This study examined how children's attitudes toward a peer who used augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) were influenced by type of AAC device accessed by the child for communication. Specifically, the influence of dynamic screens vs. static screens was investigated. Two videotapes were created. In one a child used a dynamic screen voice output AAC device to communicate, and in the other the same child used a static screen voice output AAC device. Children in grades 3 and 5 viewed either the dynamic screen or the static screen videotape. Gender was as evenly distributed between groups as possible. After viewing the videotape, children completed a measure of self-reported attitudes toward children who use AAC. Results indicated effects for gender only. No main effect was found for device type. The two-way interactions of grade x device type and of gender x device type were not statistically significant. The results are discussed along with clinical implications.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (1991). Augmentative and alternative communication, Asha, 33 (Suppl. 5), 8.
2.
BeckA.BockS.ThompsonJ.KosuwanK. (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, 217–226.
3.
BeckA.DennisM. (1996). Attitudes of children toward a similar aged child who uses augmentative communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 12, 78–87.
4.
BeckA.FritzH.KellerA.DennisM. (2000). Attitudes of school-aged children toward their peers who use AAC. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 16, 13–26.
5.
BeckA.KingsguryK.NeffA.DennisM. (2000). Influence of augmented message on children's attitudes toward peers who use augmentative and alternative communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 16, 239–249.
6.
BeukelmanD.MirendaP. (1998). Augmentative and alternative communication: Management of severe communication disorders in children and adults (2nd ed.). Baltimore: Paul Brookes.
7.
BlockbergerS.ArmstrongR.O'ConnorA.FreemanR. (1993). Children's attitudes toward a nonspeaking child using various augmentative and alternative communication techniques. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 9, 243–250.
8.
BrecklerS.WigginsE. (1989). On defining attitude and attitude theory: Once more with feeling. InPratkanisA.BrecklerS.GreenwaldA. (Eds.), Attitude structure and function. (pp. 407–427). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
9.
BurkeV. (1994). Children's perceptions of peers who demonstrate phonological, voice, or fluency disorders: Implications for caseload inclusion. Unpublished master's thesis, Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois.
10.
CohenJ. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (Rev. ed.). New York: Academic Press.
11.
DiamondK.InnesF. (2001). The origins of young children's attitudes toward peers with disabilities. InGuralnickM. (Ed.), Early childhood inclusion: Focus on change (pp. 159–177). Baltimore: Paul Brookes.
12.
EaglyA.ChaikenS. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
13.
EisenbergM. (1982). Disability as stigma. InEisenbergM.GrigginsC.DuvalR. (Eds.), Disabled people as second-class citizens (pp. 3–12). New York: Springer Publishing Co.
14.
FazioR. (1990). Multiple processes by which attitudes guide behaviors: The MODE model as an integrated framework. InBerkowitzL. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 23, pp. 75–108). New York: Academic Press.
15.
Fried-OkenM.BersaniH. (2000). Speaking up and spelling it out: Personal essays on augmentative and alternative communication. Baltimore: Paul Brookes.
16.
GeorgeD.MalleryP. (2000). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference 9.0 update (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
17.
GlennenS.DeCosteD. (1997). Handbook of augmentative and alternative communication. San Diego, CA: Singular.
18.
GorenfloC.GorenfloD. (1991). The effects of information and augmentative communication technique on attitudes toward nonspeaking individuals. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 34, 19–26.
19.
HuerM.LloydL. (1990). AAC user's perspectives on augmentative and alternative communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 6, 242–249.
20.
KrausS. (1995). Attitudes and the prediction of behavior: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 58–75.
21.
McGuireW. (1989). The structure of individual attitudes and attitude systems. InPratkanisA.BrecklerS.GreenwaldA. (Eds.), Attitude structure and function. (pp. 37–69). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
22.
MumaJ. (1993). The need for replication. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 36, 927–930.
23.
ReederG., (1993). Trait-behavior relations and dispositional inference. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 586–593.
24.
RiceM.SellM.HadleyP. (1991). Social interactions of speech- and language-impaired children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 34, 1299–1307.
25.
RosenbaumP.ArmstrongR.KingS. (1986). Children's attitudes toward disabled peers: A self-report measure. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 11, 517–530.
26.
SilvaM. (1993). Subgroups of peer-rejected children: Differences in self perceptions, attributions, and responses to rejection. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas Tech University.
27.
TriandisJ. C. (1971). Attitude and attitude change. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
28.
VolmanM.van EckE. (2001). Gender equity and information technology in education: The second decade. Review of Educational Research, 71, 613–634.
29.
WeinerB.GrahamS. (1984). An attributional approach to emotional development. InIzardC.KaganJ.ZanjoncR. (Eds.) Emotions, cognition, and behavior (pp. 167–191). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
