Baseline data were collected via Zoom during the selected target activity. The fourth author instructed each family participant to interact with Amber as they normally would and used books already available in the home. Target vocabulary for the activity within the study included high-frequency words already programmed within Amber's SGD (e.g., I, want, listen, look, see, sit, read, book, all done, more, next, turn) and words selected by Megan before the study began and during coaching that supported communication with Amber (e.g., first, then, after).

Brother. Brother was a 9-year-old, White boy in the third grade with no prior AAC training. He selected playing with musical toys as the target activity, which took place in the playroom or bedroom. Target vocabulary for the activity within the study included high-frequency words available on the SGD including: I, want, play, my turn, your turn, go, good, help, and words selected before the study relevant to the target activity (e.g., violin, singer, sing, headphone, cars, color, ball, wow) .

Dad. Dad was a 38-year-old, married, White man. He had a bachelor's degree and worked as a delivery driver. Dad had no AAC training prior to the study. He selected music and dancing as the target activity, which usually took place in the living room. At times he also played games and puzzles with Amber. Target vocabulary for the activity within the study included words that were already programmed in the SGD (e.g., want, music, different, help, all done, good, different) , and words selected before the study began related to the target activity (e.g., faster, slower, break, puzzle).

Great Aunt. Great aunt was a 61-year-old, single, White female. Although she did not live in the home with Amber, she visited at least weekly to spend time with the family and provide respite to Amber's mom. She had a high school degree and worked as a secretary. Great aunt selected snack/ mealtime as her target activity, which usually took place in the kitchen. Target vocabulary for the activity within the study included high-frequency words that were already in the SGD (e.g., good, done, water, snack, more, eat, finished, want) , and other vocabulary selected before the study began related to Amber's favorite foods (e.g., banana, applesauce, crackers, juice).

Aunt. Aunt was a 26-year-old, single, White female who did not live in the home with Amber but visited weekly to spend time with the family. She had a bachelor's degree and worked as a correction officer. Aunt selected play (e.g., musical toys, blocks) as her target activity, which took place in the living room or bedroom. Target vocabulary for the activity within the study included high frequency words that were already in the SGD (e.g., your turn, fun, want, play, again, you, try, good) , and other vocabulary selected before the study began related the activity (e.g., music, block).

For the third step, Wait, participants were taught to pause for 3-5 s after each communication turn to allow Amber the opportunity to communicate. Finally, for Respond participants were taught to respond to Amber's communication by fulfilling requests, expanding on, or restating communication. At the end of the training, participants developed a plan specific to their target activity to implement the ALM strategy with Amber.

Intervention Implementation Support for Mom. To support Megan in training and coaching the other family participants, the fourth author provided a 35 min implementation training and follow-up coaching sessions to Megan via Zoom. During the training, the fourth author defined and gave a rationale for coaching family members to support Amber, introduced the steps of coaching, and shared materials to use for coaching and training (i.e., training slides, a training script, and coaching checklists). Implementation training with Megan occurred just before brother entered training. Brother was selected collaboratively by the research team and Megan as the next family member to start intervention because he expressed excitement to the research team and his family to learn how to support Amber's communication. The fourth author observed all training and coaching sessions delivered by Megan to record fidelity and provided supportive and corrective feedback based on the training and coaching she provided to each family participant.

Coaching. Individualized coaching began after completion of the ALM training and occurred approximately twice a week. Coaching was delivered by the fourth author to Megan, and then by Megan to each of the family participants, starting with brother. In all cases, coaching consisted of (a) pre-observation reflection and planning, (b) uninterrupted observation of the family participant interacting with Amber, and (c) post-observation reflection and feedback (Meadan et al., 2016) . At the beginning of each coaching session, the coach guided the family participant in reflecting on their use of ALM since their last session, developed an action plan, and reviewed the ALM strategy. Then, the family participant engaged in the target activity with Amber for approximately 10 min. During post-observation, the coach encouraged the family participant to reflect on their use of ALM and provided positive and corrective feedback. Each family participant received coaching until they demonstrated at least 80% high-fidelity ALM strategy use across three sessions (i.e., the family member modeled the SGD multiple times, and 80% of these instances of modeling included all ALM strategy steps). Coaching sessions, including the 10 min observation, took an average of 18 min (i.e., mom 21 min, brother 20 min, dad 18 min, great aunt 15 min, aunt 17 min). did not provide any feedback before, during, or after the session. The Zoom video for the researcher was turned off during data collection to minimize distraction for Amber and family participants. Amber had her SGD available at each session. Each dyad completed a minimum of five sessions and remained in baseline until data were stable.

