Influence of message error type on Korean adults' attitudes toward an individual who uses augmentative and alternative communication

References

• American Speech-Language Hearing Association (ASHA). (2014). Social language use (Pragmatics). American Speech-Language Hearing Association (ASHA). Retrieved from http://www.asha.org/public/speech/development/Pragmatics/
   Google Scholar
• Baker, B. (1982). Minspeak: A semantic compaction system that makes self expression easier for communicatively disabled individuals. Byte, 7, 186–202.
   Google Scholar
• Beck, A., Bock, S., Thompson, J. R., & Kosuwan, K. (2002). Influence of communicative competence and augmentative and alternative communication technique on children's attitudes toward a peer who uses AAC. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 18, 217–227.
   Google Scholar
• Beck, A., & Dennis, M. (1996). Attitudes of children toward a similar-aged child who uses augmentative communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 12, 78–87.
   Google Scholar
• Beck, A., Fritz, H., Keller, A., & Dennis, M. (2000). Attitudes of school-aged children toward their peers who use augmentative and alternative communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 16, 13–26.
   Google Scholar
• Beck, A., Kingsbury, K., Neff, A., & Dennis, M. (2000). Influence of length of augmented message on children's attitudes toward peers who use augmentative and alternative communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 16, 239–249.
   Google Scholar
• Beck, A. R., Thompson, J. R., Kosuwan, K., & Prochnow, J. M. (2010). The development and utilization of a scale to measure adolescents’ attitudes toward peers who use augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) devices. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 53, 572–587.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bedrosian, J. L., Hoag, L. A., Calculator, S. N., & Molineux, B. (1992). Variables influencing perceptions of the communicative competence of an adult augmentative and alternative communication system user. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 35, 1105.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bedrosian, J., Hoag, L., & McCoy, K. (2003). Relevance and speed of message delivery trade-offs in augmentative and alternative communication. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 46, 800–817.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beukelman, D., & Mirenda, P. (2012). Augmentative and alternative communication: Supporting children and adults with complex communication needs (4th ed.). Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes.
   Google Scholar
• Blockberger, S., Armstrong, R., O’Connor, A., & Freeman, R. (1993). Children's attitudes toward a nonspeaking child using various augmentative and alternative communication techniques. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 9, 243–250.
   Google Scholar
• Blockberger, S., & Sutton, A. (2003). Toward linguistic competence: Language experiences and knowledge of children with extremely limited speech. In J. C. Light, D. R. Beukelman, & J. Reichle (Eds.), Communicative competence for individuals who use AAC (pp. 63–106). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
   Google Scholar
• Byron, M., & Dieppe, P. (2000). Educating health professionals about disability: ‘Attitudes, attitudes, attitudes.’ Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 93, 397.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carlson, F. (1981). A format for selecting vocabulary for the nonspeaking child. Language, Speech, and Hearing Service in Schools, 12, 240–248.
   Google Scholar
• Carter, J. M., & Markham, N. (2001). Disability discrimination: The UK's act requires health services to remove barriers to access and participation. British Medical Journal, 323 (7306), 178–179.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dada, S., & Alant, E. (2002). A comparative study of the attitudes of teachers at special and educationally inclusive schools towards learners with little or no functional speech using communication devices. South African Journal of Education, 22, 223–228.
   Google Scholar
• Grames, M., & Leverentz, C. (2010). Attitudes toward persons with disabilities: A comparison of Chinese and American students. UW-L Journal of Undergraduate Research, XIII, 1–6.
   Google Scholar
• Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics. Volume 3: Speech acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Han, K-I., & Lee, J-M. (2012). Attitude of kindergarten and elementary school children toward a child with cerebral palsy using augmentative and alternative communication. Korean Council of Physical, Multiple & Health Disabilities, 55, 187–204.
