Recognition of Vocabulary in Children and Adolescents with Cerebral Palsy: A Comparison of Two Speech Coding Schemes

References

• Battig, W. F., & Montague, W. E. (1969). Category norms of verbal items in 56 categories: A replication and extension of the Connecticut category norms. Journal of Experi-mental Psychology, 80(3, Pt. 2), 1–46.
   Google Scholar
• Bedrosian, J. L. (1995). Limitations in the use of nondisabled subjects in AAC research. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 11, 6 — 10.
   Google Scholar
• Bellugi, U., & Klima, E. (1976). Two faces of sign: Iconic and abstract. In S. Hamad, H. Steklis & J. Lancaster (Eds.), The origins and evolution of language and speech (pp. 514 — 538). New York: Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.
   Google Scholar
• Beukelman, D., & Mirenda, P. (1998). Principals of assessment. Augmentative and alternative communication: Management of severe communication disorders in children and adults (2nd edn.). Baltimore: Paul H. Brooks.
   Google Scholar
• Bloomberg, K., Karlan, G. R., & Lloyd, L. L. (1990). The comparative translucency of initial lexical items repre-sented in five graphic symbol systems and sets. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 33, 717— 725.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, L., Sherbenou, R. J., & Johnsen, S. K. (1997). TONI-3: Test of nonverbal intelligence (3rd edn.). Wood Dale, IL: Stoelting Co.
   Google Scholar
• Burger, S. R. (1997). Spontaneous communication in augmen-tative and alternative communication (AAC): A compar-ison of dynamic display and MinspeakTm . Unpublished master's thesis, College of Wooster, Wooster, Ohio.
   Google Scholar
• Colarusso, R. P., & Hammill, D. D. (1972). Motor-Free visual perception test. Novato, CA: Academic Therapy Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Dunn, L., & Dunn, L. (1981). Peabody picture vocabulary test—revised. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
   Google Scholar
• Estes, W., & Wessel, C. (1966). Reaction time in relation to display size and correctness of responses in forced-choice visual signal detection. Perception & Psychophysics, 1, 369–373.
   Google Scholar
• Fallon, K. A., Light, J., & Achenbach, A. (2003). The semantic organization patterns of young children: Im-plications for augmentative and alternative communica-tion. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 19, 74–85.
   Google Scholar
• Glennen, S. (1997). Augmentative and alternative commu-nication assessment strategies. In S. L. Glennon & D. DeCoste (Eds.), The handbook of augmentative and alternative communication. San Diego: Singular Publish-ing Group.
   Google Scholar
• Goossens, C., & Elder, P. (1988, February). Informal Assessment of Semantic Compaction. Paper presented at the meeting of the Southeast AAC Conference, Birming-ham, AL.
   Google Scholar
• Hochstein, D. D., McDaniel, M. A., Nettleton, S., & Neufeld, K. H. (2003). The fruitfulness of a nomothetic approach to investigating AAC: Comparing two speech encoding schemes across Cerebral Palsied and nondis-abled children. American Journal of Speech, Language, Pathology, 12, 110— 120.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDaniel, M. A., Neufeld, K. H., & Damico-Nettleton, S. (2001). Many-to-one and one-to-many associative learn-ing in a naturalistic task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 7, 182–194.
   Google Scholar
• McNaughton, S. (1990). Session summary: Methodological challenges in applying single case designs to problems in AAC. In J. Brödin & E. Bjorck-Akesson (Eds.), Methodological issues in research in augmentative and alternative communication (pp. 86–88). Stockholm, Swe-den: The Swedish Handicap Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Maxwell, S. E., & Delaney, H. D. (1990). Designing experiments and analyzing data: A model comparison perspective. Pacific Grove, California: Brooks/Cole Pub-lishing.
   Google Scholar
• Mirenda, P. (1985). Designing pictorial communication systems for physically able-bodied students with severe handicaps. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 1, 58–64.
   Google Scholar
• Mizuko, M., & Reichle, J. (1989). Transparency and recall of symbols among intellectually handicapped adults. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 54, 627–633.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Romich, B. (1994, Summer). Knowledge in the world versus knowledge in the head: The psychology of AAC systems. Communication Outlook, 16(2), 19–21.
   Google Scholar
• Schlosser, R. W., & Lloyd, L. L. (1993). Effects of initial element teaching in a story-telling context on Blissymbol acquisition and generalization. Journal of Speech & Hearing Research, 36(5), 979–995.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sevcik, R. A., Romski, M. A., & Wilkinson, K. M. (1991). Roles of graphic symbols in the language acquisition process for persons with severe cognitive disabilities. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 7, 161 — 170.
   Google Scholar
• UNITY Vocabulary Sort (1995). Pittsburgh, PA: Semantic Compaction Systems.
   Google Scholar
• Woltosz, W. S. (1994). Dynamic Displays: The changing face of augmentative communication. Palmdale CA: Words + Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Yovetich, W. S., & Young, T. A. (1988). The effects of representativeness and concreteness on the "guessability" of Blissymbols. Augmentative and Alternative Commu-nication, 4, 35 — 39.
   Google Scholar