Intervention consisted of training and coaching on ALM, delivered either by a researcher over telepractice (for Megan) or by Megan in-person to the other family members. The intervention was the same as in a previous study (Author, 2020) , with the adaptation of Megan providing coaching to other family participants. The training included learning principles appropriate for both child and adult learners (e.g., memory aid, self-reflection, application in natural setting, coaching; Fazey, 1993; Kent-Walsh et al., 2015; Meadan et al., 2016; . Training materials and the protocol used can be obtained by contacting the first author.

ALM Training. The fourth author used Zoom to provide initial training to Megan, who then provided training to each family participant. Training focused on providing ALM using the SGD during the target activity. The training consisted of oral explanation, visual slides, video examples, and discussion. The content in the training was the same for all family participants, but the language for the training was simplified for brother. Minor personal adaptations to the training were made by Megan (e.g., visual supports for brother) to support each family member in their role with Amber and accommodate individual family needs based on development and understanding of the AAC system. Training took an average of 42 min (range = 31-58 min).

Each participant, including Megan herself, was taught to provide ALM using the strategy: Prepare, Show, Wait, and Respond. During Prepare, each participant brainstormed activities or actions that would facilitate opportunities for communication and identified target vocabulary within the activity. During Show, participants learned how to model the SGD within natural interactions with Amber . This included using the SGD to (a) provide a choice, (b) ask a question, (c) comment, or (d) respond to Amber's communication. Explanations and video models were provided to demonstrate: (a) how to place the SGD within Amber's line of sight and within reach when modeling, (b) that SGD models should be at or just above the target child's current communication level, and (c) that SGD models should be accompanied with corresponding grammatically correct spoken language. Given Amber's use of 1-2 symbols within a communication turn when she used the SGD, participants were taught to model 1-3 symbols on the SGD, although the spoken utterances could be longer. of sight and arms reach; use of SGD to provide a choice, question, response, or comment; use of the SGD just at or above Amber's communication level; message spoken verbally, using correct grammar; and pause of at least 3 s before resuming the activity) and (b) rate of behaviors per minute. This was calculated by taking the number of high-fidelity AAC models and dividing it by all AAC models during the session to obtain a rate of high-fidelity models per session. These behaviors were graphed and used for decision making within the single case design. Interest in Amber's communication was secondary to family participants' implementation of the ALM strategy. Two variables were measured for Amber. The first was the rate of independent communication per minute, which was defined as all communication acts that were not imitated or prompted by a partner (i.e., initiations and responses). The second was the proportion of independent communication using the SGD. Although we anticipated that the rate would vary across sessions and might not change as a result of the intervention, we were interested in descriptively evaluating whether Amber's communication would increase and how much was with the SGD. This would represent an important and socially valid outcome because her communication could become more consistently understood by her family members and other partners. To calculate this proportion, we measured the rate of Amber's independent communication using the SGD (i.e., any communication that met the definition for independent and involved the SGD).

