The iconicity and ease of learning of picture communication symbols: A study with Afrikaans-speaking children

Abstract

Graphic symbols form an important part of most augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) users' communication systems. Studies focusing on the way different graphic symbols are learned and retained are pivotal for a better understanding of the processes involved. The current study set out to determine how accurately typically developing urban, 6-year-old Afrikaans-speaking children could identify 16 Picture Communication Symbols™ (PCS) presented thematically on a communication overlay, and also how accurately they could recognize these symbols following exposure to a learning experience. Participants, divided into two cohorts, were presented with a 16-matrix overlay and required to match symbols with spoken Afrikaans labels. They were then divided into two groups, one group receiving training in the meaning of the symbols and the other group receiving no training. Finally the test-procedure was repeated. Results indicated that the 16 PCS™ symbols had an iconicity of 12.5 % (accuracy score > 50 %), and that there was a significant improvement in both the experimental and the control groups' post-test results.

A Scoping Review of Interventions to Supplement Spoken Communication for Children with Limited Speech or Language Skills

“…Six of the journals had an impact factor and the average was 2.64 (1.18–5.01). One journal did not have an impact factor [41] .…”

“…No studies were described as double-blind, and only one justified the sample size [44] . Only 1 study described withdrawals and drop outs [41] and 8 the statistical analysis methods used [33] , [35] – [37] , [40] , [41] , [44] – [46] .…”

Caregiver Perceptions of Children who have Complex Communication Needs Following a Home-based Intervention Using Augmentative and Alternative Communication in Rural Kenya: An Intervention Note

“…The World Health Organization's (WHO) World Report on Disability (WHO and the World Bank, 2011 ) considers technology to be appropriate if it “meets people's needs, uses local skills, tools, and materials, and is simple, effective, affordable, and acceptable to its users” (p. 301). In Africa, the majority of AAC research has emanated from South Africa focusing on cross-cultural readability of graphic symbols ( Basson & Alant, 2005 ; Bornman, Alant, & Du Preez, 2009 ; Haupt & Alant, 2002 ); facilitation of language and literacy ( Alant & Moolman, 2001 ); effects of visual characteristics on symbol usage ( Alant, Kolatsis, & Lilienfeld, 2010 ); and use of communication boards to report crimes ( Bornman, Nelson Bryen, Kershaw, & Ledwaba, 2011 ). Beyond South Africa, there have been reports of other initiatives.…”

A home‐based intervention using augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) techniques in rural Kenya: what are the caregivers' experiences?

“…The International Society for Augmentative and Alternative Communication (ISAAC) has debated over many years the relevance of AAC to people residing in countries where poverty and human survival are threatened (Alant 2005a,b, 2007). In Africa, the majority of AAC development work has been centred in South Africa looking at cross-cultural readability of graphic symbols (Haupt & Alant 2002; Basson & Alant 2005; Bornman et al . 2009); facilitation of language and literacy (Alant & Moolman 2002); effects of visual characteristics on symbol usage (Alant et al .…”