Traditional Versus Computerized Presentation and Response Methods on a Structured AAC Assessment Tool

Abstract

This pilot investigation compared participants’ performance using traditional versus computerized presentation and response methods on a subtest of the Test of Aided-Symbol Performance^™ (TASP). Participants were between 6 years and 21 years of age and were using some form of augmentative and alternative communication (AAC). Investigators used a within-subject crossover design, with participants randomly assigned to the administration condition they experienced first. Two months later, participants experienced the second condition. Results showed no significant difference in performance regardless of the administration condition, which supported the investigators’ hypothesis. Accepting computerized presentation and response methods for the TASP would allow this measure to be used more broadly and expand the current methods of confidently evaluating options for AAC recommendations.

Keywords::

• Augmentative and alternative communication
• Assessment
• Physical access
• Computer
• Research-informed practice

Acknowledgments

This paper is partially based on a presentation at the 14th Biennial Conference of the International Society for Augmentative and Alternative Communication in Barcelona, Spain, 2010. The authors would like to thank Joan Bruno for originally developing the Test of Aided-Symbol Communication, and in conjunction with DynaVox Mayer-Johnson, for granting permission for the use of the test in this study. In addition, the authors would like to thank the management team at the Thames Valley Children’s Centre for their support of this study and our colleagues for their valuable suggestions on improving the quality of this manuscript.

Declaration of interest: The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the paper.

Notes

1. The Test of Aided-Communication Symbol Performance (TASP) © 2006 Joan Bruno.

2. PCS, Picture Communication Symbols, 1981–2009, DynaVox Mayer-Johnson LLC.

3. Boardmaker with Speaking Dynamically Pro v.6 2006, DynaVox Mayer-Johnson LLC.

4. Magic Touch is a registered trademark of KEYTEC, Inc.

5. Post hoc analysis: During interpretation of results it was noted that one participant (Participant 5) was 2 weeks over the established time interval between trials and therefore a bit outside of the timeline established in the procedure. The investigators examined this participant’s data to determine potential impacts on the results of the study. It was concluded that if this participant’s scores were removed from the data set, it would not have negatively impacted the results. Consequently, the data have been included in all results.