↓ Skip to main content

Seleção de vocábulos para implementação do Picture Exchange Communication System – PECS em autistas não verbais

Overview of attention for article published in CoDAS, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
76 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Seleção de vocábulos para implementação do Picture Exchange Communication System – PECS em autistas não verbais
Published in
CoDAS, January 2017
DOI 10.1590/2317-1782/20172015285
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carine Ferreira, Monica Bevilacqua, Mariana Ishihara, Aline Fiori, Aline Armonia, Jacy Perissinoto, Ana Carina Tamanaha

Abstract

It is known that some autistic individuals are considered non-verbal, since they are unable to use verbal language and barely use gestures to compensate for the absence of speech. Therefore, these individuals' ability to communicate may benefit from the use of the Picture Exchange Communication System - PECS. The objective of this study was to verify the most frequently used words in the implementation of PECS in autistic children, and on a complementary basis, to analyze the correlation between the frequency of these words and the rate of maladaptive behaviors. This is a cross-sectional study. The sample was composed of 31 autistic children, twenty-five boys and six girls, aged between 5 and 10 years old. To identify the most frequently used words in the initial period of implementation of PECS, the Vocabulary Selection Worksheet was used. And to measure the rate of maladaptive behaviors, we applied the Autism Behavior Checklist (ABC). There was a significant prevalence of items in the category "food", followed by "activities" and "beverages". There was no correlation between the total amount of items identified by the families and the rate of maladaptive behaviors. The categories of words most mentioned by the families could be identified, and it was confirmed that the level of maladaptive behaviors did not interfere directly in the preparation of the vocabulary selection worksheet for the children studied.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 76 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 16%
Student > Bachelor 6 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 8%
Other 4 5%
Researcher 4 5%
Other 9 12%
Unknown 35 46%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 10 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 8%
Computer Science 3 4%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Other 12 16%
Unknown 35 46%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 May 2017.
All research outputs
#16,397,602
of 25,988,468 outputs
Outputs from CoDAS
#28
of 92 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#244,748
of 425,727 outputs
Outputs of similar age from CoDAS
#1
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,988,468 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 92 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 425,727 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them