Principles for Speech-Language Pathologists Serving Persons With Mental
Ad Hoc Committee to Review/Revise Current Practice and Policy
Documents Related to Mental Retardation/Developmental Disabilities
About this Document
This technical report was developed by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
(ASHA) Ad Hoc Committee to Review/Revise Current Practice and Policy Documents Related to
Mental Retardation/Developmental Disabilities and was approved by the ASHA Executive Board on
March 14, 2005 (EB 8-2005). Members of the committee included Howard Goldstein (chair), Kevin
Cole, Philip S. Dale, Jon F. Miller, Patricia A. Prelock, Krista M. Wilkinson, and Diane R.
Paul (ex officio). Celia Hooper, ASHA vice president for professional practices in
speech-language pathology (2003–2005), served as the monitoring officer.
The position statement on Roles and Responsibilities of Speech-Language Pathologists
in Service Delivery for Persons With Mental Retardation/Developmental Disabilities by
the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA; in
press-c) emphasizes the critical role that speech-language pathologists (SLPs) play in
ensuring that the communication needs of persons with mental retardation/developmental
disabilities (MR/DD) are met across the life span. This technical report summarizes historical
and scientific progress that provides a basis for understanding why, when, and how SLPs
participate in interdisciplinary teams that are responsible for evaluating and managing the
needs of persons with MR/DD. This report specifically addresses the speech and language needs of
persons with MR/DD. Although many individuals with developmental disabilities have deficits in
hearing, feeding, and swallowing functions for which SLPs may provide services, evaluation and
management strategies for these functions are beyond the scope of this report. Further
information on these important topics is available in other ASHA Technical Reports (ASHA, 2001a, 2002). The
Roles and Responsibilities of Speech-Language Pathologists Serving Persons With Mental
Retardation/Developmental Disabilities: Guidelines document was developed by the
committee to provide further information and guidance on the implementation of the roles and
responsibilities outlined in the position statement (ASHA, in
press-c). Further, the recommended Knowledge and Skills Needed by
Speech-Language Pathologists Serving Persons With Mental Retardation/Developmental
Disabilities are presented in a companion document (ASHA, in press-a).
In this technical report, a historical perspective is provided to show a context for the
principles that represent societal, legal, and philosophical perspectives on MR/DD. Over the
past 30 years, the lives of individuals with mental retardation and other developmental
disabilities have changed dramatically. Significant progress has been made in understanding the
potential of these individuals to participate more fully and function more independently in
schools, jobs, and communities. As we continue to discover new strategies and to capitalize on
the blending of effective strategies to better serve this population, we are sure to witness
greater contributions and improved quality of life among individuals with MR/DD. This report
summarizes current scientific knowledge and recommended practices that are most critical to
serving persons with MR/DD. For further information on teaming, identification and eligibility,
assessment and goal setting, intervention, advocacy and education, and research, please consult
the ASHA guidelines for serving persons with MR/DD (ASHA, in
Return to Top
The terminology used to refer to persons with developmental disabilities has undergone many
revisions and is defined differently by various organizations. Issues related to diagnostic
labels are discussed in the MR/DD service delivery guidelines (ASHA, in press-b). Developmental disability is defined in PL 106-402
(2000) as a severe, chronic disability of an individual, with an onset before 22 years of age,
that results in substantial functional limitations in three or more areas of life activity. It
can be attributable to mental or physical impairment, so intellectual limitations are not
necessarily associated with a developmental disability. Mental retardation is
generally considered to be a subset of the larger category of developmental disability (Batshaw, 2002). Commonalities in various systems for diagnosing
mental retardation include onset in childhood and presence of intellectual limitations. The term
developmental delay is commonly used as a temporary diagnosis in young
children at risk for developmental disabilities. It indicates a failure to achieve
age-appropriate developmental milestones (Petersen, Kube,
& Palmer, 1998). More severe impairments are more likely to result in early
identification of a developmental disability (Daily, Ardinger,
& Holmes, 2000).
The National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities estimates that about 17%
of U.S. children under 18 years of age have a developmental disability; approximately 2% of
school-aged children in the United States have a serious developmental disability, such as
mental retardation or cerebral palsy. The prevalence rate for identified mental retardation is
much less. It is estimated to be about 1.2%, which is about half of the 2.5% predicted by the
normal distribution model (Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, 2004; McLaren & Bryson, 1987;
Roeleveld, Zielhuis, & Gabreels, 1997; Yeargin-Allsopp, Murphy, Oakley, & Sikes, 1992).
Return to Top
Prior to the 1960s, private agencies and federal and state governments showed little interest
in services for individuals with MR/DD. Few professionals were employed to provide speech,
language, hearing, feeding, and swallowing services to individuals with mental retardation. The
prevailing attitude was that individuals with intellectual disabilities did not benefit from
such services (Matthews, 1957, 1971; Perkins, 1971; West, Kennedy, & Carr, 1947). Federal support for
research and training in MR/DD, as well as legislation leading to deinstitutionalization, began
to recognize the rights and potential of individuals with MR/DD. These governmental actions both
reflected and facilitated a broader attitudinal change toward the role of individuals with MR/DD
in society. The following sections explore changes that led to significant advances in service
delivery for this population.
Return to Top
During the administrations of Presidents John Fitzgerald Kennedy and Lyndon Baines Johnson
(1960–1968), the New Frontier and Great Society programs, as well as the growing
“community conscience” of the American people, fostered the notion that
individuals with disabilities should receive more services. As perceptions began to change,
legislation and philanthropic foundations provided funds to explore the needs, nature, and
suitability of services for this population. In 1967, Congress authorized funds for the Bureau
of Education for the Handicapped (BEH) within the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
Through BEH and subsequent programs in the U.S. Department of Education (Office of Special
Education & Rehabilitative Services), funds were allocated to the states to develop and
provide educational programs for individuals with handicaps.
Several critical federal programs began funding research and training focusing on MR/DD in the
early 1960s. The Association of University Centers on Disabilities (AUCD) (formerly the American
Association of University Affiliated Programs for Persons with Developmental Disabilities) is a
501(c) nonprofit organization that promotes and supports the national network of university
centers on disabilities, which includes Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities
Research Centers (MRDDRCs), University Centers for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities
Education, Research, and Service (UCEDDs), and Leadership Education in Neurodevelopmental and
Related Disabilities (LEND) programs. These centers are among the institutions who prepare
personnel to conduct and disseminate quality research advancing our knowledge of MR/DD.
