Focus group discussions of literacy assessment and world wide web-based reading intervention

References

• Balandin, S., & Raghavendra, P. (1999). Challenging oppression: Augmented communicators' involvement in AAC research. In F. T. Loncke, J. Clibbens, H. A. Arvidson, & L. L. Lloyd (Eds.), Augmentative and alternative communication: New directions in research and practice (pp. 262–277). London: Whurr.
   Google Scholar
• Bersani Jr., H. (1999). Nothing about me without me: A proposal for participatory action research in AAC. In F. T. Loncke, J. Clibbens, H. A. Arvidson, & L. L. Lloyd (Eds.), Augmentative and alternative communication: New directions in research and practice (pp. 278–289). London: Whurr.
   Google Scholar
• Blischak, D. (1994). Phonological awareness: Implications for indi-viduals with little or no functional speech. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 10, 245–254.
   Google Scholar
• Catts, H. (1993). The relationship between speech-language impairments and reading disabilities. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 36,948–958.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dahlgren Sandberg, A., & Hjelmquist, E. (1996a). A comparative, descriptive study of reading and writing skills among non-speak-ing children: A preliminary study. European Journal of Disorders of Communication, 31, 289–308.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dahlgren Sandberg, A., & Hjelmquist, E. (1996b). Phonological awareness and literacy abilities in nonspeaking preschool chil-dren with cerebral palsy. Augmentative and Alternative Com-munication, 12, 138–154.
   Google Scholar
• Flesch, R. (1948). A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32,221–233.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foley, B., & Pollatsek, A. (1999). Phonological coding and con-genital anarthria and dysarthria. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, /5,156–173.
   Google Scholar
• French, S., & Swain, J. (1997). Changing disability research: Par-ticipating and emancipatory research with disabled people. Physiotherapy, 83(1), 26–32.
   Google Scholar
• Hannon, B., & Daneman, M. (1998). Facilitating knowledge-based inferences in less-skilled readers. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23, 149–172.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hawe, P., Degeling, D., Hall, J., & Brierley, A. (1993). Evaluating health promotion. Sydney: MacLennen and Petty.
   Google Scholar
• Iacono, T., Cupples, L., Balandin, S., & Cassidy, S. (1999, Sep-tember). Reading skills assessment for Web access. Paper pre-sented at the Australian Rehabilitation and Technology Associ-ation, Sydney.
   Google Scholar
• Koppenhaver, D., Evans, D., & Yoder, D. (1991). Childhood read-ing and writing experiences of literate adults with severe speech and motor impairments. Augmentative and Alternative Com-munication, 7,20–33.
   Google Scholar
• Koppenhaver, D., Pierce, P., Steelman, J., & Yoder, D. (1995). Contexts of early literacy intervention for children with develop-mental disabilities. In M. Fey, J. Windsor, & S. Warren (Eds.), Language intervention: Preschool through the elementary years (pp. 241–274). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
   Google Scholar
• Krogh, K. S., & Lindsay, P. H. (1999). Including people with dis-abilities in research: Implications for the field of augmentative and alternative communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, /5,222–233.
   Google Scholar
• Liamputtong Rice, P., & Ezzy, D. (1999). Qualitative research methods: A health focus. London: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lorch, R., & Pugzles-Lorch, E. (1995). Effects of organizational sig-nals on text-processing strategies. Journal of Educational Psy-chology, 87, 537–544.
   Google Scholar
• Oliver, M. (1996). Re-defining disability: A challenge to research. In J. Swain, V. S. French, & M. Oliver (Eds.), Disabling barri-ers-Enabling environments (pp. 61–67). London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Owen, A., Owen, W., Pannbacker, M., & Middleton, G. (1994). Organization and analysis of research data. In M. Pannbacker & G. Middleton (Eds.), Introduction to clinical research in com-munication disorders (pp. 143–172). San Diego: Singular.
   Google Scholar
• Price, S. (2000). My early life and education. In M. Fried-Oken & H. Bersani (Eds.), Speaking up and spelling it out: Personal essays on augmentative and alternative communication (pp. 105–114). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
   Google Scholar
• Santelli, B., Singer, G. H., Divenere, N., Ginsberg, C., & Powers, L. E. (1998). Participatory action research: Reflections on critical incidents in a PAR project. Journal of the Association for Severe Handicaps, 23,211–222.
   Google Scholar
• Schlosser, R. (1999a). An introduction to consumer perspectives in AAC research: Approaches, techniques and their theoretical underpinnings. In F. Loncke, J. Clibbens, H. Arvidson, & L. L. Lloyd (Eds.), Augmentative and alternative communication: New directions in research and practice (pp. 257–261). London: Whurr.
   Google Scholar
• Schlosser, R. W. (1999b). Social validation of interventions in aug-mentative and alternative communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 15, 234–247.
   Google Scholar
• Stanovich, K. (1991). Discrepancy definitions of reading disability: Has intelligence led us astray? Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 7–29.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swain, J., Heyman, B., & Gillman, M. (1998). Public research, pri-vate concerns: Ethical issues in the use of open-ended inter-views with people who have learning difficulties. Disability & Society, 13, 21–36.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vandervelden, M., & Siegel, L. (1999). Phonological processing and literacy in AAC users and students with motor speech impairments. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 15, 191–211.
   Google Scholar
• Wagner, R., & Torgeson, J. (1987). The nature of phonological pro-cessing and its causal role in the acquisition of reading skills. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 192–212.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wight Felske, A. (1994). Knowing about knowing: Margin notes on disability research. In M. H. Rioux & M. Bach (Eds.), Disability is not measles (pp. 181–199). Ontario: Roeher Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Williams, J. (1998). Improving the comprehension of disabled read-ers. Annals of Dyslexia, 48, 213–238.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams, M. (1994). Literacy: The key to freedom. Alternatively Speaking, 1(2), 1–3.
   Google Scholar
• Young, A., Bowers, P., & MacKinnon, G. (1996). Effects of prosodic modeling and repeated reading on poor readers' flu-ency and comprehension. Applied Psycholinguistics, 17, 59–84.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar