Complex contextual influences on the communicative interactions of students with multiple and severe disabilities

References

• Arthur, M. (2003). Socio-communicative variables and behaviour states in students with profound and multiple disabilities: Descriptive data from school settings. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 38, 200–219.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arthur, M. (2004). Patterns among behaviour states, socio-communicative, and activity variables in educational programs for students with profound and multiple disabilities. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disability, 16, 125–149.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arthur, M., Butterfield, B., & McKinnon, D. H. (1998). Communication intervention for students with severe disability: Results of a partner training program. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 45, 97–115.
   Google Scholar
• Arthur, M., Foreman, P., Pascoe, S., Butterfield, N., & Bennett, D. (1999). Educational programming for students with high support needs: A report of work in progress. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 23, 64–74.
   Google Scholar
• Arthur-Kelly, M., Bochner, S., Center, Y., & Mok, M. (2008). Socio-communicative perspectives on research and evidence-based practice in the education of students with profound and multiple disabilities. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disability, 36, 1–19.
   Google Scholar
• Butterfield, N. (1991). Assessment of preverbal communicative abilities in students with severe intellectual disability. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Developmental Disability, 17, 347–364.
   Google Scholar
• Butterfield, N., & Arthur, M. (1994). Addressing teacher needs and concerns in communication interventions for students with an intellectual disability. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 41, 201–212.
   Google Scholar
• Butterfield, N., & Arthur, M. (1995). Shifting the focus: Emerging priorities in communication programming for students with a severe intellectual disability. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 1995, 41–50.
   Google Scholar
• Butterfield, N., Arthur, M., & Sigafoos, J. (1995). Partners in everyday communicative exchangesAustraliaMacLennan & Petty
   Google Scholar
• Carter, M. (2002). Communicative spontaneity in individuals with high support needs: An exploratory consideration of causation. Journal of Disability and Development in Education, 49, 225–242.
   Google Scholar
• Carter, M., & Hotchkis, G. D. (2002). A conceptual analysis of communicative spontaneity. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 27, 168–190.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chalmers, S. E., Carter, M., Clayton, M., & Hook, J. (1998). Education of students with high support needs: Teachers' perceptions of possible best practices, reported implementation and training needs. Australian Journal of Special Education, 22, 76–94.
   Google Scholar
• Coffey, A., & Atkinson, P. (1996). Making sense of qualitative data: Complementary research strategiesThousand Oaks, CASage
   Google Scholar
• Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (3rd ed.)Upper Saddle River, NJPearson Merrill Prentice Hall
   Google Scholar
• De Bortoli, T., Arthur-Kelly, M., Mathisen, B., Foreman, P., & Balandin, S. (2010). Where are teachers' voices? A research agenda to enhance the communicative interactions of students with multiple and severe disabilities as school. Disability and Rehabilitation, 32, 1059–1072.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Downing, J. (2001). Meeting the communication needs of students with severe and multiple disabilities in general classrooms. Exceptionality, 9, 147–156.
   Google Scholar
• Eisenhart, M. A., & Howe, K. R. (1992). Validity in educational research (643–80). The handbook of qualitative research in educationIn M. D. LeCompte, W. L. Millroy, & J. Preissle (Eds.), San Diego, CAThe Academic Press
   Google Scholar
• Foreman, P., & Arthur, M. (2002). Parental perspectives on educational programmes for students with high support needs. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 17, 175–184.
   Google Scholar
• Foreman, P., Arthur-Kelly, M., & Pascoe, S. (2007). The impact of partner training on the communicative involvement of students with multiple and severe disability in special schools. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 32, 233–247.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foreman, P., Arthur-Kelly, M., Pascoe, S., & Smyth King, B. (2004). Evaluating the educational experiences of students with profound and multiple disabilities in inclusive and segregated classroom settings: An Australian perspective. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 29, 183–193.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freeman, M., de Marrais, K., Preissle, J., Roulston, K., & St. Pierre, E. (2007). Standards of evidence in qualitative research: An incitement to discourse. Educational Researcher, 36, 25–32.
   Google Scholar
• Houghton, J., Bronicki, B., & Guess, D. (1987). Opportunities to express preferences and make choices among students with severe disabilities in classroom settings. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 12, 18–27.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iacono, T., Carter, M., & Hook, J. (1998). Identification of intentional communication in students with SMD. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 14, 102–114.
   Google Scholar
• Kent-Walsh, J. E., & Light, J. C. (2003). General education teachers' experiences with inclusion of students who use augmentative and alternative communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 19, 104–124.
   Google Scholar
• Lazslo, E. (1973). Introduction to systems philosophy: Towards a new paradigm of contemporary thoughtNew YorkHarper & Row
   Google Scholar
• Little, M. E., & Houston, D. (2003). Research into practice through professional development. Remedial and Special Education, 24, 75–87.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCarthy, J., & Light, J. C. (2005). Attitudes towards individuals who use augmentative and alternative communication: Research review. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 21, 41–55.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCathren, R. B. (2000). Teacher implemented prelinguistic communication intervention. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 15, 21–29.
   Google Scholar
• Packman, A., & Kuhn, L. (2009). Looking at stuttering through the lens of complexity. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 11, 77–82.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Riessman, C. K. (1993). Narrative analysisNewbury Park, CASage
   Google Scholar
• Richards, L. (2005). Handling qualitative data: A practical guideLondonSage
   Google Scholar
• Rowland, C. (1990). Communication in the classroom for children with dual sensory impairments: Studies of teacher and child behaviour. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 6, 262–274.
   Google Scholar
• Siegel-Causey, E., & Bashinski, S. M. (1997). Enhancing initial communication and responsiveness of learners with multiple disabilities: A tri-focus framework for partners. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 12, 105–120.
   Google Scholar
• Sigafoos, J. (1999). Creating opportunities for augmentative and alternative communication: Strategies for involving people with developmental disabilities. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 15, 183–190.
   Google Scholar
• Sigafoos, J., Roberts, D., Kerr, M., Couzens, D., & Baglioni, A. J. (1994). Opportunities for communication in classrooms serving children with developmental disabilities. Journal of Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 24, 259–279.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soto, G. (1997). Special education teacher attitudes toward AAC: Preliminary survey. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 13, 186–198.
   Google Scholar
• Soto, G., & Goetz, L. (1998). Self-efficacy beliefs and the education of students with severe disabilities. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 23, 134–143.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soto, G., Muller, E., Hunt, P., & Goetz, L. (2001). Critical issues in the inclusion of students who use augmentative and alternative communication: An educational team perspective. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 17, 62–72.
   Google Scholar
• Tesch, R. (1990). Qualitative research: Analytic types and software toolsLewesFalmer Press
   Google Scholar