AAC services in schools: a special educator’s perspective

References

• American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. 2016. Information for AAC users. Available at: <https://www.asha.org/public/speech/disorders/InfoAACUsers.htm>.
   Google Scholar
• Andzik, N. R., Schaefer, J. M., Nichols, R. T., and Chung, Y. 2017. National survey describing and quantifying students with communication needs. Developmental Neurorehabilitation. Advance online publication.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bailey, R. L., Stoner, J. B., Parette, H. and Angell, M. E. 2006. AAC team perceptions: Augmentative and alternative communication device use. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 41, 139–154.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baxter, S., Enderby, P., Evans, P. and Judge, S. 2012. Barriers and facilitators to the use of high-technology augmentative and alternative communication devices: A systematic review and qualitative synthesis. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 47, 115–129.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bell, S. M., Cihak, D. F. and Judge, S. 2010. A preliminary study: Do alternative certification route programs develop the necessary skills and knowledge in assistive technology? International Journal of Special Education, 25, 110–118.
   Google Scholar
• Beukelman, D. and Mirenda, P. 2013. Augmentative and alternative communication: Management of severe communication impairments. 4th ed. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
   Google Scholar
• Brady, N. C., Bruce, S., Goldman, A., Erickson, K., Mineo, B., Ogletree, B. T. … Schoonover, J. 2016. Communication services and supports for individuals with severe disabilities: Guidance for assessment and intervention. American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 121, 121–138.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Charmaz, K. 2014. Constructing grounded theory. 2nd ed. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Chung, Y., Carter, E. W. and Sisco, L. G. 2012. A systematic review of interventions to increase peer interactions for students with complex communication challenges. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 37, 271–287.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chung, Y. and Douglas, K. H. 2014. Communicative competence inventory: A team approach to AAC use. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 47, 56–68.
   Google Scholar
• Chung, Y. and Stoner, J. B. 2016. A meta-synthesis of team members’ voices: What we need and what we do to support students who use AAC. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 32, 175–186.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Costigan, F. A. and Light, J. 2010. A review of preservice training in augmentative and alternative communication for speech-language pathologists, special education teachers, and occupational therapists. Assistive Technology, 22, 200–212.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Council for Exceptional Children, 2015. What every special educator must know: Professional ethics and standards. Arlington, VA: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Creswell, J. W. 2013. Qualitative research and research design: Choosing among five approaches. 3rd ed. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Feiler, A. and Watson, D. 2010. Involving children with learning and communication difficulties: The perspectives of teachers, speech and language therapists and teaching assistants. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 113–120.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hunt, P., Soto, G., Maier, J., Müller, E. and Goetz, L. 2002. Collaborative teaming to support students with augmentative and alternative communication needs in general education classrooms. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 18, 20–35.
   Google Scholar
• Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments, 1997. Public Law 105-17.20 U. S. C. Chapter 33, Section 1415 et seq. (EDLAW. 1997).
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, J. M., Inglebret, E., Jones, C. and Ray, J. 2006. Perspectives of speech language pathologists regarding success versus abandonment of AAC. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 22, 85–99.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnston, S. S., Reichle, J., Feeley, K. M. and Jones, E. A. 2012. AAC strategies for individuals with moderate to severe disabilities. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
   Google Scholar
• Jung, L. A., Gomez, C., Baird, S. M. and Keramidas, C. L. G. 2008. Designing intervention plans bridging the gap between individualized education programs and implementation. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 41, 26–33.
   Google Scholar
• Light, J. and McNaughton, D. 2012. The changing face of augmentative and alternative communication: Past, present, and future challenges. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 28, 197–204.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lund, S. K. and Light, J. 2007. Long-term outcomes for individuals who use augmentative and alternative communication: Part III – contributing factors. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 23, 323–335.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• TASH, 2015. TASH resolution on the right to communicate. Available at:<https://tash.org/about/resolutions/tash-resolution-right-communicate/>.
   Google Scholar
• Tönsing, K. M. and Dada, S. 2016. Teachers’ perceptions of implementation of aided AAC to support expressive communication in South African special schools: A pilot investigation. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 32, 282–304.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tufford, L. and Newman, P. 2012. Bracketing in qualitative research. Qualitative Social Work: Research and Practice, 11, 80–96.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walker, V. L. and Snell, M. E. 2013. Effects of augmentative and alternative communication on challenging behavior: A meta-analysis. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 29, 117–131.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar