Research priorities in augmentative and alternative communication as identified by people who use AAC and their facilitators

References

• Batavia A. I., Hammer G. S. Toward the development of consumer-based criteria for the evaluation of assistive devices. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development 2000; 27(4)425–436
   Google Scholar
• Bersani H. Nothing about me without me: A proposal for participatory action research in AAC. Augmentative and alternative communication: New directions in research and practice, F. T. Loncke, J. Clibbens, H. H. Arvidson, L. L. Lloyd. Whurr, London 1999; 278–289
   Google Scholar
• Best J. W., Kahn J. V. Research in education (5th ed.). Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 1985
   Google Scholar
• Beukelman D. R., Ansel B. M. Research priorities in augmentative and alternative communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication 1995; 11: 131–134
   Google Scholar
• Blackstone S. Evaluation of AAC service delivery programs: Meanings and methodologies. Proceedings of the second ISAAC research symposium in augmentative and alternative communication: Methodological issues in research in augmentative and alternative communication, Philadelphia, PA. D. J. Gardner-Bonneau. Malardalen University Press, VasterasSweden 1992; 108–113
   Google Scholar
• Brotherson M. J., Goldstein B. L. Quality design of focus groups in early childhood special education research. Journal of Early Intervention 1992; 16: 334–342
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cockburn L., Trentham B. Participatory action research: Integrating community occupational therapy practice and research. The Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy 2002; 69: 20–30
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cornwall A., Jewkes R. What is participatory research?. Social Science and Medicine 1995; 41(12)1667–1676
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeRuyter F. Evaluating AAC service delivery programs: What should we really be evaluating?. Proceedings of the second ISAAC research symposium in augmentative and alternative communication: Methodological issues in research in augmentative and alternative communication, Philadelphia, PA. D. J. Gardner-Bonneau. Malardalen University Press, VasterasSweden 1992; 114–119
   Google Scholar
• Flesch R. A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology 1948; 32(3)221–233
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flesch R. A readability formula that saves time. J Reading 1968; 11(7)513–516
   Google Scholar
• Flesch-Kincaid Readability Score. June, 2006, Retrieved 13 June 2006, from http://www.rfp-templates.com/readability-scores/Flesch-Kincaid-Readability-Score.html
   Google Scholar
• Gilbert T. Involving people with learning disabilities in research: Issues and possibilities. Health and Social Care in the Community 2004; 12: 298–308
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goetz J. P., LeCompte M. D. Ethnography and qualitative design in education research. Academic Press, New York 1984
   Google Scholar
• Goldbart J., Marshall J. “Pushes and Pulls” on the parents of children who use AAC. Augmentative and Alternative Communication 2004; 20: 194–208
   Google Scholar
• Hemsley B., Balandin S. Without AAC: The stories of unpaid carers of adults with Cerebral Palsy and complex communication needs in hospital. Augmentative and Alternative Communication 2004; 20: 243–258
   Google Scholar
• Iacono T. A. Accessible reading intervention: A work in progress. Augmentative and Alternative Communication 2004; 20: 179–189
   Google Scholar
• Krogh K. S., Lindsay P. H. Including people with disabilities in research: Implications for the field of augmentative and alternative communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication 1999; 15: 222–233
   Google Scholar
• Kraat A. Communication interaction between aided and natural speakers: A state of the art report (2nd ed.). Trace Research and Development Center, Madison, WI 1987
   Google Scholar
• Krueger R. A. Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (2nd ed.). Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA 1994
   Google Scholar
• Murphy J. “I Prefer Contact This Close”: Perceptions of AAC by people with Motor Neurone Disease and their communication partners. Augmentative and Alternative Communication 2004; 20: 259–271
   Google Scholar
• O'Keefe B. M., Jutai J., Marshall P., Lindsay P., Schuller R. B., Schlosser R. Database for the identification of people who use AAC for participation in research, product development, and service delivery. Augmentative and Alternative Communication 1998; 14: 115–116
   Google Scholar
• O'Keefe B. M., Marshall P. Including consumers at every level of research: The DIREL database. Paper presented at the 7th biennial conference of the International Society for Augmentative and Alternative Communication, VancouverBritish Columbia, Canada, August, 1996
   Google Scholar
• Oliver M. Changing the social relations of research production?. Disability, Handicap and Society 1992; 7: 101–114
   Google Scholar
• Schlosser R., O'Keefe B., Krogh K. Methods and strategies for assessing the perspectives of consumers in AAC research. Panel presented at the 7th Biennial Conference of the International Society for Augmentative and Alternative Communication Research Symposium, VancouverBritish Columbia, Canada, August, 1996
   Google Scholar
• Stone E., Priestly M. Parasites, pawns and partners: Disability research and the role of non-disabled researchers. The British Journal of Sociology 1996; 47(4)699–716
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walmsley J. Involving users with learning difficulties in health improvement: Lessons from inclusive learning disability research. Nursing Inquiry 2004; 11: 54–64
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Zarb G. On the road to Damascus: First steps towards changing the relations of disability research production. Disability, Handicap and Society 1992; 7(2)125–138
   Google Scholar