Communication access in the retail environment for people with complex communication needs

References

• United Nations. Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities; 2006 [cited 2018 Apr 27]. Available from: https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities.html.
   Google Scholar
• Degener T. Disability in a human rights context. Laws. 2016;5(3):35.
   Google Scholar
• Australian Government. Disability Discrimination Act 1992; 1992 [cited 2018 Mar 12]. Available from: https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2017C00339.
   Google Scholar
• U.K. Government. Equality Act 2010; 2010 [cited 2018 Mar 12]. Available from: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents.
   Google Scholar
• Nussbaum M. Capabilities as fundamental entitlements: Sen and social justice. Fem Econ. 2003;9(2–3):33–59.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clegg J, Bigby C. Debates about dedifferentiation: twenty-first century thinking about people with intellectual disabilities as distinct members of the disability group. Res Pract Intellect Dev Disabil. 2017;4(1):80.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mansell J. Deinstitutionalisation and community living: progress, problems and priorities. J Intellect Dev Disabil. 2006;31(2):65–76.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Light J, McNaughton D. Designing AAC research and intervention to improve outcomes for individuals with complex communication needs. Augment Altern Commun. 2015;31(2):85–96.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beukelman D, Mirenda P, Ball L, et al. Augmentative and alternative communication: supporting children and adults with complex communication needs. 4th ed. Baltimore, USA: Brookes Publishing; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Simplican SC, Leader G, Kosciulek J, et al. Defining social inclusion of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities: an ecological model of social networks and community participation. Res Dev Disabil. 2015;38:18–29.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Werner S, Hochman Y. Social inclusion of individuals with intellectual disabilities in the military. Res Dev Disabil. 2017;65:103–113.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Corazza M, Dyer J. A new model for inclusive sports? An evaluation of participants’ experiences of mixed ability rugby. Soc Incl. 2017;5(2):130–140.
   Google Scholar
• Hall SA. The social inclusion of people with disabilities: a qualitative meta-analysis. J Ethnogr Qual Res. 2009;3(3):162–173..
   Google Scholar
• Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Disability prevalence and trends. Canberra: AIHW; 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Speech Pathology Australia. Submission to the productivity commission inquiry into long term care and support; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Beukelman DR, Beukelman DR, Mirenda P. Augmentative and alternative communication: supporting children and adults with complex communication needs. 4th ed. Baltimore, USA: Paul H. Brookes Pub; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Collier B, Blackstone SW, Taylor A. Communication access to businesses and organizations for people with complex communication needs. Augment Altern Commun (Baltimore, Md: 1985). 2012;28(4):205–218.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balandin S, Berg N, Waller A. Assessing the loneliness of older people with cerebral palsy. Disabil Rehabil. 2006;28(8):469–479.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Australian Human Rights Commission. Access for all: Improving accessability for consumers with disability. Sydney: Commission AHR; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor SE, Balandin S, Wilson E, et al. Customer service communication with customers with disability. J Consum Market. 2019;36(1):228–239.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Solarsh B, Johnson H. Developing communication access standards to maximize community inclusion for people with communication support needs. Top Lang Disord. 2017;37(1):52–66.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scope Australia. Communication Access; 2018. [cited 2018 Aug 07]. Available from: https://www.scopeaust.org.au/service/communication-access/.
   Google Scholar
• Baker SM, Stephens DL, Hill RP. Marketplace experiences of consumers with visual impairments: beyond the Americans with Disabilities Act. J Public Policy Market. 2001;20(2):215–224.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walsh G. Disadvantaged consumers’ experiences of marketplace discrimination in customer services. J Mark Manag. 2009;25(1-2):143–169.
   Google Scholar
• Goodrich K, Ramsey R. Are consumers with disabilities receiving the services they need? J Retail Consum Serv. 2012;19(1):88–97.
   Google Scholar
• Baker SM. Consumer normalcy: understanding the value of shopping through narratives of consumers with visual impairments. J Retail. 2006;82(1):37–50.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baker SM, Holland J, Kaufman Scarborough C. How consumers with disabilities perceive “welcome” in retail servicescapes a critical incident study. J Serv Mark. 2007;21(3):160–173.
   Google Scholar
• Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19(6):349–357.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balandin S, Goldbart J. Qualitative research and AAC: strong methods and new topics. Augment Altern Commun (Baltimore, Md: 1985). 2011;27(4):227–228.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patton MQ. Qualitative research and evaluation methods. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications; 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Cooper L, Balandin S, Trembath D. The loneliness experiences of young adults with cerebral palsy who use alternative and augmentative communication. Augment Altern Commun. 2009;25(3):154–164.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trembath D, Balandin S, Togher L. Volunteering amongst persons who use augmentative and alternative communication. J Intell Dev Disabil. 2009;34(1):87–88.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Charmaz K. Grounded theory: methodology and theory construction. In: Baltes NJSB, editor. International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences. Oxford: Pergamon; 2001. p. 6396–6399.
   Google Scholar
• Charmaz K. Constructing grounded theory: a practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications; 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Charmaz K. Constructing grounded theory. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications Ltd; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Bazeley P, Richards L. The NVivo qualitative project book. London: SAGE; 2000.
   Google Scholar
• Alford J. The multiple facets of co-production: building on the work of Elinor Ostrom. Public Manag Rev. 2014;16(3):299–316.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howlett M, Kekez A, Poocharoen O-O. Understanding co-production as a policy tool: integrating new public governance and comparative policy theory. J Compar Policy Anal Res Pract. 2017;19(5):487–501.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scope Australia. Why Did These Businesses Get the Communication Access Symbol? [Internet]. Scope Australia Website; 2019. [cited 2019 Aug 21]. Available from: https://www.scopeaust.org.au/blog/communication-access/why-did-these-businesses-get-the-communication-access-symbol/.
   Google Scholar