Investigators in these centers and programs are engaged in a very important
mission—training the next generation of scientific investigators and clinicians.
MRDDRCs are a national resource that grew out of a congressional mandate in 1963 to establish
centers of excellence in MR/DD research. About 14 centers represent the nation's
sustained effort to prevent and treat disabilities through biomedical and behavioral research.
Today, MRDDRCs represent the world's largest concentration of scientific expertise in
the fields of intellectual and developmental disabilities. MRDDRCs are located within premier
research universities and/or are affiliated with major medical centers that provide academic and
scientific expertise as well as institutional support. MRDDRC activities represent a
multidisciplinary, vigorous, and innovative research agenda on developmental disabilities.
Although a significant portion of the research portfolios at the centers consist of basic
studies that are fundamental to an understanding of the biological and behavioral processes in
animal models and human participants, each center directs considerable attention toward seeking
solutions to practical issues and problems. The scope of the research conducted at the centers
encompasses every major dimension of mental retardation.
UCEDDs were first authorized in October 1963, when President Kennedy signed Public Law 88-164
and Public Law 88-156. Kennedy created the President's Panel on Mental Retardation,
which crafted a comprehensive and multifaceted report on the disability field. The concept of
University Affiliated Facilities (now UCEDDs) for interdisciplinary training came from the
recommendations of this report. Availability of federal funds provided the impetus for
institutions of higher education to advocate for persons with MR/DD, to provide clinical
services, and to prepare clinicians and researchers. There are more than 60 UCEDDs, with at
least 1 in every state and territory in the United States, that are part of the AUCD.
LEND programs were established in 1993 by the Maternal & Child Health Bureau to
provide long-term, graduate-level interdisciplinary training to health professionals. The
purpose was to develop leadership potential to improve the health status of infants, children,
and adolescents with or at risk for neurodevelopmental and related disabilities, and to enhance
the systems of care for these children and their families. The programs focus on health
conditions of mental retardation, neurodegenerative and acquired neurological disorders, and
multiple handicaps. All LEND programs operate within a university system and have collaborative
arrangements with local university hospitals, children's hospitals, and/or health care
centers. In 2004, 36 LEND programs in 29 states provided critically needed leadership and
clinical training to professionals. LEND programs emphasize leadership development in their
trainees and produce leaders for interdisciplinary treatment of children with developmental
disabilities. Thus, the LEND programs are another part of the AUCD network that seeks to improve
the lives of persons with developmental disabilities and their families.
Return to Top
The 1970s saw the initiation of many critical advances in laws governing delivery of services
to individuals with disabilities. Collectively, these laws, highlighted in Table 1, mandated far-reaching changes in services by
prohibiting discrimination against individuals with disabilities and requiring the provision of
needed services in the least restrictive environment. As a result, people of all ages with
developmental disabilities are now eligible for speech, language, hearing, feeding, and
swallowing services in diverse facilities where such services were previously not available.
Table 1. Summary of federal laws responsible for changes in services for persons with MR/DD.
||The Education for All Handicapped Children's Act (PL 94-142)
||Rehabilitation, Comprehensive Services, & Developmental Disabilities Amendments
of 1978 (PL 95-602)
||The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 (PL 101-336)
Provided civil rights protection to persons with disabilities in the area of
employment, public accommodations, government services
Prohibited discrimination on the basis of disabilities
||Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act Amendments (PL 103-230)
Provided assistance to ensure that all persons with developmental disabilities receive
the services, assistance, and opportunities necessary to enable them to achieve their
Enhanced the role of the family in assisting persons with developmental
||Technology-Related Assistance for Individuals with Disabilities Act Amendments of 1994
(PL 100-407 & PL 103-218)
||Policy Directive of the Federal Rehabilitative Services Administration (RSA PD 97-04 of
the Department of Education)
||The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997 (PL 105-71)
Required that states provide a free and appropriate public education to children ages
3–21 years old who have a disability
Special education and related services provided at public expense and in the least
The legal changes and the process of deinstitutionalization have each had an impact both on
where individuals with MR/DD reside and where their educational services are provided. The legal
mandate that services should be provided in the “least restrictive
environment” was initiated in 1975, with the adoption of Public Law 94-142. This
legislation provided the impetus for serving most school-aged individuals with MR/DD within
public school settings. Subsequent legislation has emphasized service delivery in natural
environments that include typical peers. This has implications across the life span as many
adults with MR/DD transition into community-based living settings.
In 1996, an estimated 3.17 million people in the United States had developmental disabilities
(Braddock, 1999). Of these 3.17 million, 60% lived with a
caregiver, 15% lived with a spouse, 13% lived in their own household, and 12% lived in a
residential facility. Of those living with a caregiver, 40% were under 41 years of age, 35% were
between the ages of 41 and 59, and 25% were over 60 years old (Braddock, 1999).
Public spending for MR/DD services rose from $8.84 billion in 1977 to $29.3 billion in 2000,
reflecting a change from institution-based service systems to community-based service systems
(Hemp, Parish, Braddock, & Smith, 2001; Hemp, Rizzolo, & Braddock, 2002). Between 1977 and
2000, the number of individuals with MR/DD living in large state facilities declined from
151,112 to 47,329 (Smith, Prouty, Polister, Kwak, &
Lakin, 2001). The percentage of children in these facilities (ages 0–21
years) declined from 35.8% to 4.5%, while the percentage of adults between the ages of 40 and 62
years rose from 19.2% to 52.7% (Smith et al., 2001). Over
this period, residents of state facilities were increasingly likely to have severe impairments
or coexisting psychiatric conditions (Smith et al.,
Return to Top
The legislative changes discussed above were critically important in altering the legal status
of individuals with MR/DD. They reflected and stimulated general social and institutional
acceptance of the rights of persons with MR/DD (National Joint
Committee for the Communicative Needs of Persons with Severe Disabilities, 1992). These
changes over the last 30 years have resulted in (a) a new level of respect for the person beyond
the disability, (b) recognition of the importance communication plays in making choices and life
decisions for individuals with MR/DD, (c) increased access or eligibility for services
regardless of cognitive functioning, (d) involvement of families in the assessment and
program-planning process, (e) services that are individualized and appropriate, (f) inclusion of
culturally and linguistically appropriate practices in the assessment and intervention planning
for individuals with MR/DD from diverse groups, (g) opportunities for interactions with a
variety of individuals in natural environments, and (h) knowledge of prevention practices. Each
of these rights for individuals with MR/DD leads to principles that guide the roles and
responsibilities of SLPs in their service provision to persons with MR/DD.