   Google Scholar
• Hanson, E. K., & Sundheimer, C. (2009). Telephone talk: Effects of timing and use of a floorholder message on telephone conversations using synthesized speech. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 25, 90–98.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hergenrather, K., & Rhodes, S. (2007). Exploring undergraduate student attitudes toward persons with disabilities: Application of the Disability Social Relationship Scale. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 50, 66–75.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hergenrather, K. C., Rhodes, S. D., & McDaniel, R. S. (2005). Correlates of job placement practice public rehabilitation counselors and consumers living with AIDS. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 48, 157–166.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Higginbotham, D. J., & Wilkins, D. P. (1999). Slipping through the timestream: Social issues of time and timing in augmented interactions. In D. Kovarsky, J. F. Duchan, & M. Maxwell (Eds.), Constructing (in)competence: Disabling evaluations in clinical and social interaction (pp. 49–82). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Hoag, L., Bedrosian, J., McCoy, K., & Johnson, D. (2004). Informativeness and speed of message delivery trade-offs in augmentative and alternative communication. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47, 1270–1285.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoag, L., Bedrosian, J., McCoy, K., & Johnson, D. (2008). Hierarchy of conversational rule violations involving utterance-based augmentative and alternative communication systems. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 24, 149–161.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kelford Smith, A., Thurston, S., Light, J., Parnes, P., & O’Keefe, B. (1989). The form and use of written communication produced by physically disabled individuals using microcomputers. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 5, 115–124.
   Google Scholar
• Kim, J. Y., & Nam, C. Y. (2005). A study on non-disabled university students’ attitudes toward the university student with disabilities. Korea Youth Research, 12, 39–58.
   Google Scholar
• Kim, Y. T., Park, H. J., & Min, H. K. (2003). School-aged children and adults’ core vocabulary for the development of an augmentative and alternative communication tool. Korean Journal of Communication Disorders, 8, 93–110.
   Google Scholar
• Korea Ministry of Education (2013). 2013 Annual report to congress on the special education. Korea Ministry of Education. Retrieved from http://www.knise.kr/files/knise_down/3/annual_report_2013.pdf/
   Google Scholar
• Kuehl, R. O., & Kuehl, R. O. (1994). Statistical principles of research design and analysis. Belmont, CA: Duxbury press.
   Google Scholar
• Langer, S., & Hickey, M. (1998). Using semantic lexicons for intelligent message retrieval in a communication aid. Journal of Natural Language Engineering, 4, 41–56.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, H. J., Yim, J. H., Kim, Y. T., & Park, E. H. (2013). Support needs of related professionals regarding AAC service delivery system. Poster presented at the Korean Association of Augmentative and Alternative Communication Annual Conference, Seoul, Korea.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, I., & Ramsey, S. R. (2000). The Korean language. Albany, New York: State University of New York Press.
   Google Scholar
• Light, J., & McNaughton, D. (2014). Communicative competence for individuals who require augmentative and alternative communication: A new definition for a new era of communication? Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 30, 1–18.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lyons, J. (1977). Linguistic semantics: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• McCarthy, J., & Light, J., (2005). Attitudes toward individuals who use augmentative and alternative communication: Research review. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 21, 41–55.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCarthy, J., Light, J., & McNaughton, D. (2002). Consumers’ perspectives on social relationships: Lessons for professionals. Paper presented at the Tenth Biennial Conference of the International Society for Augmentative and Alternative Communication, Odense, DK.
   Google Scholar
• McCoy, K. F., Bedrosian, J. L., Hoag, L. A., & Johnson, D. E. (2007). Brevity and speed of message delivery trade-offs in augmentative and alternative communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 23, 76–88.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNaughton, D., Light, J., & Arnold, K. B. (2002). ‘‘Getting your wheel in the door’’: Successful full-time employment experiences of individuals with cerebral palsy who use augmentative and alternative communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 18, 59–76.
   Google Scholar
• McNaughton, D., Light, J., & Groszyk, L. (2001). ‘‘Don't give up’’: The employment experiences of adults with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis who use augmentative and alternative communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 17, 179–195.
   Google Scholar
• Mitchell, K., Hayes, M., Gordon, J., & Wallis, B. (1984). An investigation of the attitudes of medical students to physically disabled people. Medical Education, 18, 21–23.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mullins, J., Roessler, R., Schriner, K., Brown, P., & Bellini, J. (1997). Improving employment outcomes through quality rehabilitation counseling. Journal of Rehabilitation, 63(4), 21–32.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nam, K. S. (2011). Standard Korean grammar (3rd ed.). Seoul: Top.
   Google Scholar
• Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• O’Keefe, B. (1992). Effects of communication outputs on attitudes toward individuals who use augmentative and alternative communication and on output preferences. Unpublished Dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park.
