The Selection of Tangible Symbols by Educators of Students with Visual Impairments and Additional Disabilities

Trief, Ellen; Bruce, Susan; Cascella, Paul W.

doi:10.1177/0145482x1010400806

Cited by 17 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Miles also recommends that we should substitute hand-under-hand for hand-over-hand whenever possible so we do not encourage the hands to become passive. In addition, tangible representations are a viable communication form for prelinguistic children who are deafblind (see Bruce, Trief, & Cascella, 2011; Cascella, Trief, & Bruce, 2012; Murray-Branch et al, 1991; Prickett & Welch, 1998; Rowland, 1990; Rowland & Schweigert, 1989, 2000; Trief, 2007, 2013; Trief, Bruce, & Cascella, 2010; Trief, Bruce, Cascella, & Ivy, 2009; Trief et al, 2013). Tangible representations may be three-dimensional (as in object representations) or two-dimensional (as in photographs).…”

Section: Deafblindnessmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Summary of the Communication and Literacy Evidence-Based Practices for Students Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing, Visually Impaired, and Deafblind

Luckner

Bruce

Ferrell

2015

Communication Disorders Quarterly

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Collaboration for Effective Educator Development, Accountability, and Reform (CEEDAR) Center at the University of Florida (http://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/) is a national technical assistance center dedicated to supporting states in their efforts to develop teachers and leaders who can successfully prepare students with disabilities to achieve college and career-ready standards. One of the objectives of the project is to organize and synthesize the literature on evidence-based practices for students with disabilities. The purpose of this article is to share a summary of the evidence-based practices in the areas of communication and literacy for students who are deaf, hard of hearing, visually impaired, or deafblind, as well as recommendations for service providers and researchers.

show abstract

Section: Deafblindnessmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Summary of the Communication and Literacy Evidence-Based Practices for Students Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing, Visually Impaired, and Deafblind

Luckner

Bruce

Ferrell

2015

Communication Disorders Quarterly

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…People with visual impairments typically use these symbols in their learning processes (Trief, 2007). It is critical that the symbols can be physically manipulated and the person can share a perceptual relationship with what the symbols represent (Trief, 2007;Trief, Bruce, & Cascella, 2010). Tangible symbols include both three-dimensional symbols (objects or miniatures) and twodimensional symbols (photographs and line drawings); they are created to suit the sensory and cognitive abilities of individual users (Rowland & Schweigert, 2000).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Initial Evidence of the Reliability and Validity of a Three-Dimensional Body Rating Scale for the Congenitally Blind

Morcado

Campana²,

Ferreira

et al. 2013

Percept Mot Skills

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research on body dissatisfaction has grown significantly. However, valid and reliable instruments for measuring body dissatisfaction in the congenitally blind have yet to be developed. In three studies, we report on development, test-retest reliability, and concurrent and content validity of the Three-dimensional Body Rating Scale (3BRS) for the congenitally blind. In Study 1, 58 people with congenital blindness (28 women, 30 men; M age = 36.7, SD = 13.1) numerically ordered models of the 3BRS and models of the Two-dimensional Body Rating Scale (2BRS), from very thin to the very fat. In Study 2, the construct validity and reliability of the 38RS was assessed. The same participants from Study 1 chose the 3BRS model that represented their ideal body and the 3BRS model that represented their actual body. Two weeks later, a re-test was done. In Study 3, 16 experts judged the content validity of the 3BRS. The psychometric properties of the 3BRS, its utility, and its limitations are discussed along with considerations for future research.

show abstract

“…Studies using two-dimensional symbols were included only if participants were fi rst taught to use three-dimensional tangible symbols and then transitioned to the use of two-dimensional symbols. Studies into stakeholder perspectives (e.g., teachers, speech-language pathologists, and/or parents) regarding the selection or use of tangible symbols were excluded (e.g., Bruce, Trief, & Cascella, 2011;Trief, Bruce, & Cascella, 2010;Trief, Bruce, Cascella, & Ivy, 2009).…”

Section: Screening and Inclusion Criteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

Tangible Symbols as an AAC Option for Individuals with Developmental Disabilities: A Systematic Review of Intervention Studies

Roche

Sigafoos

Lancioni

et al. 2014

Augmentative and Alternative Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We reviewed nine studies evaluating the use of tangible symbols in AAC interventions for 129 individuals with developmental disabilities. Studies were summarized in terms of participants, tangible symbols used, communication functions/skills targeted for intervention, intervention procedures, evaluation designs, and main findings. Tangible symbols mainly consisted of three-dimensional whole objects or partial objects. Symbols were taught as requests for preferred objects/activities in five studies with additional communication functions (e.g., naming, choice making, protesting) also taught in three studies. One study focused on naming activities. With intervention, 54% (n = 70) of the participants, who ranged from 3 to 20 years of age, learned to use tangible symbols to communicate. However, these findings must be interpreted with caution due to pre-experimental or quasi-experimental designs in five of the nine studies. Overall, tangible symbols appear promising, but additional studies are needed to establish their relative merits as a communication mode for people with developmental disabilities.

show abstract

The Selection of Tangible Symbols by Educators of Students with Visual Impairments and Additional Disabilities

Cited by 17 publications

References 3 publications

A Summary of the Communication and Literacy Evidence-Based Practices for Students Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing, Visually Impaired, and Deafblind

A Summary of the Communication and Literacy Evidence-Based Practices for Students Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing, Visually Impaired, and Deafblind

Initial Evidence of the Reliability and Validity of a Three-Dimensional Body Rating Scale for the Congenitally Blind

Tangible Symbols as an AAC Option for Individuals with Developmental Disabilities: A Systematic Review of Intervention Studies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About