Return to Top
Principle: SLPs play an important role in promoting communication abilities that
further the independence and self-advocacy of persons with MR/DD.
One of the major shifts in the early 1980s was a move toward
“person-first” language, reflecting the idea that the disability does
not define the person. Terms like individuals with mental retardation and/or
individuals with intellectual disability have replaced the older terms of
mentally retarded persons or the mentally retarded.
In addition, professionals and advocates of people with mental retardation sought to balance
discussions of limitations of individuals with MR/DD with an equal emphasis on their skills.
Consequently, language and philosophy concerning MR/DD began to focus on levels of support
necessary to maximize an individual's ability, rather than simply on deficits in
functioning (American Association on Mental Retardation,
2002). This new emphasis is reflected in the evolution of the definition of mental
retardation offered by the American Association on Mental Retardation (AAMR) and is discussed
in the Roles and Responsibilities of Speech-Language Pathologists Serving Persons With
Mental Retardation/Developmental Disabilities: Guidelines document (ASHA, in press-b).
Return to Top
Principle: Like all people, persons with MR/DD have a basic right to influence their
life circumstances through communication.
The need to develop and maintain functional communication to maximize self-sufficiency in
individuals with MR/DD has become even more critical in light of the fundamental principles
underlying the legal and residential changes over the past 30 years. Greater communication
demands are apparent as persons with MR/DD reside in the community and interact with peers.
Functional communication skills are necessary to establish and maintain an adequate quality of
life within the variety of community-based settings now being used as least restrictive
Functional communication consists of far more than speech. Gestures, visual symbols, and
early signs are valid means by which individuals can share thoughts, communicate needs, and
establish social closeness. Substantial evidence supports the importance of early nonspeech
communication behaviors in setting the stage for later language outcomes in both typically and
atypically developing children (Bruner, 1983; Calandrella & Wilcox, 2000; McCathren, Warren, & Yoder, 1996, McCathren, Yoder, & Warren, 1999; McLean
& Snyder-McLean, 1987; Mundy, Kasari, Sigman,
& Ruskin, 1995; Paul, Looney, & Dahm,
1991; Thal & Tobias, 1992; Wetherby, Allen, Cleary, Kublin, & Goldstein, 2002).
Nonspeech communication systems, and particularly augmentative and alternative modes, have
allowed many individuals with even the most severe cognitive and communication needs access to
functional communication (see Reichle, Beukelman, &
Light, 2002; Romski & Sevcik, 1996).
Understanding the broad functions of nonspeech modes also has led to greater understanding of
the potential communication functions of challenging behaviors (e.g., Reichle & Wacker, 1993). Common challenging behaviors include
aggressive, disruptive, self-injurious, and stereotypic behaviors. Various service delivery
models are now available to replace challenging or inappropriate behavior with socially
acceptable communication behavior in individuals with diverse forms of developmental
disabilities (Fox, Dunlap, & Buschbacher, 2000;
Reichle & Wacker, 1993; Wacker, Berg, Harding, & Asmus, 1996). SLPs have an essential role in
educating team members about the communication functions of such behaviors and developing
methods for replacing them with other forms of communication behavior.
Return to Top
Principle: Individuals with MR/DD of all ages are eligible for SLP services when
enhancement of communication skills is needed to function effectively in their everyday lives,
regardless of age or cognitive level relative to communication abilities.
Eligibility is another area that has continued to evolve as the rights of individuals with
MR/DD have been increasingly well-recognized (National Joint
Committee for the Communications Needs of Persons with Severe Disabilities, 1992).
Beginning with the Developmental Disabilities Services and Facilities Act of 1970 (PL 91-517),
eligibility rules for service delivery for both MR and DD populations have undergone widespread
change (e.g., Hauber, 1984; Kohlenberg et al., 1996; Whitney-Thomas,
Timmons, Gilmore, & Thomas, 1999).
SLPs do not withhold services based on a priori criteria that preclude consideration of
individual needs, preferences, and priorities for communication. Unfortunately, there are
“eligibility” criteria commonly used to deny access to services,
despite the absence of scientific evidence for their appropriateness, and indeed in some cases,
contrary to evidence that they are specifically inappropriate (National Joint Committee for the Communication of Persons with Severe Disabilities,
2003a, 2003b). These criteria, which cause concern
when applied without regard to individual needs, include (a) discrepancies between cognitive
and communication functioning, (b) chronological age, (c) diagnosis, (d) absence of cognitive
or other skills purported to be prerequisites, (e) failure to benefit from previous
communication services and supports, and (f) restrictive interpretations of educational,
vocational, and/or medical necessity.
Criterion (a) is of special importance due to its widespread implementation. In many current
situations, SLPs are not allowed to include persons with mental retardation on their active
caseloads if measured language skills are commensurate with measured cognitive level. As many
as 31 of the 50 state education departments require SLPs to consider a child's IQ
score as well as language performance in determining eligibility for language intervention
(Casby, 1992). This eligibility framework of
“cognitive referencing” rests on the assumption that language skills
cannot improve beyond cognitive ability. Cognitive referencing is not an appropriate criterion
for eligibility decisions. The relation between language and cognition is complex (Rice & Kemper, 1984), so that measures of discrepancy
have little reliability across time or across specific language and cognitive measures (Cole & Fey, 1996; Cole,
Mills, & Kelly, 1994; Krassowski &
Plante, 1997). Even more relevant is the finding that language intervention benefits
children with MR/DD even when no language-cognition discrepancy exists (Carr & Felice, 2000; Cole, Dale,
& Mills, 1990; Warren, Gazdag, Bambara,
& Jones, 1994; see ASHA, 2004a
[Admission/Discharge Criteria in Speech-Language Pathology]). In two studies comparing the
response to intervention of children with and without cognitive delays who had unmet
communication needs, the children with cognitive delays actually made greater
gains in response to language intervention than did children with cognitive skills developed
above their language ability (Cole, Coggins, &
Vanderstoep, 1999; Fey, Long, & Cleve,
1994). Thus, the cognitive referencing model is an unstable predictor of
children's ability to benefit from language intervention, and it may at times predict
in the wrong direction. These inappropriate substantive criteria for excluding individuals from
services must be addressed by educating decision makers through advocacy efforts.
