A graphic symbol tool for the evaluation of communication,satisfaction and priorities of individuals with intellectual disability who use a speech generating device
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online October, 2010
A graphic symbol tool for the evaluation of communication,satisfaction and priorities of individuals with intellectual disability who use a speech generating device
This article reports on the views of individuals with learning disability (LD) on their use of their speech generating devices (SGDs), their satisfaction about their communication, and their priorities. The development of an interview tool made of graphic symbols and entitled Communication, Satisfaction and Priorities of SGD Users (CSPU) is described in detail. The tool was used to support comprehension and to elicit the opinions of eight individuals with LD who had severe communication disorders. Most participants reported that they did not use their SGDs in situations in which they needed them in order to communicate effectively. The participants’ parents corroborated these statements but they identified priorities that were different from their child’s. The results emphasize the necessity of permitting individuals with severe communication disorders to take part in decision-making by indicating their satisfaction and priorities for intervention. Methodological issues and future use of the evaluation tool in research and in clinical settings are discussed.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association ( 2002) Augmentative and alternative communication: Knowledge and skills for service delivery. Asha22 (supplement): 97-106.
2.
Baker B. ( 1982) Minspeak: A semantic compaction system that makes self-expression easier for communicatively disabled individuals. Byte7: 186-202.
3.
Bedrosian JL ( 2003) On the subject of subject selection in AAC: Implications for planning and interpreting efficacy research. In: Schlosser RW (ed.) The efficacy of augmentative and alternative communication: Toward evidence-based practice. San Diego, CA: Elsevier Science, 50-58.
4.
Beukelman DR and Mirenda P. ( 2005) Augmentative and alternative communication: Supporting children and adults with complex communication needs. 3rd edition. Baltimore, MD: Brookes .
5.
Blackstone SW and Hunt Berg M. ( 2003) Social networks: A communication inventory for individuals with complex communication needs and their communication partners . Monterey, CA: Augmentative Communication .
6.
Blackstone SW, Williams MB, and Joyce M. ( 2002) Future AAC technology needs: Consumer perspectives . Assistive Technology. RESNA, US14: 3-16.
7.
Bornman J. and Murphy J. ( 2006) Using the ICF in goal setting: Clinical application using Talking Mats. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology1: 145-54.
8.
Bray NW, Fletcher KL, and Turner LA ( 1997) Cognitive competencies and strategies use in individuals with mental retardation. In: Maclean WE and Ellis NR (eds) Ellis’ handbook of mental deficiency, psychological theory and research. 3rd edition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
9.
Brewster SJ ( 2004) Putting words into their mouths? Interviewing people with learning disabilities and little/ no speech. British Journal of Learning Disabilities32: 166-9.
10.
Cambridge P. and Forrester-Jones R. ( 2003) Using individualised communication for interviewing people with intellectual disability: A case study of user-centred research . Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability28: 5-23.
11.
Cameron L. and Murphy J. ( 2002) Enabling young people with a learning disability to make choices at a time of transition. British Journal of Learning Disability30: 105-12.
12.
Clarke M., McConachie H., Price K., and Wood P. ( 2001) Views of young people using augmentative and alternative communication systems. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders36: 107-15.
13.
Comité québécois de la communication non orale (2002) ParlerPictos®. Montréal, QC: CQCNO.
14.
Damico JS and Simmons-Mackie NN ( 2003) Qualitative research and speech-language pathology: A tutorial for the clinical realm. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology12: 131-43.
15.
Finlay WML and Lyons E. ( 2002) Acquiescence in interviews with people who have mental retardation. Mental Retardation40: 14-29.
16.
Fougeyrollas P. and Noreau L. ( 2002) La mesure des habitudes de vie: Instrument détaillé, MHAVIE 3.0. LacSt-Charles, QC: Réseau International sur le Processus de Production du Handicap.
17.
Goldbart J. and Marshall J. ( 2004) ‘Pushes and pulls’ on the parents of children who use AAC. Augmentative and Alternative Communication20: 194-208.
18.
Granlund M. and Blackstone S. ( 1999) Outcomes measurement in AAC. In: Loncke F (ed.) Augmentative and alternative communication: New directions in research and practice. London: Whurr, 207-28.
19.
Granlund M., Bjorck-Akesson E., Olsson C., and Rydeman B. ( 2001) Working with families to introduce augmentative and alternative communication systems. In: Cockerill H and Carroll-Few L (eds) Communicating without speech: Practical augmentative and alternative communication . London: Mac Keith Press, 88-102.
20.
Guillemette F. and Boisvert D. ( 2003) L’entrevue de recherche qualitative avec des adultes présentant une déficience intellectuelle. Recherches Qualitatives23: 15-26.
21.
Johnson R. ( 1994) The Picture Communication Symbols (PCS) combination . Solana Beach, CA: Mayer-Johnson .
22.
Lewis A. ( 2002) Accessing, through research interviews, the views of children with difficulties in learning. Support for Learning17: 110-16.
23.
McMillen TM ( 2000) Communication my way. In: Fried-Oken M and Bersani HA (eds) Speaking up and spelling it out: Personal essays on augmentative and alternative communication. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes, 77-85.
24.
Murphy J. ( 1998) Talking mats: Speech and language research in practice . Speech Language Therapy in Practice13: 11-14.
25.
Pawson N., Raghavan R., and Small N. ( 2005) Social inclusion, social networks and ethnicity: The development of the social inclusion interview schedule for young people with learning disabilities. British Journal of Learning Disabilities33: 15-22.
26.
Schlosser RW and Raghavendra P. ( 2004) Evidence-based practice in augmentative and alternative communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication20: 1-21.
27.
Sigelman CK, Budd EC, Spanhel CL, and Schoenrock CJ ( 1981) When in doubt, say yes: Acquiescence in interviews with mentally retarded persons. Mental Retardation19: 53-58.
28.
Valiquette C. ( 2008) Analyse de la pratique et des besoins des acteurs pour l’utilisation d’aides à la communication en déficience intellectuelle. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Université de Montréal, Montréal, QC.
