Dada et al. analyzed the reactions of 9- to 12-year-old children watching videos of a child using an iPad w/ Proloquo2Go vs. a low-tech communication board. The children had a more positive attitude toward the user of the higher-tech AAC, and generally viewed this child as more communicatively competent. See: Dada, S., Horn, T., Samuels, A., & Schlosser, R.W. (2016). Children's attitudes toward interaction with an unfamiliar peer with complex communication needs: comparing high- and low-technology devices. Augmentative and Alternative Communication. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1080/07434618.2016.1216597.
Pullen examined national trends in data on learning disabilities (LD) reported by parents vs. reported by school districts. She found that, despite a “…decline in LD identification in the schools over the last several years after decades of increase," parent report has been comparatively stable. So, basically, schools are reporting a recent sharp decline in LD identification that is not substantiated by what parents are seeing in their children. Dr. Pullen discusses potential reasons for this mismatch. See: Pullen, P. (2016). Prevalence of LD From Parental and Professional Perspectives: A Comparison of the Data From the National Survey of Children’s Health and the Office of Special Education Programs’ Reports to Congress. Journal of Learning Disabilities. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1177/0022219416659447.
Jongman et al. show that sustained attention is challenging for children with specific language impairment (SLI) in both auditory and visual domains. This tells us to be on the lookout for attentional challenges in our kids with SLI. See: Jongman, S. R., Roelofs, A., Scheper, A. R., & Meyer, A. S. (2016), Picture naming in typically developing and language-impaired children: the role of sustained attention. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders. Advance online publication: doi: 10.1111/1460-6984.1227
Schmitt et al. show how dose (how many teaching episodes have you provided in a session) is more important than treatment schedule (how many times per week, or minutes, have you seen the client). They also show that most of us aren’t providing the level of intensity that we likely think we are (or as specified in the IEP), because our per-session does isn’t as high as it could be. This is likely due to both child factors (e.g. disruptive or inattentive behaviors) and SLP factors (efficiency/productivity of treatment varies across clinicians). Schmitt M.B., Justice L.M., Logan J.A. (2016). Intensity of language treatment: contribution to children's language outcomes. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1111/1460-6984.12254