Another source of inappropriately reduced access to services is resource limitations.
However, the lack of trained personnel or a lack of adequate funds or other resources does not
justify denial of services. It is inappropriate for persons with MR/DD to dis-proportionately
experience reduced services.
Return to Top
Principle: SLPs ensure that decisions about team members, service delivery models and
settings, and how services are delivered are based on the individual needs and preferences of
persons with MR/DD and their families. Families and persons with MR/DD are integral to the
assessment process and are pivotal decision makers in determining specific goals and
objectives and how clinical services should be provided.
SLPs have recognized the essential role that families play in all aspects of service, from
assessment through implementation. Families are considered here from a life span perspective.
Therefore, “family” may include parents, guardians, spouses, and
caregivers. Family members have unique expertise and insight to offer that cannot be obtained
through formal or informal testing by a professional, no matter how skilled. Family-centered
practices provide the support and resources families need to promote children's
development and create meaningful learning opportunities (Dunst,
1999; Trivette & Dunst, 2000; Trivette, Dunst, & Hamby, 1996). Further, involving
the families in the care of their children improves health and developmental outcomes, enhances
the learning of children with special needs, and increases satisfaction among providers (Eichner & Johnson, 2003; Horst, Werner, & Werner, 2000; Hutchfield, 1999; Letourneau & Elliott,
1996; Thies & McAllister, 2001).
Family-centered service models have been implemented with success (e.g., Prelock, Beatson, Contompasis, & Bishop, 1999) and are discussed
further in the ASHA MR/DD guidelines (ASHA, in press-b).
As persons with MR/DD mature, adults with MR/DD should experience an increased role in decision
making in identifying services that are needed to enhance communication functioning, often in
conjunction with their changing “family” constellation.
Family-centered care is particularly suited to individuals with MR/DD and their families
because of the complexity of their health and educational issues across settings and over time.
Individuals with MR/DD demonstrate persistent adaptive impairments often requiring them to live
at home or to have substantial family support. Therefore, families become key decision makers
and are recognized and valued for the knowledge and skills they bring to program planning and
implementation (Arango, 1999; Cooley & McAllister, 1999; Dunst,
Trivette, & Deal, 1994).
Return to Top
Principles: SLPs select assessment and intervention goals that have a meaningful impact
on social, behavioral, emotional, academic, and vocational functioning within a variety of
settings (e.g., residential, school, community, and work settings).
Consequently, team members and SLPs adapt their service delivery to changes in the
strengths, needs, preferences, and priorities for communication in persons with MR/DD and
their changing life circumstances.
The group of people designated as “persons with MR/DD” is not
homogeneous. Behavioral profiles across individuals or even etiologies are not similar or
predictable from the diagnostic category (e.g., Dykens, Hodapp,
& Finucane, 2000). Like all individuals, people with MR/DD are unique and
possess their own personal likes, dislikes, strengths, and needs, which can change over time
and across living environments (Zigler, 2001).
Recognition and measurement of individual variability in personality across individuals,
etiologies, or diagnostic categories are essential to understanding and responding to clients
with mental retardation as functioning individuals (Zigler,
2002; Zigler, Bennett-Gates, Hodapp, & Henrich,
2002). The increasing recognition of the unique contributions of individuals with
disabilities in deciding issues of care and service is well exemplified in the
“self-determination” movement (Malian
& Nevin, 2002). Personality characteristics likely play an important role in
the outcomes of such self-determined decision making, including those made by people with MR/DD
(e.g., Switzky, 2001). Further, adaptation of service
provision to the rich contexts in which individuals with MR/DD are now included is essential in
light of the shift from residential services to community settings and the mandate to educate
individuals with MR/DD within the least restrictive environment (e.g., Nevin, Malian, & Williams, 2002). SLPs recognize the importance of
individual variability, including personality differences, among individuals with the diagnosis
Return to Top
Principle: SLPs provide communication assessment and intervention services and supports
that honor and adapt to differences in families, cultures, languages, and resources.
The critical notion of culture and its contributions to the construct of
“retardation” have been increasingly realized since the 1980s (Manion & Bersani, 1987). One important insight is the
idea that what is behaviorally normative within one culture may not reflect the norms of
another culture. In light of the increasing emphasis on adaptive behavior as an essential
component of identification, it becomes essential to consider differences in expectations about
what constitutes normative or atypical behavior. Using a culturally appropriate frame of
reference in assessment and diagnosis has become an explicit component of the AAMR (2002) definition of mental retardation.
A further variable that is of ever-increasing importance in the United States is the problem
of over- or underidentification due to the increasing linguistic diversity within the
population. With increasing numbers of Limited English Proficiency (LEP) students entering
school in the United States, it is crucial that SLPs have the knowledge and skills required to
deliver appropriate services to these populations in general and to people with MR/DD in
particular. Given the absence of tests specifically designed for many culturally and
linguistically diverse populations, this problem will only increase. For both of these reasons,
SLPs need to be aware of the critical importance of cultural considerations in identifying
adaptive functioning as well as assessment and treatment goals. Service delivery decisions are
made based on the individual's communication needs relative to their family,
community, school, or work settings.
Return to Top
Principle: Communication intervention focuses on the context of interactions with the
variety of individuals that persons with MR/DD encounter in their natural
A variety of intervention strategies have been empirically validated, mainly with children in
classroom and home settings, including incidental language teaching, enhanced milieu treatment,
environmental arrangement, caregiver-child responsive interactions, response prompting and
shaping, mand-model procedures, time delay, and the use of specialized materials (Hepting & Goldstein, 1996). Teaching communication in
the context of children's natural environments has several advantages. Typical peers
serve as models for appropriate communication skills (Goldstein,
English, Shafer, & Kaczmarek, 1997; Goldstein
& Kaczmarek, 1992; Guralnick, 1976; Guralnick & Paul-Brown, 1989; Paul-Brown & Caperton, 2001). Furthermore, typical peers have been
shown to be quite effective when taught strategies to promote social communication in
classmates with MR/DD (Goldstein & Cisar, 1992;
Goldstein & Gallagher, 1992; Guralnick, 1990, 1994,
2001; Guralnick &
Neville, 1997; Strain & Kohler, 1998).
