The language and communication attributes of graphic symbol communication aids – a systematic review and narrative synthesis

References

• Dada S, Alant E. The effect of aided language stimulation on vocabulary acquisition in children with little or no functional speech. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2009;18:50.
   Google Scholar
• Murray J, Ball H, Goldbart J. Operational demands and representational forms. In: Murray J and Smith M, editors. The silent partner? Guildford (UK): J&R Press Ltd; 2016. p. 307.
   Google Scholar
• O'Keefe BM, Brown L, Schuller R. Identification and rankings of communication aid features by five groups. Augment Altern Commun. 1998;14:37–50.
   Google Scholar
• Judge S, Townend G. Perceptions of the design of voice output communication aids. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2013;48:366–381.
   Google Scholar
• Drager KDR, Light JC, Speltz JC, et al. The performance of typically developing 2.5-year-olds on dynamic display AAC technologies with different system layouts and language organizations. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2003;46:298–312.
   Google Scholar
• Thistle JJ, Wilkinson KM. Building evidence-based practice in AAC display design for young children: current practices and future directions. Augment Altern Commun. 2015;31:124–136.
   Google Scholar
• Binger C, Ball L, Dietz A, et al. Personnel roles in the AAC assessment process. Augment Altern Commun. 2012;28:278–288.
   Google Scholar
• Lynch Y, Murray J, Moulam L, et al. Decision making in communication aid recommendations in the UK: Cultural and Contextual Influencers. Augmentative and Alternative Communication. 2019 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/07434618.2019.1599066
   Google Scholar
• Murray J, Lynch Y, Meredith S, et al. Professionals’ decision making in recommending communication aids in the UK: competing considerations. Augmentative and Alternative Communication. 2019 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/07434618.2019.1597384
   Google Scholar
• Webb EJD, Meads D, Lynch Y, et al. What's important in AAC decision making for children? Evidence from a best-worst scaling survey. Augment Altern Commun. 2019. DOI: 10.1080/07434618.2018.1561750
   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;22:85–99.
   Google Scholar
• Scherer M, Sax C, Vanbiervliet A, et al. Predictors of assistive technology use: the importance of personal and psychosocial factors. Disabil Rehabil. 2005;27:1321–1331.
   Google Scholar
• Light J, McNaughton D. Communicative competence for individuals who require augmentative and alternative communication: a new definition for a new era of communication? Augment Altern Commun. 2014;30:1–18.
   Google Scholar
• Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ 2015;349:g7647–g7647.
   Google Scholar
• Crowe M. The design and evaluation of a critical appraisal tool for qualitative and quantitative health research [dissertation]. Townsville (Australia):James Cook University; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Lucas P, Baird J, Arai L, et al. Worked examples of alternative methods for the synthesis of qualitative and quantitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007;7:4.
   Google Scholar
• Dixon-Woods M, Agarwal S, Jones D, et al. Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: a review of possible methods. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2016;10:45–53.
   Google Scholar
• Tate RL, Perdices M, Rosenkoetter U, et al. Revision of a method quality rating scale for single-case experimental designs and n-of-1 trials: the 15-item risk of bias in N-of-1 trials (RoBiNT) scale. Neuropsychol Rehabil. 2013;23:619–638.
   Google Scholar
• Hochstein DD, McDaniel MA, Nettleton S, et al. The fruitfulness of a nomothetic approach to investigating AAC: comparing two speech encoding schemes across cerebral palsied and nondisabled children. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2003;12:110–120.
   Google Scholar
• Reichle J, Dettling E, Drager K, et al. Comparison of correct responses and response latency for fixed and dynamic displays: performance of a learner with severe developmental disabilities. Augment Altern Commun. 2000;16:154–163.
   Google Scholar
• Hochstein DD, McDaniel MA, Nettleton S. Recognition of vocabulary in children and adolescents with cerebral palsy: a comparison of two speech coding schemes. Augment Altern Commun. 2004;20:45–62.
   Google Scholar
• Hurlbut BI, Iwata BA, Green JD. Nonvocal language acquisition in adolescents with severe physical disabilities: bliss symbol versus iconic stimulus formats. J Appl Behav Anal. 1982;15:241–258.
   Google Scholar
• BCI. Blissymbolics Communication International. 2018 19/03/2018]; Available at: http://www.blissymbolics.org/
   Google Scholar
• Light J, Lindsay P, Siegel L, et al. The effects of message encoding techniques on recall by literate adults using AAC systems. Augment Altern Commun. 1990;6:184–201.
   Google Scholar
• Light J, Lindsay P. Message-encoding techniques for augmentative communication systems: the recall performances of adults with severe speech impairments. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 1992;35:853–864.
   Google Scholar
• Baker B. Minspeak. Byte 1982;7(9):186- 202.
   Google Scholar
• Bornman J, Bryen DN. Social validation of vocabulary selection: ensuring stakeholder relevance. Augment Altern Commun. 2013;29:174–181.
   Google Scholar
• Yorkston K, Dowden P, Honsinger M, et al. A comparison of standard and user vocabulary lists. Augment Altern Commun. 1988;4:189–210.
   Google Scholar
• Yorkston K, Honsinger M, Dowden P, et al. Vocabulary selection: a case report. Augment Altern Commun. 1989;5:101–108.
   Google Scholar
• Black R, Waller A, Turner R, et al. Supporting personal narrative for children with complex communication needs. ACM Trans Comput-Hum Interact. 2012;19:1.
   Google Scholar
• Stewart H, Wilcock A. Improving the communication rate for symbol based, scanning voice output device users. Technol Disabil 2001;13:141–150.
   Google Scholar
• Light J, McNaughton D. Putting people first: re-thinking the role of technology in augmentative and alternative communication intervention. Augment Altern Commun. 2013;29:299–309.
   Google Scholar