Personnel Roles in the AAC Assessment Process

References

• AAC-RERC. (2012). Overview of the health-based funding programs that cover speech generating devices. Retrieved June 5, 2012, from http://aac-rerc.psu.edu/index.php/webcasts/show/id/8.
   Google Scholar
• AAC-RERC. (2011). Mobile devices and communication apps. Retrieved June 5, 2012, from http://aac-rerc.psu.edu/index.php/pages/show/id/46.
   Google Scholar
• AAC TechConnect (2012). AAC device assistant. Retrieved January 27, 2012, from http://www.aactechconnect.com.
   Google Scholar
• American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2002). A workload analysis approach for establishing speech-language caseload standards in the schools: [Technical Report]. Available from www.asha.org/policy
   Google Scholar
• American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (1997). Multiskilled personnel [Position Statement]. Available from www.asha.org/policy.
   Google Scholar
• Assistive Technology Act of 2004. (2004). Public Law 108–364, 118 Stat 1701.
   Google Scholar
• Assistive Technology Law Center (2012). SGD funding solutions from Assistive Technology Law Center. Retrieved January 31, 2012, from http://www.aacfundinghelp.com.
   Google Scholar
• Ball, L., Beukelman, D., &Pattee, G. (2004). Acceptance of augmentative and alternative communication technology by persons with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 20, 113–122.
   Google Scholar
• Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Beukelman, D., Ball, L., &Fager, S. (2008). An AAC personnel framework: Adults with acquired complex communication needs. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 24, 255–267.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beukelman, D., Hanson, E., Hiatt, E., Fager, S., &Bilyeu, D. (2005). AAC technology learning part 3: Regular AAC team members. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 21, 187–194.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beukelman, D., &Mirenda, P. (2005). Augmentative and alternative communication: Supporting children and adults with complex communication needs. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
   Google Scholar
• Beukelman, D., Yorkston, K., &Garrett, K. (2007). An introduction to AAC services for adults with chronic medical conditions. In: D. Beukelman, K. Garrett, &K. Yorkston (Eds.), Augmentative communication strategies for adults with acute or chronic medical conditions (pp. 1–15). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
   Google Scholar
• Binger, C., &Kent-Walsh, J. (2009). What every speech-language pathologist needs to know about augmentative and alternative communication. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Bowser, G., &Roberts, D. (2003). Aspects of role release in the provision of services to young children: A concept paper offered by the collaborative teaming work group. Available from http://www.rsoi.org/Documents/Aspects%20of%20Role%20Release%20in%20the%20Provision%20of%20Services%20to%20Young%20Children.PDF
   Google Scholar
• Bruno, J. (2003). Test of aided communication symbol performance. Mayer-Johnson Co.
   Google Scholar
• Burke, R., Beukelman, D., Ball, L., &Horn, C. (2002). Augmentative and alternative communication learning part 1: Augmentative and alternative communication intervention specialists. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 18, 242–249.
   Google Scholar
• Calculator, S., &Black, T. (2009). Validation of an inventory of best practices in the provision of augmentative and alternative communication services to students with severe disabilities in general education classrooms. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 18, 329–342.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dietz, A., Quach, W., Lund, S., &McKelvey, M. (2012). AAC assessment and clinical decision-making: The impact of experience. Augmentative and Alternative Communication 28, 149–159.
   Google Scholar
• Fager, S., Hux, K., Beukelman, D., &Karantounis, R. (2006). Augmentative and alternative communication use and acceptance by adults with traumatic brain injury. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 22, 37–47.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fried-Oken, M., &Granlund, M. (2012). AAC and ICF: A good fit to emphasize outcomes. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 28, 1–2.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Georgia Project for Assistive Technology (2012). Retrieved June 2, 2012, from http://gpat.org
   Google Scholar
• Glennen, S., &DeCoste, D. (1997). Handbook of augmentative and alternative communication. San Diego, CA: Singular Publishing Group, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Hustad, K., Keppner, K., Schanz, A., &Berg, A. (2008). Augmentative and alternative communication for preschool children: Intervention goals and the use of technology. Seminars in Speech and Language, 29, 83–91.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jinks, A., Cornis-Pop, M., Caudill, T., &Schein, R. (November, 2010). VA Polytrauma assistive technology labs: Focus on AAC and electronic cognitive devices. American Speech Language Hearing Association Convention, Philadelphia. Retrieved June 15, 2011, from http://www.aacfundinghelp.com/
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, J., Inglebret, E., Jones, C., &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
• Kawamoto, K., Houlihan, C., Balas, E., &Lobach, D. (2005). Improving clinical practice using clinical decision support systems: A systematic review of trials to identify features critical to success. British Medical Journal. Retrieved January 26, 2012, from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC555881. doi: 10.1136/bmj.38398.500764.8F.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kent-Walsh, J., &McNaughton, D. (2005). Communication partner instruction in AAC: Present practices and future directions. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 21, 195–204.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kent-Walsh, J., Stark, C., &Binger, C. (2008). Tales from school trenches: AAC service-delivery and professional expertise. Seminars in Speech and Language, 29, 146–154.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lasker, J., &Garrett, K. (2006). Using the Multimodal Communication Screening Test for Persons with Aphasia (MCST-A) to guide the selection of alternative communication strategies for people with aphasia. Aphasiology, 20, 217–232.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lasker, J., Garrett, K., &Cave, A. (2010, May). Construct validity of the AAC-Aphasia framework: Partner-dependent and independent communicators. Platform presentation at the Clinical Aphasiology conference, SC.
   Google Scholar
• Lund, S., &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
• Marvin, L. A., Montano, J. J., Fusco, L. M., &Gould, E. P. (2003). Speech-language pathologists’ perceptions of their training and experience in using alternative and augmentative communication. Contemporary Issues in Communication Science & Disorders, 30, 76–83.
   Google Scholar
• Nordness, A., Ball, L., Fager, S., Beukelman, D., &Pattee, G. (2010). Late AAC assessment for individuals with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Journal of Medical Speech-Language Pathology, 18, 48–56.
   Google Scholar
• Ratcliff, A., Koul, R., &Lloyd, L. (2008). Preparation in augmentative and alternative communication: An update for speech-language pathology training. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 17, 48–59.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schlosser, R., &Raghavendra, P. (2004). Evidence-based practice in augmentative and alternative communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 20, 1–21.
   Google Scholar
• Styles, J. (2008). Service users’ acceptability of videoconferencing as a form of service delivery. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare, 14, 415–420.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• van der Meer, L., Sigafoos, J., O’Reilly, M., &Lancioni, G. (2011). Assessing preferences for AAC options in communication interventions for individuals with developmental disabilities: A review of the literature. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 32, 1422–1431.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wisconsin Assistive Technology Initiative (2012). Retrieved June 2, 2012, from http://wati.org
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organization (2001). International classification of functioning, disability and health. Retrieved January 31, 2012, from http://www.who.int/classifications/icf/en
   Google Scholar