SLPs can take advantage of the high motivation inherent when individuals are requesting desired
items and activities present in the natural environment. This approach can capitalize on the
numerous teaching and learning opportunities that occur throughout the day within a variety of
routines and activities. Although the bulk of this research has been conducted with children,
these principles can be applied across the life span (Fryxell
& Kennedy, 1995; Hughes, 1999; Kennedy, Cushing, & Itkonen, 1997; Newton & Horner, 1993; Newton, Olson, Horner, & Ard, 1996; Shukla,
Kennedy, & Cushing, 1999; Souza &
Kennedy, 2003). SLP services are thus likely to involve teaching caregivers, teachers,
and others to embed communication intervention strategies at childcare, school, or job
settings; in the car, yard, laundromat, or doctor's office; at the park or the soccer
game; at home, grandma's house, or the neighbor's house; or anywhere families
go (Woods-Cripe & Venn, 1997). Finally, teaching
in natural environments lessens the need to program for generalization from clinical settings
to classroom, home, vocational, and community settings and communication partners.
Although there are few studies targeting adult peer interactions, those that exist reinforce
the need for ongoing support and highlight the utility of programs designed to enhance
interactions among adults. Studies that have evaluated the naturally occurring socialization
patterns of adults with MR/DD illustrate the need for ongoing support. For instance, although
adults with MR/DD engage in a core group of community leisure activities, the number of such
activities is fewer for these individuals than for matched adults without disabilities (Hoge & Datillo, 1995). Importantly, the nature of peer
relationships may vary as a function of supports available. In several studies, individuals
with mild levels of intellectual disability who received services were reported to have friends
and engage in social activities, although most if not all of those friends were other
individuals with MR/DD rather than nondisabled individuals (Koller, Richardson, & Katz, 1988; Rosen
& Burchard, 1990). Adults who were not receiving services any longer had fewer
friends and socialized less often than nondisabled individuals (Koller et al., 1988). These studies highlight that enriched social functioning may not
occur without support for adults with MR/DD.
Interventions designed to enhance peer interactions in the settings in which adults live,
work, or socialize have demonstrated that continued support can lead to enriched social
functioning. For example, Hooper (2001) described the
utility of music therapy to encourage peer interactions among four room-mates with MR/DD.
Improved interactions in the workplace resulted from interventions, such as job coaching,
partner training, social facilitation, and creation of a communication device (Mautz, Storey, & Certo, 2001). Peer interaction is
therefore a lifespan issue, and programming to enhance such interactions is as important for
adults as it is for children and adolescents.
Return to Top
Principle: SLPs provide preventive services and advocate for appropriate communication
services for persons with MR/DD through the life span.
SLPs take seriously their role as advocates for people with MR/DD, including their role in
prevention of communication impairment. Prevention is included within the ASHA scope of
practice and preferred practice patterns for SLPs and audiologists (ASHA, 1997, 2001b, 2004b, 2004c). A tutorial document from
ASHA (1991) outlines ways to develop prevention efforts.
Levels of prevention have been categorized into primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention
Primary prevention entails “the elimination or inhibition of the
onset and development of communication disorder by altering susceptibility or reducing exposure
for susceptible persons” (ASHA, 2000, p. 17).
SLPs may be involved in educational efforts through their participation at PTA meetings, health
fairs, and other forums. Topics relevant to preventing mental retardation and developmental
disabilities include information about prenatal care, immunizations, lead exposure, drug and
alcohol exposure, and the need for genetic counseling for families with a history of Fragile X
and other syndromes.
Secondary prevention is the early detection and treatment of communication
disorders. “Early detection and treatment may lead to the elimination of the
disorder or the retardation of the disorder's progress, thereby preventing further
complications” (ASHA, 2000, p. 18). SLPs can
optimize communication development through activities such as child find services for early
identification of children with MR/DD as well as advocate for increased opportunities for
children with MR/DD to participate in child care programs with typical children. SLPs may
provide information to community professionals about the communication challenges people with
MR/DD face in school and the community, about potential benefits of augmentative and
alternative communication systems, and about identification and management issues associated
Tertiary prevention is the reduction of a disability by attempting to
restore effective functioning through rehabilitation. This is the traditional role of the SLP
providing services to persons with MR/DD to achieve optimum communication functioning. The SLP
is preventing associated problems (e.g., challenging behavior, academic failure) that may
result from a communication disorder. Tertiary prevention for persons with MR/DD does not mean
automatic service provision based on etiology alone. A range of performance can be expected for
each etiological category and only careful assessment will reveal the nature of the
communication challenges and suggest productive intervention approaches.
Paul (2001) included an additional category,
preventive intervention (sometimes subsumed under secondary prevention),
which focuses on early intervention for children who are at high risk of communication
disorders because of specific biological, environmental, or behavioral conditions. Risk factors
such as teenage motherhood, drug exposure of the fetus, or preterm birth with low birth weight
may provide justification for the SLP to provide or refer families for services. Preventive
intervention services include attending community classes on parenting, parent-baby play
groups, or more intensive training on strategies for promoting child development, social
interaction, or responsive communication. New screening procedures are being developed for a
variety of genetic and metabolic conditions in newborns precisely so that early interventions
can be implemented to prevent long-term disability. For example, SLPs and rehabilitation
audiologists are being involved in preventive intervention as they are asked with increasing
frequency to serve families of children with significant hearing impairments, as states are
implementing newborn hearing screening programs. Preventive intervention addresses risk factors
that may exacerbate poor developmental outcomes in persons with MR/DD.
Return to Top
Over the past 30 years, the lives of persons with MR/DD have changed dramatically. Public laws
regarding equal access to education and individualized family and educational plans have
reshaped educational outcomes, increasing opportunities for employment and independent living.
Research on communication continues to uncover ability and learning potential. Research has
shifted from studies of mental retardation as a classification to studies of specific etiologies
documenting unique learning profiles for different syndromes, continued communication
development beyond adolescence, and changes associated with intervention into adulthood (Abbeduto, 2003).
