733
Views
25
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Original Article

Navigating Evidence-Based Information Sources in Augmentative and Alternative Communication

&
Pages 225-235 | Published online: 11 Nov 2009
 

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 (Citation) 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.

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. (Citation2006) review has now been appraised by five sources, including EBCAI, EVIDAAC, ASHA EBP Compendium, and DARE.

Log in via your institution

Log in to Taylor & Francis Online

PDF download + Online access

  • 48 hours access to article PDF & online version
  • Article PDF can be downloaded
  • Article PDF can be printed
USD 65.00 Add to cart

Issue Purchase

  • 30 days online access to complete issue
  • Article PDFs can be downloaded
  • Article PDFs can be printed
USD 294.00 Add to cart

* Local tax will be added as applicable

Related Research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.