AAC technologies for young children with complex communication needs: State of the science and future research directions

Light, Janice; Drager, Kathryn

doi:10.1080/07434610701553635

Cited by 245 publications

(181 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

175

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Despite a severe delay in spoken language comprehension, a child can occasionally effectively communicate with familiar partners who coconstruct meaning with the child. 25 …”

Section: 24mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reliability of the Dutch‐language version of the Communication Function Classification System and its association with language comprehension and method of communication

Zwart¹,

Geytenbeek

Kleijn³

et al. 2015

Develop Med Child Neuro

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AIM The aims of this study were to determine the intra-and interrater reliability of the Dutchlanguage version of the Communication Function Classification System (CFCS-NL) and to investigate the association between the CFCS level and (1) spoken language comprehension and (2) preferred method of communication in children with cerebral palsy (CP). , recruited from rehabilitation centres throughout the Netherlands. Because some centres only contributed to part of the study, different numbers of participants are presented for different aspects of the study. Parents and speech and language therapists (SLTs) classified the communication level using the CFCS. Kappa was used to determine the intra-and interrater reliability. Spearman's correlation coefficient was used to determine the association between CFCS level and spoken language comprehension, and Fisher's exact test was used to examine the association between the CFCS level and method of communication. METHOD RESULTSInterrater reliability of the CFCS-NL between parents and SLTs was fair (r=0.54), between SLTs good (r=0.78), and the intrarater (SLT) reliability very good (r=0.85). The association between the CFCS and spoken language comprehension was strong for SLTs (r=0.63) and moderate for parents (r=0.51). There was a statistically significant difference between the CFCS level and the preferred method of communication of the child (p<0.01). Also, CFCS level classification showed a statistically significant difference between parents and SLTs (p<0.01). INTERPRETATION These data suggest that the CFCS-NL is a valid and reliable clinical tool toclassify everyday communication in children with CP. Preferably, professionals should classify the child's CFCS level in collaboration with the parents to acquire the most comprehensive information about the everyday communication of the child in various situations both with familiar and with unfamiliar partners.Within the activity level of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health for Children and Youth (ICF-CY), communication is described as transmitting and receiving messages in different environments using multiple means including listening, speaking, reading, and writing.1 Functional communication is defined as the ability to receive or convey a message regardless of the method of communication, and to communicate effectively and independently in a given environment.1 Thus, communication also encompasses conversation and the use of communication aids and techniques, namely augmentative and alternative communication (AAC). Moreover, to operate both as a listener and as a speaker in communicative exchanges, children must develop functional communication skills that include the ability to comprehend and produce language.2 Expressive communication refers to transmitting messages using gesture, production of speech, writing, AAC, or signing. Receptive communication refers to receiving messages, using comprehension of signs or symbols reading, and spoken language.

show abstract

“…Despite a severe delay in spoken language comprehension, a child can occasionally effectively communicate with familiar partners who coconstruct meaning with the child. 25 …”

Section: 24mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reliability of the Dutch‐language version of the Communication Function Classification System and its association with language comprehension and method of communication

Zwart¹,

Geytenbeek

Kleijn³

et al. 2015

Develop Med Child Neuro

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Two other studies comparing SGDs and non-electronic systems also investigated team perspectives regarding their preference of system (Flores et al 2012) or team perceptions of child preference (Boesch, Wendt, Subramanian and Hsu 2013). The perceptions of intervention teams and partners such as parents, teachers and therapists may also greatly influence the success and extend with which an AAC system is implemented, as partners play a critical role in supporting communication interactions of children using AAC, including the construction or programming, general management and implementation of aided AAC systems (Blackstone, Williams and Wilkins 2007;Kent-Walsh and McNaughton 2005;Light and Drager 2007). Their perceptions and preferences regarding these systems are likely to influence children"s language 6 and communication outcomes.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Supporting the Production of Graphic Symbol Combinations by Children with Limited Speech: A Comparison of Two AAC systems