Public perception of persons with MR/DD also is changing, providing a community environment of
respect that will certainly lead to more opportunities for community integration. The importance
of communication in decision making and life choices is recognized. Access to individualized
services that are culturally and linguistically appropriate regardless of cognitive ability is
improving and family participation in assessment and treatment planning is required. Community
based living provides more opportunity for communicating with a variety of individuals,
improving the quality of life and offering new learning opportunities. In 30 years, residential
facilities have emptied, spawning new educational and community programs, employment
opportunities, and more independent living options. We are just beginning to understand the
potential of persons with MR/DD when educational and community access is optimal. Perhaps the
next 30 years will produce equally dramatic advances in opportunities for persons with MR/DD to
thrive in our society.
Return to Top
Abbeduto, L. (2003). Language and communication in mental retardation. New York: Elsevier/ Academic Press.
American Association on Mental Retardation. (2002). Mental retardation: Definition, classification, and systems of support (10th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (1991). Prevention of communication disorders. Asha, 30(3), 90.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (1997). Preferred practice patterns for the profession of audiology. Rockville, MD: Author.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2000). Prevention curriculum guide for audiologists and speech-language pathologists. Rockville, MD: Author.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2001a). Roles of speech-language pathologists in swallowing and feeding disorders:
Technical report. ASHA 2002 Desk Reference, 3, 181–199.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2001b). Scope of practice in speech-language pathology. Rockville, MD: Author.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2002, April). Roles of speech-language pathologists in swallowing and feeding disorders:
Position statement. ASHA Leader, 7(Suppl. 22), 73.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2004a). Admission/discharge criteria in speech-language pathology. ASHA Supplement, 24, 65–70.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2004b, November). Preferred practice patterns for the profession of speech-language pathology. Rockville, MD: Author.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2004c). Scope of practice in audiology. Rockville, MD: Author.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. Knowledge and skills needed by speech-language pathologists serving persons with mental
retardation/developmental disabilities (in press-a). Rockville, MD: .
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. Roles and responsibilities of speech-language pathologists serving individuals with
mental retardation/developmental disabilities: Guidelines (in press-b). Rockville, MD: Author.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. Roles and responsibilities of speech-language pathologists in service delivery for
persons with mental retardation and developmental disabilities: Position statement (in press-c). Rockville, MD: Author.
Arango, P. (1999). A parent's perspective on family-centered care. Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 20, 123–124.
Batshaw, M. L. (Ed.). (2002). Children with disabilities (5th ed.). Baltimore: Brookes.
Braddock, D. (1999). Aging and developmental disabilities: Demographic and policy issues affecting
American families. Mental Retardation, 37(2), 155–161.
Bruner, J. (1983). Child's talk. New York: Norton.
Calandrella, A. M., & Wilcox, M. J. (2000). Predicting language outcomes for young prelinguistic children with developmental
delay. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 43, 1061–1071.
Carr, D., & Felice, D. (2000). Application of stimulus equivalence to language intervention with severe
linguistic disabilities. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 25, 181–205.
Casby, M. (1992). The cognitive hypothesis and its influence on speech-language services in the
schools. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 23, 198–202.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2004). Economic costs associated with mental retardation, cerebral palsy, hearing loss,
and vision impairment—United States, 2003. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 53(3), 57–59.
Cole, K., Coggins, T., & Vanderstoep, C. (1999). The influence of language/cognitive profile on discourse intervention outcome. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 30, 61–67.
Cole, K. N., Dale, P. S., & Mills, P. E. (1990). Defining language delay in young children by cognitive referencing: Are we
saying more than we know? Applied Psycholinguistics, 11, 291–302.
Cole, K. N., & Fey, M. E. (1996). Cognitive referencing in language assessment. In K. N. Cole, P. S. Dale, & D. J. Thal (Eds.), Assessment of communication and language (pp. 143–159). Baltimore: Brookes.
Cole, K., Mills, P., & Kelly, D. (1994). Agreement of assessment profiles used in cognitive referencing. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 25, 25–31.
Cooley, W. C., & McAllister, J. W. (1999). Putting family-centered care into practice—A response to the
adaptive practice model. Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 20, 120–122.
Daily, D. K., Ardinger, H. H., & Holmes, G. E. (2000). Identification and evaluation of mental retardation. American Family Physician, 61, 1059-1067, 1070.
Dunst, C. J. (1999). Placing parent education in conceptual and empirical context. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 19, 141–147.
Dunst, C. J., Trivette, C. M., & Deal, A. G. (1994). Final thoughts concerning adoption of family-centered intervention practices. In C. J. Dunst, C. M. Trivette, & A. G. Deal (Eds.), Supporting and strengthening families (pp. 222–225). Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
Dykens, E. M., Hodapp, R. M., & Finucane, B. M. (2000). Genetics and mental retardation syndromes: A new look at behavior and interventions. Baltimore: Brookes.
Eichner, J. M., & Johnson, B. H. (2003). Family-centered care and the pediatrician's role. Pediatrics, 112, 691–696.
Fey, M., Long, S., & Cleve, P. (1994). Reconsideration of IQ criteria in the definition of specific language impairment. In R. V. Watkins & M. L. Rice (Eds.), Specific language impairments in children (pp. 161–178). Baltimore: Brookes.
Fox, L., Dunlap, G., & Buschbacher, P. (2000). Understanding and intervening with children's challenging behavior: A
comprehensive approach. In A. M. Wetherby & B. M. Prizant (Eds.), Autism spectrum disorders: A transactional developmental perspective (pp. 307–331). Baltimore: Brookes.
Fryxell, D., & Kennedy, C. H. (1995). Placement along the continuum of services and its impact on students'
social relationships. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 20, 259–269.
Goldstein, H., & Cisar, C. L. (1992). Promoting interaction during sociodramatic play: Teaching scripts to typical
preschoolers and classmates with disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 265–280.
Goldstein, H., English, K., Shafer, K., & Kaczmarek, L. (1997). Interaction among preschoolers with and without disabilities: Effects of
across-the-day peer interaction. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 40, 33–48.
Goldstein, H., & Gallagher, T. M. (1992). Strategies for promoting the social-communicative competence of young children
with specific language impairment. In S. L. Odom, S. R. McConnell, & M. A. McEvoy (Eds.), Social competence of young children with disabilities: Issues and strategies for
intervention (pp. 189–213). Baltimore: Brookes.
