Speech language pathologists’ responses to the rejection or abandonment of AAC systems

References

• Beukelman DR, Mirenda P. Augmentative and alternative communication: supporting children and adults with complex communication needs. 4th ed. Baltimore (MA): Brookes Pub; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Baxter S, Enderby P, Evans P, et al. Barriers and facilitators to the use of high-technology augmentative and alternative communication devices: a systematic review and qualitative synthesis. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2012;47(2):115–129.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Speech Pathology Australia. Augmentative and alternative communication clinical guideline. Melbourne (Australia): The Speech Pathology Association of Australia Limited; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Marshall J, Goldbart J. ‘Communication is everything I think.’ Parenting a child who needs Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) . Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2008;43(1):77–98.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson JM, Inglebret E, Jones C, et al. Perspectives of speech language pathologists regarding success versus abandonment of AAC. Augment Altern Commun. 2006;22(2):85–99.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moorcroft A, Scarinci N, Meyer C. Speech pathologist perspectives on the acceptance versus rejection or abandonment of AAC systems for children with complex communication needs. Augment Altern Commun. 2019;35(3):193–204.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moorcroft A, Scarinci N, Meyer C. ‘I’ve had a love-hate, I mean mostly hate relationship with these PODD books’: parent perceptions of how they and their child contributed to AAC rejection and abandonment. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2021;16(1):72–82.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Moorcroft A, Scarinci N, Meyer C. ‘We were just kind of handed it and then it was smoke bombed by everyone’: how do external stakeholders contribute to parent rejection and the abandonment of AAC systems? Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2020;55(1):59–69.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Epley P, Summers JA, Turnbull A. Characteristics and trends in family-centered conceptualizations. J Fam Soc Work. 2010;13(3):269–285.
   Google Scholar
• Mandak K, O'Neill T, Light J, et al. Bridging the gap from values to actions: a family systems framework for family-centered AAC services. Augment Altern Commun. 2017;33(1):32–41.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pappas NW, McLeod S, McAllister L, et al. Parental involvement in speech intervention: a national survey. Clin Linguist Phon. 2008;22(4–5):335–344.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mandak K, Light J. Family-centered services for children with ASD and limited speech: the experiences of parents and speech-language pathologists. J Autism Dev Disord. 2018;48(4):1311–1324.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cress JC. Augmentative and alternative communication and language: understanding and responding to parentsʼ perspectives. Top Lang Disord. 2004;24(1):51–61.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iacono T, Cameron M. Australian speech-language pathologists’ perceptions and experiences of augmentative and alternative communication in early childhood intervention. Augment Altern Commun. 2009;25(4):236–249.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Starble A, Hutchins T, Favro MA, et al. Family-centered intervention and satisfaction with AAC device training. Commun Disord Q. 2005;27(1):47–54.
   Google Scholar
• Sandelowski M. Whatever happened to qualitative description? Res Nurs Health. 2000;23(4):334–340.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sandelowski M. What’s in a name? Qualitative description revisited. Res Nurs Health. 2010;33(1):77–84.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Silva JVD, Carvalho I. Physicians experiencing intense emotions while seeing their patients: what happens? Perm J. 2016;20(3):15–229.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Patton MQ. Qualitative research & evaluation methods. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications; 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Birt L, Scott S, Cavers D, et al. Member checking: a tool to enhance trustworthiness or merely a nod to validation? Qual Health Res. 2016;26(13):1802–1811.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moorcroft A, Scarinci N, Meyer C. A systematic review of the barriers and facilitators to the provision and use of low-tech and unaided AAC systems for people with complex communication needs and their families. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2019;14(7):710–731.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williamson K. Research methods. 2nd ed. Cambridge (MA): Chandos Publishing; 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Sim J, Waterfield J. Focus group methodology: some ethical challenges. Qual Quant. 2019;53(6):3003–3022.
   Google Scholar
• Richards K, Andrew R, Hemphill M. A practical guide to collaborative qualitative data analysis. J Teach Phys Educ. 2018;37(2):225–231.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patton MQ. Qualitative evaluation and research methods. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Cornish F, Gillespie A, Zittoun T. Collaborative analysis of qualitative data. In: Flick U, editor. The Sage handbook of qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications; 2014. p. 79–93.
   Google Scholar
• Vaismoradi M, Jones J, Turunen H, et al. Theme development in qualitative content analysis and thematic analysis. 2016;6:100–110.
   Google Scholar
• Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101.
   Google Scholar
• Boyatzis RE. Transforming qualitative information: thematic analysis and code development. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications; 1998.
   Google Scholar
• Ryan SE, Renozni A. Family Impact of Assistive Technology Scale for AAC (FIATS-AAC) 2010. Available from: https://flintbox.com/public/project/27105/
   Google Scholar
• Crais E, Roy V, Free K. Parents’ and professionals’ perceptions of the implementation of family-centered practices in child assessments. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2006;15(4):365–377.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crais ER. Moving from “parent involvement” to family-centered services. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 1991;1(1):5–8.
   Google Scholar
• Litchfield R, MacDougall C. Professional issues for physiotherapists in family-centered and community-based settings. Aust J Physiother. 2002;48(2):105–112.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coyne I, Holmström I, Söderbäck M. Centeredness in healthcare: a concept synthesis of family-centered care, person-centered care and child-centered care. J Pediatr Nurs. 2018;42:45–56.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pfeiffer D. The philosophical foundations of disability studies. DSQ. 2002;22(2):3–23.
   Google Scholar
• Angelo D. Impact of augmentative and alternative communication devices on families. Augment Altern Commun. 2000;16(1):37–47.
   Google Scholar
• Nemes J. Professional burnout: how to stop it from happening to you. Hear J. 2004;57(1):21–22.
   Google Scholar
• Fourie RJ. Therapeutic processes for communication disorders: a guide for clinicians and students. East Sussex (UK): Psychology Press; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Caty ME, Kinsella EA, Doyle PC. Reflective practice in speech-language pathology: a scoping review. Int J Speech Lang Pathol. 2015;17(4):411–420.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mann K, Gordon J, MacLeod A. Reflection and reflective practice in health professions education: a systematic review. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2009;14(4):595–621.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hill AE, Davidson BJ, Theodoros DG. Reflections on clinical learning in novice speech-language therapy students. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2012;47(4):413–426.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boddy CR. Sample size for qualitative research. QMR. 2016;19(4):426–432.
   Google Scholar