Functional impact of augmentative and alternative communication scale: development of an outcome measure for educators of students with complex communication needs

References

• Field DA, Miller WC, Ryan SE, et al. Measuring participation for children and youth with power mobility needs: a systematic review of potential health measurement tools. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2016;97(3):462–477.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ivanyi B, Schoenmakers M, van Veen N, et al. The effects of orthoses, footwear, and walking aids on the walking ability of children and adolescents with spina bifida: a systematic review using International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health for Children and Youth (ICF-CY) as a reference framework. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2015;39(6):437–443.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Angsupaisal M, Maathuis CG, Hadders-Algra M. Adaptive seating systems in children with severe cerebral palsy across International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health for Children and Youth version domains: a systematic review. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2015;57(10):919–930.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Therrien MC, Light J, Pope L. Systematic review of the effects of interventions to promote peer interactions for children who use aided AAC. Augment Altern Commun. 2016;32(2):81–93.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryan S, Sophianopoulos M-B. Measurement of assistive technology outcomes associated with computer-based writing interventions for children and youth with disabilities. Technologies. 2017;5(2):14–19.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tao G, Charm G, Kabacińska K, et al. Evaluation tools for assistive technologies: a scoping review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2020;101(6):1025–1040.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• King G. Perspectives on measuring participation: going forward. Child Care Health Dev. 2013;39(4):466–469.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biggs EE, Carter EW, Gilson CB. A scoping review of the involvement of children's communication partners in aided augmentative and alternative communication modeling interventions. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2019;28(2):743–758.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hunt P, Soto G, Maier J, et al. Collaborative teaming to support students with augmentative and alternative communication needs in general education classrooms. Augment Altern Commun. 2002;18(1):20–35.
   Google Scholar
• Kent-Walsh J, Light J. General education teachers' experiences with inclusion of students who use augmentative and alternative communication. Augment Altern Commun. 2003;19(2):104–124.
   Google Scholar
• Fuhrer MJ, Jutai JW, Scherer MJ, et al. A framework for the conceptual modelling of assistive technology device outcomes. Disabil Rehabil. 2003;25(22):1243–1251.
   PubMed Web of Science ®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):1–18.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. International classification of functioning, disability and health: children and youth version. ICF-CY. Geneva (Switzerland): WHO Press; 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Simeonsson RJ, Björck-Åkessön E, Lollar DJ. Communication, disability, and the ICF-CY. Augment Altern Commun. 2012;28(1):3–10.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rowland C, Fried-Oken M, Steiner SAM, et al. Developing the ICF-CY for AAC profile and code set for children who rely on AAC. Augment Altern Commun. 2012;28(1):21–32.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eadie TL, Yorkston KM, Klasner ER, et al. Measuring communicative participation: a review of self-report instruments in speech-language pathology. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2006;15(4):307–320.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryan SE, Shepherd TA, Renzoni A, et al. Systematic review of educator-reported outcomes for young people who use AAC in school activity settings. Paper presented at International Society for Augmentative and Alternative Communication Conference; 2016 Aug 8–11; Toronto, Canada. Available from: https://www.isaac-online.org/conference/modules/request.php?module=oc_program&action=view.php&id=317&type=1&a=.
   Google Scholar
• Cunningham BJ, Washington KN, Binns A, et al. Current methods of evaluating speech-language outcomes for preschoolers with communication disorders: a scoping review using the ICF-CY. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2017;60(2):447–464.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Binger C, Kent-Walsh J, Ewing C, et al. Teaching educational assistants to facilitate the multisymbol message productions of young students who require augmentative and alternative communication. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2010;19(2):108–121.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carter M. Communicative spontaneity of children with high support needs who use augmentative and alternative communication systems I: classroom spontaniety, mode, and function. Augment Altern Commun. 2003;19(3):141–154.
   Google Scholar
• Chung Y, Carter EW, Sisco LG. Social interactions of students with disabilities who use augmentative and alternative communication in inclusive classrooms. Am J Intellect Dev Disabil. 2012;117(5):349–367.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cosbey JE, Johnston S. Using a single-switch voice output communication aid to increase social access for children with severe disabilities in inclusive classrooms. Res Pract Pers with Sev Disabil. 2006;31:144–156.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Bortoli T, Arthur-Kelly M, Mathisen B, et al. Where are teachers' voices? A research agenda to enhance the communicative interactions of students with multiple and severe disabilities at school. Disabil Rehabil. 2010;32(13):1059–1072.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Douglas SN, Light JC, McNaughton DB. Teaching paraeducators to support the communication of young children with complex communication needs. Topics Early Child Spec Educ. 2013;33(2):91–101.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greenstock L, Wright J. Collaborative implementation: working together when using graphic symbols. Child Lang Teach Ther. 2011;27(3):331–343.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grether SM, Sickman LS. AAC and RTI: building classroom-based strategies for every child in the classroom. Semin Speech Lang. 2008;29(2):155–163.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Howlin P, Gordon RK, Pasco G, et al. The effectiveness of Picture Exchange Communication System (PECS) training for teachers of children with autism: a pragmatic, group randomised controlled trial. J Child Psychol & Psychiat. 2007;48(5):473–481.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnston S, Nelson C, Evans J, et al. The use of visual supports in teaching young children with autism spectrum disorder to initiate interactions. Augment Altern Commun. 2003;19(2):86–103.