Goldstein, H., & Kaczmarek, L. (1992). Promoting communicative interaction among children in integrated intervention
settings. In S. Warren & J. Reichle (Eds.), Causes and effects in communication and language intervention (pp. 81–111). Baltimore: Brookes.
Guralnick, M. J. (1976). The value of integrating handicapped and nonhandicapped preschool children. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 46, 236–245.
Guralnick, M. J. (1990). Peer interactions and the development of handicapped children's social
and communicative competence. In H. Foot, M. Morgan, & R. Shure (Eds.), Children helping children (pp. 275–305). Sussex, England: Wiley.
Guralnick, M. J. (1994). Social competence with peers: Outcomes and process in early childhood special
education. In P. L. Safford (Ed.), Yearbook in early childhood education: Early childhood special education (Vol. 5, pp. 45–71). New York: Teachers College.
Guralnick, M. J. (2001). Social competence with peers and early childhood inclusion: Need for alternative
approaches. In M. J. Guralnick (Ed.), Early childhood inclusion: Focus on change (pp. 481–502). Baltimore: Brookes.
Guralnick, M. J., & Neville, B. (1997). Designing early intervention programs to promote children's social
competence. In M. J. Guralnick (Ed.), The effectiveness of early intervention (pp. 579–610). Baltimore: Brookes.
Guralnick, M. J., & Paul-Brown, D. (1989). Peer-related communicative competence of preschool children: Developmental and
adaptive characteristics. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 32, 930–943.
Hauber, F. A. (1984). National census of residential facilities: A 1982 profile of facilities and
residents. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 89(3), 236–245.
Hemp, R., Parish, S., Braddock, D., & Smith, G. (2001). Trends and milestones: Leveraging federal funding in the states to address
Olmstead [and] growing waiting lists. Mental Retardation, 39(3), 241–243.
Hemp, R., Rizzolo, M., & Braddock, D. (2002). Selected trends in public spending for MR/DD services and the state economies. Mental Retardation, 40, 418–422.
Hepting, N., & Goldstein, H. (1996). What's “natural” about naturalistic language
intervention? Journal of Early Intervention, 20, 250–264.
Hoge, G., & Datillo, J. (1995). Recreation participation patterns of adults with and without mental retardation. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 30, 283–298.
Hooper, J. (2001). Overcoming the problems of deinstitutionalization: Using music activities to
encourage interaction between four adults with a developmental disability. Music Therapy Perspectives, 19, 121–127.
Horst, L., Werner, R. R., & Werner, C. L. (2000). Case management for children and families. Journal of Child and Family Nursing, 3, 5–14.
Hughes, C. (1999). Identifying critical social interaction behaviors among high school students
with and without disabilities. Behavior Modification, 23, 41–60.
Hutchfield, K. (1999). Family-centered care: A concept analysis. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 29, 1178–1187.
Kennedy, C. H., Cushing, L. S., & Itkonen, T. (1997). General education participation increases the social contacts and friendship
networks of students with severe disabilities. Journal of Behavioral Education, 7, 167–189.
Kohlenberg, E., et al.
Who is eligible for DDD services? Report no. 5.24. Washington State Department
of Social and Health Services, Olympia. ERIC Clearinghouse EC305029, ED 399698.
Koller, H., Richardson, S. A., & Katz, M. (1988). Peer relationships of mildly mentally retarded young adults living in the
community. Journal of Mental Deficiency Research, 32, 321–331.
Krassowski, E., & Plante, E. (1997). IQ variability of children with SLI: Implications for use of cognitive
referencing in determining SLI. Journal of Communication Disorders, 30, 1–9.
Letourneau, N. L., & Elliott, M. R. (1996). Pediatric health care professionals' perceptions and practices of
family-centered care. Children's Health Care, 25, 157–174.
Malian, I., & Nevin, A. (2002). A review of the self-determination literature: Implications for practitioners. Remedial and Special Education, 23, 68–74.
Manion, M. L., & Bersani, H. A. (1987). Mental retardation as a western sociological construct: A cross-cultural
analysis. Disability, Handicap and Society, 2(3), 231–245.
Matthews, J. (1957). Speech problems of the mentally retarded. In L. E. Travis (Ed.), Handbook of speech pathology (pp. 531–551). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Matthews, J. (1971). Communication disorders in the mentally retarded. In L. E. Travis (Ed.), Handbook of speech pathology and audiology (pp. 801–818). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Mautz, P., Storey, K., & Certo, N. (2001). Increasing integrated workplace social interactions: The effects of job
modification, natural supports, adaptive communication instruction, and job coach training. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 26, 257–269.
McCathren, R. B., Warren, S. F., & Yoder, P. J. (1996). Prelinguistic predictors of later language development. In K. N. Cole & P. S. Dale (Eds.), Assessment of communication and language (pp. 57–75). Baltimore: Brookes.
McCathren, R. B., Yoder, P. J., & Warren, S. F. (1999). The relationship between prelinguistic vocalization and later expressive
vocabulary in young children with developmental delay. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 42, 915–924.
McLaren, J., & Bryson, S. E. (1987). Review of recent epidemiological studies of mental retardation: Prevalence,
associated disorders, and etiology. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 92, 243–254.
McLean, J., & Snyder-McLean, L. (1987). Form and function of communication behavior among persons with severe
developmental disabilities. Australia and New Zealand Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 13, 83–98.
Mundy, P., Kasari, C., Sigman, M., & Ruskin, E. (1995). Nonverbal communication and early language acquisition in children with Down
syndrome and in normally developming children. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 38, 157–167.
National Joint Committee for the Communication Needs of Persons
with Severe Disabilities. (1992, March). Guidelines for meeting the communication needs of persons with severe
disabilities. Asha, 34(Suppl. 7), 1–8.
National Joint Committee for the Communication Needs of Persons
with Severe Disabilities. (2003a). Position statement on access to communication services and supports: Concerns
regarding the application of restrictive “eligibility” policies. ASHA Supplement, 23, 19–20.
National Joint Committee for the Communication Needs of Persons
with Severe Disabilities. (2003b). Supporting documentation for the position statement on access to communication
services and supports: Concerns regarding the application of restrictive
“eligibility” policies. ASHA Supplement, 23, 73–81.
