Perspectives of speech language pathologists regarding success versus abandonment of AAC

References

• Allaire J. H., Gressard R. P., Blackman J. A., Hostler S. L. Children with severe speech impairments: Caregiver survey of AAC use. Augmentative and Alternative Communication 1991; 7: 248–255
   Google Scholar
• American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA). Augmentative and alternative communication: Knowledge and skills for service delivery. ASHA Supplement 2002; 22: 97–106
   Google Scholar
• American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA). ASHA omnibus survey. Author, Rockville, MD 2003
   Google Scholar
• Ball L., Beukelman D. R., Fager S., Hanson L., Hux K., Pattee G., Thomsen J., Ullman C. AAC outcomes studies for persons with acquired communication disorders. Atlanta, GA 2002, Seminar presented at the annual convention of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
   Google Scholar
• Batavia A. I., Hammer G. S. Toward the development of consumer-based criteria for the evaluation of assistive devices. Journal of Rehabilitative Research and Development 1990; 27(4)425–436
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Baumgart D., Johnson J. M., Helmstetter E. Augmentative communication systems for persons with moderate and severe disabilities: Case histories. Paul H. Brookes, Baltimore, MD 1990
   Google Scholar
• Beukelman D. R. AAC outcomes studies for persons with acquired communication disorders. Atlanta, GA 2002, Seminar presented at the annual convention of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
   Google Scholar
• Beukelman D. R., Mirenda P. Augmentative and alternative communication: Management of severe communication disorders in children and adults. Paul H. Brookes, Baltimore, MD 1998
   Google Scholar
• Beukelman D. R., Blackstone S., Calculator S., DeRuyter F., Light J., Schlosser R., Yorkston K. Outcomes of AAC interventions. Atlanta, GA 2002, Seminar presented at the annual convention of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
   Google Scholar
• Blackstone S. AAC outcomes: Definitions and the WHO. Augmentative Communication News 1995; 8(1)1–8
   Google Scholar
• Blackstone S., Pressman H. Outcomes in AAC conference report: Alliance'95. Augmentative Communication, Inc., Monterey, CA 1995
   Google Scholar
• Brooks N. A. Users' responses to assistive devices for physical disability. Social Science and Medicine 1991; 32: 1417–1424
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brotherson M. J. Interactive focus group interviewing: A qualitative research method in early intervention. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 1994; 14(1)101–118
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Culp D. M. Outcome measurement: The impact of communication augmentation. Seminars in Speech and Language 1987; 8(2)169–185
   Google Scholar
• Culp D. M. If Mama ain't happy, ain't nobody happy: Collaborating with families in AAC interventions with infants and toddlers. Newsletter of the ASHA Special Interest Division 12: Augmentative and Alternative Communication 2003; 12(5)14–21
   Google Scholar
• Culp D. M., Ambrosi D. M., Berniger T. M., Mitchell J. O. Augmentative communication aid use – a follow-up study. Augmentative and Alternative Communication 1986; 2: 19–24
   Google Scholar
• DeRuyter F. Evaluating outcomes in assistive technology: Do we understand the commitment?. Assistive Technology 1995; 7(1)3–16
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• DeRuyter F. The importance of outcome measures for assistive technology service delivery systems. Technology and Disability 1997; 6: 89–104
   Google Scholar
• DeRuyter F., Kennedy M. R. Augmentative communication following traumatic brain injury. Communication disorders following traumatic brain injury: Management of cognitive, language, and motor impairments, D. R. Beukelman, K. M. Yorkston. Pro-Ed, Austin, TX 1991; 317–365
   Google Scholar
• Dillman D. A. Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York 2000
   Google Scholar
• Fuhrer M. J. Assistive technology outcomes research: Challenges met and yet unmet. American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation 2001; 80(7)528–535
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garson G. D. Factor analysis. 2003, Retrieved 9/1/04 from http://www2.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/pa765/factor.htm
   Google Scholar
• Granlund M., Blackstone S. Outcomes measurement in AAC. Augmentative and alternative communication: New directions in research and practice, F. T. Loncke, J. Clibbens, H. H. Arvidson, L. L. Lloyd. Whurr Publishers, London 1999; 207–227
   Google Scholar
• Huer M. B. Examining perceptions of graphic symbols across cultures: Preliminary study of the impact of culture/ethnicity. Augmentative and Alternative Communication 2000; 16: 180–185
   Google Scholar
• Huer M. B., Lloyd L. L. AAC users' perspectives on augmentative and alternative communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication 1990; 6(4)242–249
   Google Scholar
• Iacono T. Words. Augmentative and Alternative Communication 2002; 18: 215–216
   Google Scholar
• Johnson J. M., Baumgart D., Helmstetter E., Curry C. Augmenting basic communication in natural contexts. Paul H. Brookes, Baltimore, MD 1996
   Google Scholar
• Kraskowsky L. H., Finlayson M. Factors affecting older adults' use of adaptive equipment: Review of the literature. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy 2001; 55(3)303–310