Data were coded by the fourth and fifth authors for all dependent variables using a coding form and aforementioned definitions. Prior to coding, training was provided until 90% coding accuracy was demonstrated for all dependent variables (i.e., rate of and fidelity of ALM strategy use by family participants, Amber's rate of independent communication/independent communication using the SGD). Interobserver agreement (IOA) was calculated point by point for start time (within 3 s) of the behavior and by taking the number of agreements divided by the number of agreements plus disagreements and multiplying by 100. IOA was conducted on 38% of sessions, randomly selected across phases and participants (i.e., 40% baseline, 36% intervention, 40% maintenance). IOA for high-fidelity ALM strategy use had a mean of 94% (i.e., mom M = 83%, range = 56-100%; brother M = 100%; dad M = 98%, range = 95-100%; great aunt M = 91%, range = 67-100%; aunt M = 100%). IOA for rate of ALM had a mean of 98% (i.e., mom M = 94%, range = 88-100%; brother M = 100%; dad M = 99%, range = 95-100%; great aunt M = 97%, range = 90-100%; aunt M = 99%, range = 95-100%). IOA

Maintenance sessions were conducted once every two weeks after the completion of the training and coaching. On average, maintenance sessions were approximately 10 min in length (i.e., mom 10 min, brother 9 min, dad 10 min, great aunt 9 min). The coach did not provide feedback before, during, or after the session, and turned off the video in Zoom during the activity. Five maintenance sessions were collected for mom, brother, dad, and great aunt (i.e., week 2, 4, 6, 8, 10). No maintenance data were collected from aunt given the length of the study, delays due to COVID-19, and family's desire to complete the study before the new school year.

A trained research assistant assessed procedural fidelity across all phases and sessions of the study using checklists. Fidelity checklists for baseline and maintenance included five steps (i.e., video recorded target child with family participant, both Amber and the family participant in view of camera, noted when recording started, interaction recorded until complete, researcher did not provide instruction). Procedural fidelity for baseline was 96% range = 80-100% (i.e., both partners were not in view of the camera for part of one session), and 100% for maintenance. The fidelity checklist for ALM training included 26 steps aligned with the content from the training (e.g., explain training format, explain strategy step, show video clip of step in action, discuss/ practice strategy step). Procedural fidelity was 100% for training provided by the fourth author and 100% for training provided by Megan. The training session provided by the fourth author to support Megan in implementation with other family participants included 10 steps (e.g., rationale for coaching, explain coaching steps, provide opportunity to ask questions). Procedural fidelity for training was 100%. The fidelity checklist for coaching included 16 steps aligned with the coaching procedures (e.g., discuss use of ALM since last session, review ALM steps, observe interaction, promote reflection, provide supportive/corrective feedback). Procedural fidelity for coaching to Megan from the fourth author was 100% and for coaching sessions by Megan was 100%. Fidelity checklists can be obtained by contacting the first author.

The primary outcome was family participants' implementation of ALM using Amber's SGD, which was measured using both (a) high-fidelity (i.e., family member engaging in all of the following behaviors: SGD within Amber's line Megan was present to interpret unconventional communication. Interviews were transcribed by a research assistant and coded by the fourth and fifth authors using Wolf's (1978) social validity framework.

Results from this study demonstrate a functional relation between the intervention and family participants' implementation of ALM. An increase in the percentage of highfidelity ALM strategy use and rate of ALM was shown by each family participant (see Fig. 1 ). Amber also increased her proportion of independent SGD use. Participants stated the goals, procedures, and outcomes of the intervention were socially valid and supported family capacity-building.

In baseline, mom showed zero level of high-fidelity ALM strategy use. After training there was an immediate increase in high-fidelity ALM strategy use, with an increasing trend, some variability, and no overlap with baseline. The final three intervention sessions were over 80% high-fidelity for rate of independent communication by Amber had a mean of 92% (i.e., mom M = 83%, range = 57-100%; brother M = 94%, range = 80-100%; dad M = 100%; great aunt M = 86%, range = 70-100%; aunt M = 100%) and 93% for independent communication with the SGD (i.e., mom M = 70%, range = 50-100%; brother M = 100%; dad M = 100%; great aunt M = 100%; aunt M = 100%).

Following the standards for single-case research (Kratochwill et al., 2010; Ledford & Gast, 2018) , we conducted visual analysis to determine if a functional relation existed between training and coaching and family participants' implementation of the ALM strategy. Data were graphed and analyzed visually to evaluate level, trend, variability, immediacy of effect, and overlap of data (Kratochwill et al., 2010) . Decisions related to moving from one phase to another were made based on the primary dependent variable (i.e., high-fidelity ALM strategy use).