Nevin, A., Malian, I., & Williams, L. (2002). Perspectives on self-determination across the curriculum. Remedial and Special Education, 23, 75–82.
Newton, J. S., & Horner, R. H. (1993). Using a social guide to improve social relationships of people with severe
disabilities. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 18, 36–45.
Newton, J. S., Olson, D., Horner, R. H., & Ard, W. R. J. (1996). Social skills and the stability of social relationships between individuals with
intellectual disabilities and other community members. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 17, 15–26.
Paul, R. (2001). Language disorders from infancy through adolescence: Assessment and intervention. St. Louis, MO: Mosby.
Paul, R., Looney, S., & Dahm, P. (1991). Communication and socialization skills at ages 2 and 3 in
“late-talking” young children. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 34, 858–865.
Paul-Brown, D., & Caperton, C. (2001). Inclusive practices for preschool children with specific language impairment. In M. J. Guralnick (Ed.), Early childhood inclusion: Focus on change (pp. 433–463). Baltimore: Brookes.
Perkins, W. (1971). Speech pathology: An applied behavioral science. St. Louis, MO: Mosby.
Petersen, M. D., Kube, D. A., & Palmer, E. B. (1998). Classification of developmental delays. Seminars in Pediatric Neurology, 5, 2–14.
Prelock, P. A., Beatson, J., Contompasis, S., & Bishop, K. K. (1999). A model for family-centered interdisciplinary practice in the community. Topics in Language Disorders, 19, 36–51.
Reichle, J., Beukelman, D. R., & Light, J. C. (2002). Exemplary practices for beginning communicators: Implications for AAC. Baltimore: Brookes.
Reichle, J., & Wacker, D. P. (1993). Communicative alternatives to challenging behavior: Integrating functional assessment
and intervention strategies. Baltimore: Brookes.
Rice, M., & Kemper, S. (1984). Child language and cognition. Baltimore: University Park.
Roeleveld, N., Zielhuis, G. A., & Gabreels, F. (1997). The prevalence of mental retardation: A critical review of recent literature. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 39, 125–132.
Romski, M. A., & Sevcik, R. A. (1996). Breaking the speech barrier: Language development through augmented means. Baltimore: Brookes.
Rosen, J. W., & Burchard, S. N. (1990). Community activities and social support networks: A social comparison of adults
with and adults without mental retardation. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 25, 193–204.
Shukla, S., Kennedy, C. H., & Cushing, L. S. (1999). Intermediate school students with severe disabilities: Supporting their social
participation in general education classrooms. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 1(3), 130–140.
Smith, J., Prouty, B., Polister, B., Kwak, N., & Lakin, C. (2001). Trends & milestones: Large state residential facilities: Status and
trends in population characteristics as of June 30, 2000. Mental Retardation, 39, 334–337.
Souza, G., & Kennedy, C. H. (2003). Facilitating social interactions in the community for a transition-age student
with severe disabilities. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 5(3), 179–182.
Strain, P. S., & Kohler, F. W. (1998). Peer-mediated social intervention for young children with autism. Seminars in Speech and Language, 19, 391–405.
Switzky, H. N. (Ed.). (2001). Personality and motivational differences in persons with mental retardation. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Thal, D. J., & Tobias, S. (1992). Communicative gestures in children with delayed onset of oral expressive
vocabulary. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 35, 1281–1289.
Thies, K. M., & McAllister, J. W. (2001). The Health and Education Leadership Project: A school initiative for children
and adolescents with chronic health conditions. Journal of School Health, 71, 167–172.
Trivette, C. M., & Dunst, C. J. (2000). Recommended practices in family-based practices. In S. Sandall, M. E. McLean, & B. J. Smith (Eds.), DEC recommended practices in early intervention/early childhood special education (pp. 39–46). Denver, CO: Division for Early Childhood.
Trivette, C. M., Dunst, C. J., & Hamby, D. W. (1996). Social support and coping in families of children at risk for developmental
disabilities. In M. Brambring, H. Raub, & A. Beelman (Eds.), Early childhood intervention: Theory, evaluation and practice (pp. 234–264). Berlin, Germany: de Gruyter.
Wacker, D. P., Berg, W. K., Harding, J., & Asmus, J. (1996). A functional approach to dealing with severe challenging behavior. In S. B. Stainback & W. C. Stainback (Eds.), Inclusion: A guide for educators (pp. 327–342). Baltimore: Brookes.
Warren, S., Gazdag, G., Bambara, L., & Jones, H. (1994). Changes in the generativity and use of sematic relationships concurrent with
milieu language intervention. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 37, 924–934.
West, R., Kennedy, L., & Carr, A. (1947). The rehabilitation of speech. Oxford, England: Harper.
Wetherby, A., Allen, L., Cleary, J., Kublin, K., & Goldstein, H. (2002). Validity and reliability of the Communication and Symbolic Behavior Scales
Developmental Profile with very young children. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 45, 1202–1218.
Whitney-Thomas, J., Timmons, J. C., Gilmore, D. S., & Thomas, D. M. (1999). Expanding access: Changes in vocational rehabilitation practice since the 1992
rehabilitation act amendments. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 43(1), 30–40.
Woods-Cripe, J., & Venn, M. L. (1997, November). Family-guided routines for early intervention services. Young Exceptional Children, 1(1), 18–26.
Yeargin-Allsopp, M., Murphy, C. C., Oakley, G. P., & Sikes, R. K. (1992). A multiple-source method for studying the prevalence of developmental
disabilities in children: The Metropolitan Atlanta Developmental Disabilities Study. Pediatrics, 89, 624–630.
Zigler, E. (2001). Looking back 40 years and still seeing the person with mental retardation as a
whole person. In H. N. Switzky (Ed.), Personality and motivational differences in persons with mental retardation (pp. 3–55). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Zigler, E. (2002). A veteran worker urges renewed research on personality factors in mental
retardation. In Japanese Journal of Special Education (Vol. 39, pp. 1–13).
Zigler, E., Bennett-Gates, D., Hodapp, R., & Henrich, C. C. (2002). Assessing personality traits of individuals with mental retardation. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 107, 181–193.
Return to Top
© Copyright 2005 American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. All rights reserved.
Disclaimer: The American Speech-Language-Hearing Association disclaims any liability to any party for the accuracy, completeness, or availability of these documents, or for any damages arising out of the use of the documents and any information they contain.