AAC Assessment and Clinical-Decision Making: The Impact of Experience

References

• AAC-RERC/ (2011). Mobile devices and communication apps. Retrieved from http://aac-rerc.psu.edu/index.php/pages/show/id/46
   Google Scholar
• American Speech-Language-Hearing Association [ASHA] (2005). 2005 Standards and implementation procedures for the certificate of clinical competence in speech-language pathology. Retrieved from http://www.asha.org/certification/slp_standards.htm
   Google Scholar
• Binger, C., Ball, L., Dietz, A., Kent-Walsh, J., Lasker, J., Lund, S., McKelvey, M… et al. (in press). Personnel roles in the AAC assessment process. Augmentative and Alternative Communication.
   Google Scholar
• Batorowicz, B., & Shepherd, T. A. (2011). Teamwork in AAC: Examining clinical perceptions. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 27, 16–25.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beliveau, C., Hodge, M. M., & Hagler, P. H. (1995). Effects of supplemental linguistic cues on the intelligibility of severely dysarthric speakers. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 11, 176–186.
   Google Scholar
• Benner, P. (2004). Using the Dreyfus model of skill acquisition to describe and interpret skill acquisition and clinical judgment in nursing practice and education. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 24, 188–199.
   Google Scholar
• Beukelman, D. R., Ball, L. J., & Fager, S. (2008). An AAC personnel framework: Adults with acquired complex communication needs. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 24, 255–267.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beukelman, D. R., & Cumley, G. D. (1992). Models and objectives for personnel preparation in the augmentative and alternative communication field. NIDRR (pp. 9–20).
   Google Scholar
• Beukelman, D. R., Fager, S., Ball, L., & Dietz, A. (2007). AAC for adults with acquired neurological conditions: A review. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 23, 230–242.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beukelman, D. R., & Mirenda, P. (1988). Communication options of persons who cannot speak: Assessment and evaluation. In C. A. Coston (Ed.), Proceedings of the national planners’ conference on assistive device service delivery (pp. 151–165). Washington, DC: Association for the Advancement of Rehabilitation Technology.
   Google Scholar
• Beukelman, D. R., & Mirenda, P. (2005). Augmentative and alternative communication: Supporting children and adults with complex communication needs. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
   Google Scholar
• Cherney, L. R., Halper, A. S., Holland, A., & Cole, R. (2008). Computerized script training for aphasia: Preliminary results. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 17, 19–34.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Costigan, F. A., & Light, J. (2010). A review of pre-service training in augmentative and alternative communication for speech-language pathologists, special education teachers, and occupational therapists. Assistive Technology, 22, 200–212.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Creswell, J. W. (2002). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
   Google Scholar
• Garrett, K., & Lasker, J. (2007). Aphasia Assessment Materials. Retrieved from http://aac.unl.edu/screen/screen.html
   Google Scholar
• Glennen, S., & DeCoste, D. (1997). The handbook of augmentative and alternative communication. San Diego, CA: Singular Publishing Group, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Hustad, K. C., Keppner, K., Schanz, A., & Berg, A. (2008). Augmentative and alternative communication for preschool children: Intervention goals and use of technology. Seminars in Speech & Language, 29, 83–91.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Johnson, J. M., Inglebret, E., Jones, C., & Ray, J. (2006). Perspectives of speech language pathologists regarding success versus abandonment of AAC. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 22, 85–99.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Judge, S., & Townend, J. (2010). Choosing voice output communication aids: A proposed decision-making tool. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the International Society for Augmentative and Alternative Communication, Barcelona, Spain.
   Google Scholar
• Light, J. (1988). Interaction involving individuals using augmentative communication systems: State of the art and future directions for research. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 4, 66–82.
   Google Scholar
• Lindsay, S. (2010). Perceptions of health care workers prescribing augmentative and alternative communication devices to children. Disability &Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 5, 209–222.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Marvin, L. A., Montano, J. J., Fusco, L. M., & Gould, E. P. (2003). Speech-language pathologists’ perceptions of their training and experience in using alternative and augmentative communication. Contemporary Issues in Communication Science & Disorders, 30, 76–83.
   Google Scholar
• McDonald, R., Harris, E., Price, K., & Jolleff, N. (2008). Elation or frustration? Outcomes following the provision of equipment during the communication aids project: Data from one CAP partner centre. Child: Care, Health & Development, 34, 223–229.
   Google Scholar
• McFadd, E., & Wilkinson, K. (2010). Qualitative analysis of decision making by speech-language pathologists in the design of aided visual displays. Augmentative &Alternative Communication, 26, 136–147.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGinnis, P. Q., Hack, L. M., Nixon-Cave, K., & Michlovitz, S. L. (2009). Factors that influence clinical-decision making of physical therapists in choosing a balance assessment approach. Physical Therapy, 89, 233–247.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nash, J. M. (2008). Transdisciplinary training: Key components and prerequisites for success. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35(2S), S133–S140.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Owens, R. E. & House, L. I. (1984). Decision-making processes in augmentative and alternative communication. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 49, 18–25.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Richards, L., & Morse, J. M. (2007). Readme first for a user's guide to qualitative methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Ratcliff, A., Koul, R., & Lloyd, L. L. (2008). Preparation in augmentative and alternative communication: An update for speech-language pathology training. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 17, 48–59.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schlosser, R. W., & Raghavendra, P. (2004). Evidence-based practice in augmentative and alternative communication. Augmentative & Alternative Communication, 20, 1–21.
   Google Scholar
• Shane, H. & Bashir, A. (1980). Election criteria for the adoption of an augmentative and communication system: Preliminary considerations. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 45, 408–414.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sutherland, D. E., Gillon, G. G., & Yoder, D. E. (2005). AAC use and service provision: A survey of New Zealand speech-language therapists. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 21, 295–307.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomas, D. R. (2006). An inductive approach for qualitative analysis. American Journal of Evaluation, 27, 237–246.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yorkston, K. M., & Beukelman, D. R. (2000). Decision making in AAC intervention. In D. R. Beukelman, K. M. Yorkston, & J. Reichle (Eds.), Augmentative and alternative communication for adults with acquired neurologic disorders (pp. 55–82). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Company.
   Google Scholar
• Wormnaes, S., & Malek, Y. A. (2004). Egyptian speech therapists want more knowledge about augmentative and alternative communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 20, 30–41.
   Google Scholar