People with complex communication needs often require a comprehensive augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) assessment to maximize participation in daily interactions. Assessment of AAC is a complex process and limited practice guidelines exist. The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore how 25 speech-language pathologists with varying levels of experience approach the AAC assessment process. Participants were classified as either (a) General Practice Speech-Language Pathologists (GPSLPs), (b) AAC Clinical Specialists (AAC-CS), or (c) AAC Research/Policy Specialists (AAC-RS). In-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted to explore the participants' approach to AAC assessment. The results revealed that GPSLPs approach AAC assessment differently than the AAC-CS and AAC-RS; however, the Specialists reported a similar approach that may help guide the development of practice guidelines for AAC assessment.

No abstract

Completing an augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) assessment is a complex process that involves many stakeholders and professionals. To help clarify professional roles and provide assessment guidelines, an AAC Assessment Personnel Framework was developed. This framework was adapted from the work of Beukelman, Ball, and Fager in 2008, which focused on general AAC needs (not just assessment) and concentrated specifically on adults. In contrast, the present model examines the assessment process for all individuals who require AAC. The following AAC assessment personnel are discussed: AAC finders, general practice SLPs, AAC clinical specialists, facilitators and communication partners, collaborating professionals, AAC research and policy specialists, manufacturers and vendors, funding agencies and personnel, and AAC/assistive technology agencies and personnel. Current barriers for successful assessment outcomes are discussed, and suggestions for addressing personnel-related barriers are explored.

A vast literature documents a host of advantages conferred upon middle class European American children whose parents employ an authoritative style of parenting, including enhanced academic achievement and positive behavioral outcomes. The literature is much less clear about the relationship between parental authority style and child outcomes in other cultural contexts. In this study, we examined the relations among authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive parenting styles and practices and several academic and behavioral outcomes among fifth grade Latino/a students. We found significant positive relations between parental authoritativeness and grades, academic engagement, social competence, self-regulation, and perspective-taking as well as negative relations between authoritativeness and aggression. We found no relations between authoritarian or permissive parenting styles and child outcomes. We consider these findings in light of what other researchers have posited about collectivist parenting styles and practices.

Language use in the United States has become increasingly diverse. One in five U.S. residents speaks a language other than English at home, with over 350 languages spoken in the nation. There is a clear need for speech-language pathologists (SLPs) who are culturally and linguistically competent to serve this diverse population. We designed a specialized graduate training program, Project Tapestry, funded by the U.S. Department of Education, to meet this need in our community. The project includes workshops on cultures, languages, and counseling for graduate students to work with clients and families with diverse backgrounds. Students also learn about collaborating with interpreters and translators. Project Tapestry prepares future SLPs with the knowledge to diagnose linguistic differences and disorders, sensitivity and awareness to identify cultural differences, and skills to communicate and implement clinical plans that consider cultural-linguistic differences. We will discuss preliminary outcomes of the project.

Purpose Many, but not all, children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) have a difficult time communicating in conventional ways to express their decisions, preferences, and ideas. Augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) can fulfill many purposes of communication and support a child to achieve maximal self-determination and agency. The goal of assessment is not to fit the child to a particular device or communication strategy—but rather to identify the strategies that enhance the child's strengths to maximize their independent communication and ultimately their ability to exert control over their world. Method Our method was to combine results from our scoping review of the research literature, observations of videos of AAC assessments being conducted by specialists, and interviews with AAC experts (Lund, Quach, Weissling, McKelvey, & Dietz, 2017) and use these combined sources to extract overlapping themes. Finally, we completed an expert review of the results to verify their validity. Results There are 11 areas, which we found through our research, that should be included when assessing the communication and language skills of children with ASD who are minimally verbal. They are communication needs, current communication skills, language, cognition, symbol representation, sensory perceptual skills, motor skills, literacy, behavior, preferences, and system features. Conclusions It is important to embrace agency and choice throughout the assessment process. Having access to communication through AAC can give children with ASD a voice not only to express their choices but also to increase their self-determination.

This study compared the operation of a dynamic-display AAC device in two instructional conditions: corrective feedback (CF) and dual-screen guidance (DSG). In the CF condition prompts/feedback were provided for incorrect responses; the DSG condition used errorless guided instruction only. Twenty-one children with typical development - ten 6-year-olds and 11 7-year-olds - were randomly assigned to one instructional condition and completed five sessions: three learning/testing, one generalization, and one maintenance. The children were required to reproduce visual sentence stimuli on the AAC device. Differences were found in accuracy and efficiency of 6- and 7-year-olds. The 7-year-olds were more accurate and quicker than the 6-year-olds. Differences due to instructional condition were observed for 6-year-olds only. All children generalized and maintained learning.

No abstract