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krueger R. A., Casey M. A. Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA 2000
   Google Scholar
• Light J. Toward a definition of communicative competence for individuals using augmentative and alternative communication systems. Augmentative and Alternative Communication 1989; 5: 137–144
   Google Scholar
• Light J. Shattering the silence: Development of communicative competence by individuals who use AAC. Communicative competence for individuals who use AAC, J. Light, D. Beukelman, J. Reichle. Paul H. Brookes, Baltimore, MD 2003
   Google Scholar
• Light J., Stoltz B., McNaughton D. Community-based employment: Experiences of adults who use AAC. Augmentative and Alternative Communication 1996; 12: 215–228
   Google Scholar
• Lloyd L. L., Blischak D. M. AAC terminology policy and issues update. Augmentative and Alternative Communication 1992; 8: 104–109
   Google Scholar
• McCall F., Markova I., Murphy J., Moodie E., Collins S. Perspectives on AAC systems by the users and by their communication partners. European Journal of Disorders of Communication 1997; 32: 235–256
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Morgan D. L. Focus groups as qualitative research. Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA 1997
   Google Scholar
• Murphy J., Markova I., Moodie E., Scott J., Boa S. Augmentative and alternative communication systems used by people with cerebral palsy in Scotland: Demographic survey. Augmentative and Alternative Communication 1995; 11: 26–36
   Google Scholar
• Murphy J., Markova I., Collins S., Moodie E. AAC systems: Obstacles to effective use. European Journal of Disorders of Communication 1996; 31: 31–44
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pape T. L. B., Kim J., Weiner B. The shaping of individual meanings assigned to assistive technology: A review of personal factors. Disability and Rehabilitation 2002; 24(1/2/3)5–20
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parette H. P., Angelo D. H. Augmentative and alternative communication impact on families: Trends and future directions. The Journal of Special Education 1996; 30(1)77–98
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parette H. P., Brotherson M. J., Huer M. B. Giving families a voice in augmentative and alternative communication decision making. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities 2000; 35(2)177–190
   Google Scholar
• Parker S., Buckley W., Truesdell A., Riggio M., Collins M., Boardman B. Barriers to the use of assistive technology with children: A survey. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness 1990; 84(10)532–533
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phillips B., Zhao H. Predictors of assistive technology abandonment. Assistive Technology 1993; 5: 36–45
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ratcliffe A., Cress C., Soto G. Communication isn't just talking: What's new in AAC. ASHA 1997; 39(2)30–36
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Russell A., McAllister S. Use of AAC by individuals with acquired neurologic communication disabilities: Results of an Australian survey. Augmentative and Alternative Communication 1995; 11: 138–202
   Google Scholar
• Scherer M. J. What we know about women's technology use, avoidance, and abandonment. Women & Therapy 1993; 14(3/4)117–132
   Google Scholar
• Scherer M. J. Outcomes of assistive technology use on quality of life. Disability and Rehabilitation 1996; 18(9)439–448
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scherer M. J., McKee B. G. Matching the student with the most appropriate assistive technology: Evaluation of the Assistive Technology Device Predisposition Assessment (ATD PA). 1992, (ERIC Reproduction Service No. ED 348969)
   Google Scholar
• Schlosser R. W. Social validation of interventions in augmentative and alternative communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication 1999; 15: 234–247
   Google Scholar
• Schlosser R. W. Goal attainment by children with developmental disabilities who use AAC. Atlanta, GA 2002, A presentation at the annual convention of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
   Google Scholar
• Schlosser R. W. The efficacy of augmentative and alternative communication: Toward evidence-based practice. Academic Press, San Diego, CA 2003
   Google Scholar
• Sigafoos J., Iacono T. Selecting augmentative communication devices for persons with severe disabilities: Some factors for educational teams to consider. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Developmental Disabilities 1993; 18: 133–146
   Google Scholar
• Smith R. O. Measuring the outcomes of assistive technology: Challenge and innovation. Assistive Technology 1996; 8: 71–81
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Smith G. Users' perspectives of factors related to long-term use or abandonment of augmentative and alternative communication systems. Washington State University, Spokane, WA 2002, Unpublished master's research project
   Google Scholar
• Smith-Lewis M. R., Ford A. A user's perspective on augmentative communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication 1987; 3: 12–17
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organization (WHO). International classification of functioning, disability and health. 2003, Retrieved 5/7/2005, from http://www3.who.int/icf/ onlinebrowser/icf.cfm
   Google Scholar