Pre-and post-study interviews were conducted with each family participant to assess the social validity of the intervention (i.e., goals, procedures, outcomes). Social validity questions and interview protocol can be obtained by contacting the first author. All interviews were video or audio recorded for transcription. Pre-study interviews were conducted individually during the home visit and questions addressed family participants' day-to-day interactions with Amber (e.g., how they communicated, perceptions of the SGD, challenges), communication goals, desired supports, and expectations/goals related to the intervention. The post-study interview with brother was conducted via Zoom by the fourth author given her rapport with the child. The third author conducted post-study interviews with mom, dad, great aunt, and aunt via Zoom, to reduce the risk of social desirability bias as she had no direct contact with the participants during the intervention. Post-study questions addressed family participants' perceptions of the training and coaching, impact of the intervention, and relevance of the training program to other families. A post-study interview was also conducted via Zoom with Amber by the fourth author, who had rapport with Amber. Two yes/no questions were asked about interactions with each family participant (i.e., Do you like when [name] uses your device to talk with you? Would you like to keep spending time with [name] using your device?). One open-ended question was also asked: Is there anything else you want to tell me about using your device with your family? Amber used her SGD, gestures/signs, and facial expressions to answer questions. Note. Black circles represent the percentage of high-fidelity models by each family member. A black X indicates no modeling within the session. Brother entered the study second because he was excited to learn how to support Amber's communication. The black star in brother's intervention phase indicates when he was shown a graph of his percentage of high-fidelity modeling after two consecutive sessions of low-fidelity modeling. Gray bars represent the rate of modeling by each family member

In baseline, dad demonstrated a zero level of high-fidelity ALM strategy use. After training, there was an immediate, large increase in high-fidelity ALM strategy use and limited variability, with all 3 sessions above 80%. During maintenance, data continued at consistent levels with limited variability for high-fidelity ALM strategy use and a mean lower than intervention (73%). Related to rate, dad demonstrated low rates of ALM in baseline, with a mean of 0.04 per min and a descending trend. An immediate, large increase in rate of ALM was noted after training with a mean of 2.53 per min and some variability, but no overlap with baseline. The overall rate of ALM during maintenance was similar to intervention M = 2.29 per min.

In baseline, great aunt demonstrated a zero level of highfidelity ALM strategy use. After training there was an increase in high-fidelity ALM strategy use with no overlap to baseline, an ascending trend, and an overall mean of 71%. During maintenance, high-fidelity ALM strategy use continued at high levels with a mean of 89%. In baseline, great aunt's rate of ALM was 0.05 per min with limited variability. An increase in rate of ALM was noted after training, with an ascending trend and no overlap with baseline. The rate of ALM during coaching was 1.50 per min. ALM continued at a high level in maintenance (M = 2.26 per min).

In baseline, aunt demonstrated a zero level of high-fidelity ALM strategy use. After training there was an immediate ALM strategy use. During maintenance, high-fidelity ALM strategy use was more variable. There was an initial drop in performance (63% at 2 weeks, 72% at 4 weeks, 50% at 6 weeks), but an increase at week 8 (100%) and 10 (92%). Related to rate, mom had a zero level rate of ALM in baseline. An immediate increase in the rate of ALM occurred after coaching, with some variability. The overall mean rate of ALM during intervention was 1.94 per min. In maintenance the rate of ALM was variable and dropped over time (1.73 at week 2, 1.69 at week 4, 1.73 at week 6, 1.32 at week 8, 1.43 at week 10) with a mean of 1.58 per min.

