Team Consensus Concerning Important Outcomes for Augmentative and Alternative Communication Assistive Technologies: A Pilot Study

References

• Batorowicz, B., & Shepherd, T. A. (2011). Teamwork in AAC: Examining clinical perceptions. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 27, 16–25.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collier, B., McGhie-Richmond, D., & Self, H. (2010). Exploring communication assistants as an option for increasing communication access to communities for people who use augmentative communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 26, 48–59.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Connolly, T., Conlon, E. J., & Deutch, S. J. (1980). Organizational effectiveness: A multiple-constituency approach. Academy of Management Review, 5(2), 211–217.
   Google Scholar
• Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed method approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE publications.
   Google Scholar
• Demers, L., Ska, B., Desrosiers, J., Alix, C., & Wolfson, C. (2004). Development of a conceptual framework for the assessment of geriatric rehabilitation outcomes. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 38(3), 221–237.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Duncan, E. A. S. (2006). The nature and use of consensus methodology in practice. In G. Kielhofner (Ed.), Research in occupational therapy: Methods of inquiry for enhancing practice. Philadephia, PA: F.A. Davis Company.
   Google Scholar
• Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management,14(4), 532–550.
   Google Scholar
• Gervais, M., & Pépin, G. (2002). TRIAGE: A new group technique gaining recognition in evaluation. Evaluation Journal of Australasia, 2(2), 45–49.
   Google Scholar
• Gervais, M., Pépin, G., & Carrière, M. (2000). TRIAGE, ou comment adapter une technique de recherche à l'intervention clinique en ergothérapie. Revue québécoise d’ergothérapie, 7, 11–15.
   Google Scholar
• Hillier, S., Comans, T., Sutton, M., Amsters, D., & Kendall, M. (2010). Development of a participatory process to address fragmented application of outcome measurement for rehabilitation in community settings. Disability Rehabilitation, 32, 511–520.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Institut de la statistique du Québec. (2009a). Bulletin statistique 
régional – Centre du Québec. Québec: Gouvernement du Québec.
   Google Scholar
• Institut de la statistique du Québec. (2009b). Bulletin statistique 
régional – Mauricie. Québec: Gouvernement du Québec.
   Google Scholar
• Jensen-Doss, A., & Hawley, K. M. (2010). Understanding barriers to evidence-based assessment: Clinician attitudes toward standardized assessment tools. Journal of Clinical Child Adolescent Psychology, 39, 885–896.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• John, A. (2011). Therapy outcome measures: Where are we now?International Journal of Speech Language Pathology, 13(1), 36–42.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jutai, J. W., Fuhrer, M. J., Demers, L., Scherer, M. J., & DeRuyter, F. (2005). Toward a taxonomy of assistive technology device outcomes. American Journal of Physical Medical Rehabilitation, 84(4), 294–302.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lamontagne, M.-E., Swaine, B. R., Lavoie, A., Champagne, F., & Marcotte, A.-C. (2010). Consensus group sessions: A useful method to reconcile stakeholders’ perspectives about network performance evaluation. International Journal of Integrated Care, 10, 1568–4156 (Electronic), e117.
   Google Scholar
• Lippke, S., & Ziegelmann, J. P. (2006). Understanding and modeling health behavior: The multi-stage model of health behavior change. Journal of Health and Psychology, 11(1), 37–50.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lund, S. K., & Light, J. (2006). Long-term outcomes for individuals who use augmentative and alternative communication: Part I: What is a “good” outcome?Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 22, 284–299.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lund, S. K., & 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
• Prochaska, J., Redding, C., & Evers, K. (2002). The Transtheoretical Model and Stages of Change. In K. Glanz, B. Rimer, & F. Lewis (Eds.), Health behavior and health education: Theory, research, and practice (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Murphy, J., & Boa, S. (2012). Using the WHO-ICF with talking mats to enable adults with long-term communication difficulties to participate in goal setting. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 28, 52–60.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pless, M., & Granlund, M. (2012). Implementation of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) and the ICF Children and Youth Version (ICF-CY) within the context of augmentative and alternative communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 28, 11–20.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• QSR International. (2008). NVivo qualitative data analysis software (Version 8.0): QSR International Pty Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Rowland, C., Fried-Oken, M., Steiner, S. A., Lollar, D., Phelps, R., Simeonsson, R. J., & Granlund, M. (2012). Developing the ICF-CY for AAC profile and code set for children who rely on AAC. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 28, 21–32.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skeat, J., & Perry, A. (2008). Exploring the implementation and use of outcome measurement in practice: A qualitative study [Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't]. International Journal of Language Communication Disorders, 43(2), 110–125.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Smith, M. M., & Murray, J. (2011). Parachute without a ripcord: The skydive of communication interaction. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 27, 292–303.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, R. O. (1996). Measuring the outcomes of assistive technology: Challenge and innovation. [Review]. Assistive Technology, 8(2), 71–81.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Swaine, B., Dutil, E., Demers, L., & Gervais, M. (2000). Evaluating clients’ perception of the quality of head injury rehabilitation services: Development and validation of a questionnaire. Brain Injury, 7, 575–587.
   Google Scholar
• Tam, C., Rigby, P., & Ryan, S. (2003). Development of the measure of control using electronic aids to daily living. Technology and Disability, 15, 181–190.
   Google Scholar
• Wessel, R., Djicks, B., Soede, M., Gelderblom, G. J., & De Witte, L. (2003). Non-use of provided assistive technology devices, a literature overview. Technology and Disability, 15, 231–238.
   Google Scholar
• Wessel, R., Witte, L. D, & Andrich, R. (2000). IPPA, a user-centered approach to assess effectiveness of Assistive Technology provision. Technology and Disability, 13, 105–115.
   Google Scholar
• Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications.
   Google Scholar