No abstract

Students with complex communication needs may require augmentative and alternative communication systems to supplement or replace their speech abilities. To effectively identify a communication system, a feature-matching process should be implemented as it considers the student’s present levels of performance. Due to the unique communication characteristics of students with complex communication needs, informal assessment tools are often used to help determine the students’ skills in natural contexts. A challenge often faced with informal assessment tools is the reliability among evaluators. As such, this pilot study attempted to evaluate the reliability of a feature-matching screening checklist and its corresponding matrices among potential professionals who would be part of the educational team. Results indicated that (a) pre-service and in-service special education teachers were the most reliable combination when completing the screening checklist, (b) exposure to the screening checklist was an influencing factor on reliability, and (c) in-service speech-language pathologists made the most errors while completing the screening checklist. Implications for practices and future research directions are discussed.

Mobile technologies, including apps, have become increasingly popular, and are being used to support daily activities among a variety of individuals. While the use of mobile technologies will not eliminate barriers often faced by individuals with disabilities, these systems have the potential to help minimize some of these barriers. As the popularity of apps is increasing, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the reliability, internal consistency, and social validity among novice raters on two app evaluation rating scales. A total of 17 adults, with and without identified disabilities, evaluated apps using two team-designed app rating scales. Overall, findings indicated that the ratings completed during the pilot phase by the research team were more reliable than those completed by novice raters during the testing phase; that the dimension of individualization was the most reliable among team raters and novice participants without disabilities; and that the highest level of inconsistency in the reliability was among novice participants with disabilities. Practical implications, limitations, and future research directions are discussed.