In baseline, brother demonstrated a zero level of high-fidelity ALM strategy use. After training, there was an increasing trend, with variability and overlap noted for the first session where he had no high-fidelity ALM strategy use. Brother received 9 coaching sessions with an overall mean of 51% for high-fidelity ALM strategy use. During coaching session 3, Megan shared a graph of his data after two low sessions after which his rate of high-fidelity ALM strategy use rose. During maintenance data continued to be variable, but remained above baseline. The overall mean for maintenance was 71%, higher than the intervention mean. Related to the rate of ALM, brother demonstrated zero level during baseline. An immediate increase in the rate of ALM was noted after training with variability, but no overlap with baseline. The overall mean rate of ALM during coaching was 1.38 per min. ALM continued to be variable during maintenance, and the mean dropped to 0.67 per min. participating and learning new ways to communicate with his sister: "I hope it will help her talk more." However, great aunt and aunt said it would be helpful if they were able to practice with mom prior to interacting with Amber because they were less familiar with the SGD. Furthermore, great aunt suggested learning to implement the ALM strategy during other activities: "It might be good if halfway through I had picked another different activity. But I guess I can do that now that it's over, but that might be kind of helpful." Positive outcomes for Amber and family members were also noted in interviews. When Amber was asked if she would like to keep spending time with family members using the SGD, she nodded. All family members shared that the intervention helped them communicate better with Amber. Brother said that "at first I wanted to just play with [the SGD], but now I know it has a job; it's supposed to help." Additionally, all family members indicated growth in Amber's SGD use. Aunt shared: "when we're over there she has the iPad with her and talks with it, and we kind of communicate with her more using it because we kind of know how." Mom also expressed that the intervention "opened up her communication to everybody now rather than just [immediate family]." The dad concurred: "she will grab it [the SGD] and bring it over and start the communication." The mom and the dad also indicated an increase in Amber's vocabulary because she is using the SGD more often. Family capacity-building was noted by mom who shared "I found it to be a lot of fun to be able to coach [family members] in that area and to be able to see them make changes and be able to make more of that connection with Amber." She also noted a difference in family dynamics because Amber "doesn't get upset as quickly." All family members reported they will continue using the ALM strategy with Amber.

Family-centered capacity-building practices can improve quality of life outcomes for children with disabilities and their families by increasing family involvement, improving family member self-efficacy, improving family satisfaction with services, and improving communication and other developmental outcomes for children with disabilities (Dunst et al., 2007) . Despite this, there has been a dearth of research on interventions to build family capacity for children with autism who have limited speech. It is crucial for the field to know how service providers such as speechlanguage pathologists can partner effectively with families for AAC intervention. Speech-language pathologists are often responsible for leading and coordinating AAC intervention with families and with other educators and service providers, but they typically report that this is challenging increase with some variability, but no overlap to baseline and a mean of 69% for high-fidelity ALM strategy use. Maintenance data were not collected for aunt. In baseline, aunt had a zero level rate of ALM. An immediate increase in the rate of ALM was noted after training with some variability and ascending trend, but no overlap with baseline. The rate of ALM during coaching was 1.42 per min. Maintenance data were not collected.

At the beginning of the study Amber demonstrated a low proportion of independent SGD use when compared to overall independent communication in sessions with family participants (M = 7%; range = 0-12%; see Table 1 ). However, a mean increase in the overall proportion of independent SGD was seen for all but one family participant (i.e., aunt) where the proportion remained steady during intervention implementation (M = 15%; range = 3-23%). In maintenance the mean proportion of independent SGD use continued to increase during sessions with brother (+ 7%), dad (+ 9%), and great aunt (+ 12%), but not mom (-7%).

Results from pre-and post-study interviews indicate that family participants found the goals, procedures, and outcomes of the intervention to be socially valid. Although she had a SGD, Amber continued to use sign language as her primary mode of communication. However, this method was challenging for those extended family members. Great aunt expressed "I'm not good at sign language so I have to ask the kids what she's saying." All family members conveyed the need to understand how to communicate effectively with Amber. Aunt described: "It's kind of like our job to help her way of communicating with us." Similarly, dad expressed his desire for the SGD "to be the primary [form of communication] because we can say so much more with it".

