Vocabulary needs in augmentative and alternative communication: a sample of conversational topics between staff providing services to adults with learning difficulties and their service users

Abstract

Summary This paper describes an attempt to gather information about the vocabulary needs of a sample of people with learning difficulties in order to inform the content of local augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) resources and training programmes. The participants were staff members working in a range of local day care and residential services who were asked to record topics of conversation in diaries. The results were analysed in terms of the frequency of topic areas similar to those described by Maslow's model of human need. The influences on the development of vocabularies for AAC programmes and philosophies current in services for adults with learning difficulties are briefly discussed. The approaches of two of perhaps the most widely used resources (i.e. Makaton and Signalong) are described in the context of their rationale for vocabulary content. The results of the present study suggest that Physical Needs and Function were the most frequent topic areas for conversation. There were far fewer conversations recorded for Social and Emotional topics. Flexible topic‐based frameworks for AAC programmes are suggested as a model that might be able to respond to individual and local vocabulary needs more readily than any one prescribed vocabulary.

The self-determined and partner-predicted topic preferences of adults with aphasia

“…Using topic areas as frameworks for vocabulary selection has been recommended by many authors (Balandin & Iacono, 1999;van de SandtKoenderman, 2004;Garrett et al, 1989). Selecting vocabulary for use with topics relevant to the AAC user may address the unique needs of the AAC user and as a result, have a positive effect on the user's willingness to use the system (Graves, 2000).…”

“…talked about was what the adults with learning difficulties wanted and needed to talk about (Graves, 2000). This phenomenon is defined as circularity, where vocabulary may only be selected for communication about topics the user can already communicate about, or which others wish them to communicate about (Brewster, 2004).…”

“…Due to the challenges presented by the complex nature of aphasia, the familiar communication partners of these individuals act as informants as they are typically required to provide input on areas such as the preferred topics of conversation of the adult with aphasia for inclusion in an AAC system (Hux et al, 2001). However, informant-input is not always accurate (Balandin & Iacono, 1998a, Graves, 2000, and…”

Social Validation of Vocabulary Selection: Ensuring Stakeholder Relevance

“…As early as 1981, Carlson noted that, "They [people who use AAC] are unable to create spontaneously their own lexicon and must operate with a vocabulary selected by someone else or preselected, not spontaneously chosen by themselves" (p. 140). Many teams are aware that the vocabulary resource lies at the heart of most AAC systems (Graves, 2000). Unfortunately, one individual or one team rarely has enough knowledge and/or experience to select vocabulary for every specific context, activity, and ethnic or language group (Beukelman & Mirenda, 2005;Bryen, 2008).…”

“…Furthermore, these commercial vocabularies are not always applicable for the individual circumstances, needs and cultures of people who use AAC in South Africa where there are many indigenous groups and 11 official languages. Studies during the past decade have started to highlight the importance of cultural and social factors and SOCIAL VALIDATION OF VOCABULARY 5 how they may influence communication needs (Graves, 2000). However, due to the sensitive nature of some topics, such as abuse or crime victimization, no vocabulary lists for reporting crime or abuse have existed in South Africa until recently.…”