Navigating Evidence-Based Information Sources in Augmentative and Alternative Communication

Abstract

An important part of evidence-based practice is to identify the best and most current research evidence to guide clinical practice. The purpose of this paper is to propose the use of the 5-S model by Haynes () as a principled approach for navigating evidence-based information sources related to interventions in augmentative and alternative communication (AAC). The 5-S model is a pyramid that is used from the top down, beginning with systems followed by summaries, synopses, syntheses, and studies. The 5-S model is described along with relevant evidence-based information sources in AAC, and subsequently illustrated with a case scenario. Following the 5-S model may enable practitioners to identify the best and most current research evidence.

Keywords:

• Augmentative and alternative communication
• Evidence-based practice
• Systematic reviews
• Searching for evidence

Declaration of Interest: The first author, Ralf Schlosser, is the Principal Investigator on a grant (see End Notes) to develop EVIDAAC, which is one of the information sources introduced in the manuscript. The second author, Jeff Sigafoos, is a Co-Director on the same grant. Ralf and Jeff are also co-editors of the journal Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention, which is another one of the information sources introduced in this paper. We have intentionally refrained from comparative value judgments about these sources, and merely relied on factual statements relative to each information source, in an attempt to provide practitioners with a fair and balanced introduction to all of the available evidence-based information sources.

Notes

1 EVIDAAC was funded by a Field-Initiated Development Grant from the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR), US Department of Education (#H133G070150-08) to Ralf W. Schlosser. The authors, however, bear sole responsibility for the content of this paper and funding by NIDRR does not imply that the opinions expressed in this report are those of the agency.

2 At least 25% of the reviews are appraised by the Editorial Board in addition to the EVIDAAC team; disagreements are reconciled prior to assigning the final score.

3 The Millar et al. (2006) review has now been appraised by five sources, including EBCAI, EVIDAAC, ASHA EBP Compendium, and DARE.