Family members found the procedures used during training and coaching to be socially valid and helpful to ALM implementation, while providing some suggestions for improvement. As the primary coach, mom indicated: "The whole process has been a lot of fun to be a part of and to see the growth in her and also everybody who was involved in the study." Mom also indicated that the digital training materials were accessible but she made minor adjustments to accommodate family member needs. Both aunt and great aunt indicated several times during the interviews that they were happy to now feel more confident knowing how to interact with Amber. For example, great aunt said: "It's just wonderful to be able to communicate with her." Similarly, brother expressed enthusiasm throughout the study about feasible models to improve everyday practice (Nahmias et al., 2019) . We suspect a number of elements were important to the success of mom in this role. Some of the most important may have been her interest in serving in this role and that support was given to her not just related to the ALM strategy, but also on training and coaching family members. This intervention approach may not be appropriate for all families. Continued research is especially needed with culturally and linguistically diverse families and families from marginalized backgrounds, such as those living in poverty. Families from different cultural, linguistic, and socio-economic backgrounds may have differing expectations of interactions with young children than the family who participated in the study, different levels and types of competing demands that could impact their time and energy to devote to this type of intervention, and varying levels of comfort with an intervention model where one family member takes on a teaching role.

Results also suggest that family members' integration of the SGD through the ALM strategy was accompanied with modest changes in the proportion of the target child's overall communication using the SGD. It is important to note the secondary nature of this data (i.e., outside experimental control within the study) and that we measured child communication in a contextually bound manner (i.e., within the intervention context), not in a generalized way. Further, variability in rate of the child's communication is expected because of the nature of the natural and unstructured measurement context within the intervention (Yoder et al., 2018) . Although increases in use of the SGD were seen, the primary mode of communication for the child was still sign language within the study. Continued use of sign by Amber is not surprising given this was a method of communication that has been used and accepted within her home for years. Additionally, her family did not discourage the use of sign within the study, continuing to respond to all signs that were recognized. Yet, the increased use of SGD was seen as important to Amber's parents because they wanted her to be able to communicate with family members and individuals in the community who did not know sign language. It is important to recognize that it might take time for children to adjust to different expectations placed by communication partners, including the use a different communication mode (see Douglas et al., 2018a) . Further, the goal of AAC intervention should be to add effective communication modalities and encourage multimodal communication, not to focus on only one modality at the exclusion of others (Beukelman & Light, 2020) . Findings from the analysis of interviews illustrate that these modest changes were practically and socially significant, particularly because many of the family members had difficulty interpreting Amber's communication prior to the intervention due to her use of signs to do (Mandak & Light, 2018) . To address this need, our study investigated the use of a family capacity-building intervention that involved both immediate and extended family members. Results extend existing knowledge across several interrelated bodies of literature (e.g., special education, families of children with disabilities, AAC) and provide important implications for practice and future research.

One of the most important findings and contributions of this research is the demonstration of a functional relation between the intervention and family members' use of ALM as an evidence-based AAC practice. Prior research on natural communication interventions for children with autism or other developmental disabilities have primarily involved mothers, with very little research focused on the involvement of fathers, siblings, or other extended family members, even though these family members have important roles supporting children's communication (Biggs et al., 2019; Flippin & Crais, 2011; Mandak et al., 2017) . In this study, multiple family members were not only able to implement ALM with fidelity after the intervention, but they expressed that the intervention was valuable to them. This research may serve as a potential model for practice. Although research on family coaching models in early intervention and early childhood special education has flourished (Dunst & Espe-Sherwindt, 2016) , there has been far less focus on understanding how services for school-age children can, or should, build family capacity. Descriptive research involving parents of elementary-aged students with disabilities, even across multiple decades, suggests that parents desire family-centered practices (McWilliam et al., 1999; Dunst & Hamby, 2019) . Further, the current context of the COVID-19 pandemic has only amplified the longstanding need for models in which educators and service providers can truly partner with families, particularly as children transition out of early childhood services and into elementary school (Cate et al., 2020; Neece et al., 2020) . There may be an opportunity to re-imagine and implement new, more effective models for serving school-aged students with disabilities through family-centered practices that comes out of the crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

