Outcome Measurement: The Impact of Communication Augmentation

Abstract

Harris3 conducted the first microanalytic study of the conversational communication interaction behaviors of primary communication partners and selected subjects fitted with augmentative communication techniques. Gradually, additional similar studies have been reported, typically utilizing videoanalysis. These studies have focused on communication rate, density, intelligibility, mode, functions, discourse, and, to a lesser degree, on communication training procedures, attitudes, and ~trategies.~ Results of these studies indicate a wide range of variability among the conversational communication behaviors of augmentative technique users and their partner^.^ However, some generally consistent characteristics of interaction behavior have been identified. In terms of mode, communication augmentation techniques are typically used infrequently. Furthermore, users often fail to demonstrate partner-or situation-specific strategies for mode selection. 3,5-7 AS well, communication partners rarely model use of augmentative technique^.^ Rate and density of communication are generally characterized as slow and infrequent. Findings regarding communication functions reveal that partners typically ask many questions and systems users provide yestno or informative responses and make basic request^.^-^ Discourse data suggest that users initiate corn munication less frequently than their Downloaded by: Universite Laval. Copyrighted material.

Toward a definition of communicative competence for individuals using augmentative and alternative communication systems

“…If the cognitive load is too great and the users' operational skills suffer as a result, their overall communicative competence will be impaired. Buzolich and Higginbotham (1985) and Culp (1987) have suggested that an individual's operational competence may be evaluated best in terms of the accuracy and speed with which messages are formulated. A certain level of accuracy and speed of system use is required to communicate effectively; however, proficiency in system operation does not, in and of itself, ensure functional use (Kraat, 1984).…”