Which treatment is NOT recommended for augmentative and alternative communication (AAC)?

Facilitated communication is not recommended for augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) due to its lack of empirical support and concerns surrounding the validity and reliability of the method. This approach, which involves a facilitator supporting the arm or hand of an individual who has communication difficulties to help them type or point to symbols, has been heavily criticized. Research has shown that the facilitator can unintentionally influence the communication process, raising ethical concerns regarding authorship of the message.

In contrast, the other options represent evidence-based approaches for AAC. Technology-assisted communication can enhance communication for those with speech or language impairments through various devices and software programs designed to assist with interaction. The Picture Exchange Communication System (PECS) utilizes visuals to help individuals communicate their needs effectively and is based on established principles of behavioral intervention. Two-way communication approaches foster interaction and engagement, allowing for a more dynamic exchange between individuals using AAC and their partners. These methods have solid research backing and are widely accepted in the field of speech-language pathology.