This study also extends prior research on family centered capacity-building models by demonstrating the success of the mother to coach other family members-including extended family members who were important to and close with the family. Amber's mom shared that she enjoyed this role, and the other family members who participated all indicated benefits from the intervention, demonstrating the social validity of this approach for this family. Findings suggest this intervention model holds promise as a strategic way to improve the reach of supports for other families with children with autism who use AAC, especially given the well-documented research to practice gap and need for

There are several important future directions for research and practice. First, we recognize that all families are unique. The findings of this study highlight the reality that familycentered coaching is inherently individualized in nature, which means building on and being responsive to the strengths, needs, and preferences of different family members. In this study, we saw that mom was well-suited for supporting other members because she implemented coaching with fidelity, while also naturally adapting her support to each family member and their needs and other characteristics. Educators and service providers are often reminded that they should acknowledge parents as the experts on their child (e.g., O'Neill & Wilkinson, 2020) . In this study, mom demonstrated she was not only an expert on her child, but also on her family. This leads us to wonder: how might educators and service providers best identify families for whom this model would work, and the central family member who would be skilled in this role? Future research is needed to answer these questions, particularly with families from diverse ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds, and those who do not have a traditional structure.

There are other questions that may also be important to pursue. First, a staggered approach to introducing the intervention is required by multiple probe single-case designs, but this staggered approach may be problematic in practice. Future research should explore variations of this model, such as other family members receiving intervention simultaneously, rather than in the staggered manner. Second, important questions remain about how this model could be scaled to support efficiency and effectiveness across a larger set of families. For special education practice, this study offers implications related to the potential for and benefits of family-centered practices for school-age children. As demonstrated by this study, strategic use of telepractice (i.e., to provide training and support for mom) may be a useful tool. The COVID-19 pandemic has brought about an increased interest in the use of remote technologies to support children with disabilities and their families (Camden & Silva, 2020) . Although it is difficult to predict the future, the now ubiquitous nature of these technologies may create new potential to utilize them after the pandemic to more effectively support children with disabilities and their families. This will create an important need for innovation and creativity for educators, school, and district leaders alike. Though family involvement is mandated by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA), family-centered practices are not as common in the school years as in early childhood. Thus, it is important for the field to consider how family supports can become a central part of educational services for students with disabilities throughout their and idiosyncratic gestures. It is also important to note that although the family had access to Amber's SGD for about a year-and-a-half prior to participating in this intervention study, only mom knew how to use the device, and she lacked confidence integrating it into everyday life. Research has shown that parents describe learning to integrate aided AAC technologies as time consuming, stressful, and overwhelming, particularly when they do not receive adequate training and support (Anderson et al., 2016) .

There are several limitations that should be considered. First, generalization of family members' use of the ALM strategy was not evaluated. During the social validity interviews, some of the family members suggested specifically incorporating use of the ALM strategy to other activities. Thus, future research should evaluate how adaptations to the coaching model could best support family members' generalization of evidence-based strategies such as ALM across different routines and activities. Further, assessment of maintenance was limited in this study, in part because the COVID-19 restrictions that were in place and the single case design which required staggered introduction to the intervention lengthened the duration of the study. Evaluation of long-term maintenance will be important in future investigations. Second, support for mom was provided by a research team member. An important direction for future research is to evaluate the efficacy, acceptability, and feasibility when educational team members such as special education teachers, speech language pathologists, or other service providers provide this support. Third, a strength of the cascading design is that it allowed for the evaluation of a functional relation between the coaching intervention and family members' use of the targeted evidence-based strategy. However, this design also meant that the impact on child communication was addressed as a secondary, rather than primary, research question. Future research is needed to examine children's long-term development of generalized communication skills that might result from family capacity-building interventions such as the intervention evaluated in this study. Additionally, we did not investigate whether the intervention had any impact (positive or negative) on broader outcomes for the family (e.g., family dynamics, sibling relationship, parenting practices, stress, self-efficacy, or family quality of life). Lastly, the coders in our study were not blind to the study purpose. Future research using this intervention should include coders who are naïve to the study purpose and session phase. education. With this, it will be important to remember that family-centered practices need to be culturally relevant and based on the needs and preferences of individual families. This means educators will need to engage with families to understand the types of supports they want, and recognize that a model like this one may not be ideal for all families.