   Google Scholar
• Myers C. "Please listen, it's my turn": instructional approaches, curricula and contexts for supporting communication and increasing access to inclusion”. J Intellect Dev Disabil. 2007;32(4):263–278.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pickl G. Communication intervention in children with severe disabilities and multilingual backgrounds: perceptions of pedagogues and parents. Augment Altern Commun. 2011;27(4):229–244.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raghavendra P, Olsson C, Sampson J, et al. School participation and social networks of children with complex communication needs, physical disabilities, and typically developing peers. Augment Altern Commun. 2012;28(1):33–43.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soto G, Müller E, Hunt P, et al. Critical issues in the inclusion of students who use augmentative and alternative communication: an educational team perspective. Augment Altern Commun. 2001;17(2):62–72.
   Google Scholar
• Sturm J, Spadorcia SA, Cunningham JW, et al. What happens to reading between first and third grade? Implications for students who use AAC. Augment Altern Commun. 2006;22(1):21–36.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alant E, Champion A, Peabody EC. Exploring interagency collaboration in AAC intervention. Commun Disord Q. 2013;34(3):172–183.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mathisen B, Arthur-Kelly M, Kidd J, et al. Using MINSPEAK: a case study of a preschool child with complex communication needs. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2009;4(5):376–383.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Barker RM, Akaba S, Brady NC, et al. Support for AAC use in preschool, and growth in language skills, for young children with developmental disabilities. Augment Altern Commun. 2013;29(4):334–346.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fallon KA, Katz LA. Augmentative and alternative communication and literacy teams: facing the challenges, forging ahead. Semin Speech Lang. 2008;29(2):112–119.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cafiero JM. The effect of an augmentative communication intervention on the communication, behavior, and academic program of an adolescent with autism. Focus Autism Other Dev Disabl. 2001;16(3):179–189.
   Google Scholar
• Mumford L, Lam R, Wright V, et al. An access technology delivery protocol for children with severe and multiple disabilities: a case demonstration. Dev Neurorehabil. 2014;17(4):232–242.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soto G, Hartmann E, Wilkins DP. Exploring the elements of narrative that emerge in the interactions between an 8-year-old child who uses an AAC device and her teacher. Augment Altern Commun. 2006;22(4):231–241.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guldberg K, Parsons S, Macleod A, et al. Implications for practice from “International review of the evidence on best practice in educational provision for children on the autism spectrum. Eur J Spec Needs Educ. 2011;26(1):65–70.
   Google Scholar
• Hetzroni OE, Roth T. Effects of a positive support approach to enhance communicative behaviors of children with mental retardation who have challenging behaviors. Educ Train Dev Disabil. 2003;38:95–105.
   Google Scholar
• Odom SL, Collet-Klingenberg L, Rogers SJ, et al. Evidence-based practices in interventions for children and youth with autism spectrum disorders. Prev Sch Fail. 2010;54(4):275–282.
   Google Scholar
• Chung Y-C, Carter EW, Sisco LG. A systematic review of interventions to increase peer interactions for students with complex communication challenges. Res Pract Pers with Sev Disabil. 2012;37(4):271–287.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frea WD, Arnold CL, Vittimberga GL. A demonstration of the effects of augmentative communication on the extreme aggressive behavior of a child with autism within an integrated preschool setting. J Posit Behav Interv. 2001;3(4):194–198.
   Google Scholar
• García TP, Loureiro JP, Gonzáles BG. The use of computers and augmentative and alternative communication devices by children and young with cerebral palsy. Assist Technol. 2011;23:135–149.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Streiner D, Norman G, Cairney J. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. 5th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Darling-White M. Toward a measure of communicative participation for children with developmental speech disorders. Semin Speech Lang. 2017;38(3):184–190.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duncan EAS, Murray J. The barriers and facilitators to routine outcome measurement by allied health professionals in practice: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12:96.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Watson R, Pennington L. Assessment and management of the communication difficulties of children with cerebral palsy: a UK survey of SLT practice. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2015;50(2):241–259.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murchland S, Kernot J, Parkyn H. Children’s satisfaction with assistive technology solutions for schoolwork using the QUEST 2.1: children’s version. Assist Technol. 2011;23(3):162–176.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Delarosa L, Horner S, Eisenberg C, Ball L, et al. Family Impact of Assistive Technology Scale: development of a measurement scale for parents of children with complex communication needs. Augment Altern Commun. 2012;28(3):171–180.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cappelleri JC, Lundy JJ, Hays RD. Overview of classical test theory and item response theory for the quantitative assessment of items in developing patient-reported outcomes measures. Clin Ther. 2014;36(5):648–662.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale (NJ): Erlbaum; 1988.
   Google Scholar
• Schlosser RW. Social validation of interventions in augmentative and alternative communication. Augment Altern Commun. 1999;15(4):234–237.
   Google Scholar
• Fernandez ME, Ten Hoor GA, van Lieshout S, et al. Implementation mapping: using intervention mapping to develop implementation strategies. Front Public Health. 2019;18(7):158.
   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
• Schlosser RW, Raghavendra P. Evidence-based practice in augmentative and alternative communication. Augment Altern Commun. 2004;20(1):1–21.
   Google Scholar