Tonsing

2015

J Dev Phys Disabil

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy with which the use of a speech generating device (Apple iPad TM with GoTalk Now TM application) versus a communication board promoted the production of two-symbols combinations (agent-action and attribute-entity combinations) by children limited speech within a shared story reading context. Four children between the ages of 6;8 (years;months) and 11;4 with severe motor speech disorders and a variety of developmental 1 disabilities participated in the study. An adapted alternating treatment design was used. All four participants showed increased production of two-symbol combinations in both intervention conditions. The Wilcoxon ranked pairs test did not show differences between the conditions for any participant. The results suggest that symbol combination skills can effectively be taught using either AAC system. A preference assessment indicated that all participants preferred to use the speech generating device during shared story reading. all studies focussed on basic requesting skills requiring the use of only one symbol per response in all or at least one of the intervention conditions; and (b) most studies did not support consistent differences between electronic and non-electronic systems. One explanation for the lack of clear differences between the conditions may be that the acquisition of the requesting skills targeted in these interventions is strongly motivated by the reinforcer. Participants might be so motivated to obtain the reinforcer, that the method to obtain it loses particular relevance. The acquisition of communication functions that are not as tangibly motivated but that proceed for social and interactive reasons might be more prone to influence by the system used, as internal rather than external motivation may play a larger role (Light, Parsons and Drager 2002). Of the 31 participants that took part in the studies comparing SGDs to non-electronic AAC systems reviewed by Gevarter et al (2013), 17 had a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder (ASD), autism or pervasive developmental disorder (PDD). Young children with these diagnoses typically are more likely to communicate in order to regulate the behavior of others (i.e., requesting or protesting), rather than for the purpose of social interaction (Wetherby, Watt, Morgan and Shumway 2007), which may explain the focus on requesting in these studies.The use of electronic versus non-electronic systems may differentially influence the production of multi-symbol combinations (Binger, Kent-Walsh, Berens, Del Campo and Rivera, 2008). An SGD provides auditory feedback to the person using it on his/her own productions, which may facilitate language learning (Romski and Sevcik 1988;1996;Romski, Sevcik and Adamson 1997). The digital or synthetic speech generated by the SGD may reinforce the learning of symbol sequences. This may be a benefit that is particularly relevant to children who have an understanding of spoken language, whereas the receptive (spoken) language skills of the 3 participants...

show abstract

“…In recent years, efforts to enhance communication access have extended beyond traditional AAC systems to include the use of partner listening strategies (e.g., Hustad, Dardis, & Kramper, 2011) as well as communication assistants who translate messages communicated via AAC, much as sign language interpreters translate between sign language and spoken language (e.g., Collier, McghieRichmond, & Self, 2010). Ongoing research and development has expanded the range of AAC options available, including new symbol sets, layouts, organizations, selection techniques, and output (e.g., Fager, Beukelman, Fried-Oken, Jakobs, & Baker, 2012; Light & Drager, 2007;Light & McNaughton, 2012;Schlosser, Shane, Sorce, Koul, & Bloomfield, 2011;Wallace, Hux, & Beukelman, 2010).…”

Section: Changes In Aac Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Changing Face of Augmentative and Alternative Communication: Past, Present, and Future Challenges

Light

McNaughton

2012

Augmentative and Alternative Communication

Self Cite

186

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AAC technologies for young children with complex communication needs: State of the science and future research directions

Cited by 245 publications

References 42 publications

Reliability of the Dutch‐language version of the Communication Function Classification System and its association with language comprehension and method of communication

Reliability of the Dutch‐language version of the Communication Function Classification System and its association with language comprehension and method of communication

Supporting the Production of Graphic Symbol Combinations by Children with Limited Speech: A Comparison of Two AAC systems

The Changing Face of Augmentative and Alternative Communication: Past, Present, and Future Challenges

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About