We have no known conflict of interest to disclose

Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis

Strategies used in natural environments to promote communication development in young children at risk for autism spectrum disorder

DEC recommended practices in early intervention

Online communication training for parents of children with autism spectrum disorders

A pilot study to teach siblings to support children with complex communication needs

Online Parent Communication Training for Young Children with Complex Communication Needs

Family-centered practices in early childhood intervention

Parent perspectives of desired and experienced child and family practices in the early elementary grades

Meta-analysis of family-centered help giving practices research. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews

In-Home training for fathers of children with autism: A follow up study and evaluation of four individual training components

Self-assessment as a generic skill of enterprising students: The learning process. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education

The need for more effective father involvement in early autism intervention

A meta-analysis of single case research studies on aided augmentative and alternative communication systems with individuals with autism spectrum disorders

Naturalistic speech-generating device interventions for children with complex communication needs: A systematic review of single-subject studies

Advances in early communication and language intervention

Effects of communication partner instruction on the communication of individuals using AAC: A meta-analysis

The effectiveness of aided augmented input techniques for persons with developmental disabilities: A systematic review. Augmentative and Alternative Communication

Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders

It's got to be more than that". Parents and speech-language pathologists discuss training content for families with a new speech generating device

The effects of telepractice to support family members in modeling a speech generating device in the home

Augmentative and alternative communication: Supporting children and adults with complex communication needs

A scoping review of the involvement of children's communication partners in aided AAC modeling interventions

Systematic review of interventions involving aided AAC modeling for children with complex communication needs

Early communication interventions for young children with intellectual and developmental disabilities: The roles of natural communication partners. International Review of Research in Developmental Disabilities

Ecological systems theory

Pediatric Teleheath: Opportunities Created by the COVID-19 and Suggestions to Sustain Its Use to Support Families of Children with Disabilities. Physical & Occupational Therapy In Pediatrics

Reaffirming key early childhood practices during a pandemic

Effects of interventions that include aided augmentative and alternative communication input on the communication of individuals with complex communication needs: A meta-analysis

Preliminary investigation of the perspectives of parents of children with cerebral palsy on the supports, challenges, and realities of integrating augmentative and alternative communication into everyday life

The role of grandparents in supporting families of children with autism spectrum disorders: A family systems approach

Terms of empowerment/exemplars of prevention: Toward a theory for community psychology

Communication Matrix

Communication Matrix: A clinical and research assessment tool targeting children with severe communication disorders

The proportion of minimally verbal children with autism spectrum disorder in a community-based early intervention programme

A sibling-mediated intervention for children with autism spectrum disorder: Using the natural language paradigm (NLP)

Policies and families and professional partnerships. Families, professionals and exceptionality: Positive outcomes through partnerships and trust

Observational Measurement of Behavior

Publisher's note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations

Single-case designs technical documentation

Single case research methodology: Applications in special education and behavioral sciences

A systematic review of research comparing mobile technology speech-generating devices to other AAC modes with individuals with autism spectrum disorder

Family-centered services for children with complex communication needs: The practices and beliefs of school-based speech-language pathologists

Bridging the gap from values to actions: A family systems framework for family-centered AAC services

Beyond "involvement": Are elementary schools ready to be family-centered?

The cascading coaching model for supporting service providers, caregivers, and children

Families with children who have autism spectrum disorders: Stress and support

Internet-based parent-implemented intervention for young children with autism: A pilot study

Effectiveness of community-based early intervention for children with autism spectrum disorder: A meta-analysis

Examining the impact of COVID-19 in ethnically diverse families with young children with intellectual and developmental disabilities