   Google Scholar
• Paris, M. J. (1993). Attitudes of medical students and health professionals towards people with disabilities. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 74, 818–825.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Popich, E., & Alant, E. (1997). Interaction between a teacher and the non-speaking as well as speaking children in the classroom. South African Journal of Communication Disorders, 44, 31–40.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ringlaben, R. P., & Price, J. R. (1981). Regular classroom teachers’ perceptions of mainstreaming effects. Exceptional Children, 47, 302–304.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, M., & Grove, N. (1999). The bimodal situation of children learning language using manual and graphic signs. In F. T. Loncke, J. Clbbens, H. Arvidson, & L. L. Lloyd (Eds.), Augmentative and alternative communication: New directions in research and practice (pp. 8–30). London: Whurr.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, M., & Grove, N. (2003). Asymmetry in input and output for individuals who use AAC. In J. C. Light, D. K. Beukelman, & J. Reichle (Eds.), Communicative competence for individuals who use AAC: From research to effective practice (pp. 163–195). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
   Google Scholar
• Sohn, H. M. (2001). The Korean language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Soto, G., & Toro-Zambrana, W. (1995). Investigation of Blissymbol use from a language research paradigm. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 11, 118–130.
   Google Scholar
• Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition (2nd ed). Oxford: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Stephens, T. M., & Braun, B. L. (1980). Measures of regular classroom teachers’ attitudes toward handicapped children. Exceptional Children, 46, 292–294.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sutton, A. (1999). Linking language learning experiences and grammatical acquisition. In F. T. Loncke, J. Clbbens, H. Arvidson, & L. L. Lloyd (Eds.), Augmentative and alternative communication: New directions in research and practice (pp. 49–61). London: Whurr.
   Google Scholar
• Ten Klooster, P., Dannenberg, J., Taal, E., Burger, R., & Rasker, J. (2009). Attitudes towards people with physical or intellectual disabilities: Nursing students and non-nursing peers. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 65, 2562–2573.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tervo, R. C., Azuma, S., Palmer, G., & Redinius, P. (2002). Medical students’ attitudes toward persons with disability: A comparative study. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 83, 1537–1542.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Todman, J., & Alm, N. (2003). Modelling conversational pragmatics in communication aids. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 523–538.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Todman, J., Alm, N., Higginbotham, D., & File, P. (2008). Whole utterance approaches in AAC. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 24, 235–254.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Traylor, M. (1983). Ordinal and interval scaling. Journal of the Market Research Society, 25, 297–303.
   Google Scholar
• Triandis, H. C. (1971). Attitudes and attitude change. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Trudeau, N., Morford, J., & Sutton, A. (2010). The role of word order in the interpretation of canonical and non-canonical graphic symbol utterances: A developmental study. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 26, 108–121.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Balkom, H., & Wele Donker-Gimbrere, M. (1996). A psycholinguistic approach to graphic language use. In S. von Tetzchner & M. H. Jenson (Eds.), Augmentative and alternative communication: European perspectives (pp. 153–170). London: Whurr.
   Google Scholar
• Wang, M. H., Chan, F., Thomas, K. R., Lin, S. H., & Larson, P. (1997). Coping style and personal responsibility as factors in the perception of individuals with physical disabilities by Chinese international students. Rehabilitation Psychology, 42, 303.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weiserbs, B., & Gottlieb, J. (1995). The perception of risk over time as a factor influencing attitudes toward children with physical disabilities. The Journal of Psychology, 129, 689–699.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Westbrook, M. T., Legge, V., & Pennay, M. (1993). Attitudes towards disabilities in a multicultural society. Social Science & Medicine, 36, 615–623.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wiemann, J. M. (1977). Explication and test of a model of communicative competence. Human Communication Research, 3, 195–213.
   Google Scholar
• Williams, E. J. (1949). Experimental designs balanced for the estimation of residual effects of treatments. Australian Journal of Chemistry, 2, 149–168.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (2004). Relevance theory. In L. Horn and G. Ward (Eds.), The handbook of pragmatics (pp. 607–632). Oxford: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (2012). Meaning and relevance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Zaromatidis, C., Papadaki, A., & Gilde, A. (1999). A cross- cultural comparison of attitudes toward persons with disabilities: Greeks and Greek-Americans. Psychological Reports, 84, 1189–1196.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar