Communicative competence for people who use augmentative and alternative communication consists of four interrelated domains: linguistic, strategic, social, and operational. Ongoing assessment and progress monitoring within these domains are crucial to (a) providing information to teach targeted skills in a manner contextualized within the curriculum, (b) determining measurable annual Individualized Education Program goals, and, ultimately, (c) ensuring maximal participation in the school environment. Currently, language sample analysis (LSA) is one of only three assessment techniques that provide information across each domain of communicative competence for children who use augmentative and alternative communication (AAC). As such, LSA is a valuable tool for assessing communication competence in children who use AAC in the school setting. This clinical forum describes information that may be obtained from an LSA as it relates to each domain of communicative competence and educational standards.
CalculatorS. N. (2009). Augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) and inclusive education for students with the most severe disabilities. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 13(1), 93–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603110701284656
4.
CalculatorS. N.BlackT. (2009). Validation of an inventory of best practices in the provision of augmentative and alternative communication services to students with severe disabilities in general education classrooms. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 18(4), 329–342. https://doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360(2009/08-0065)
5.
CarlinC. H.BoarmanK.BradyE. (2016). Guiding student clinicians as they develop AAC goals and monitor progress during school-based externship. Perspectives of Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 1, 29–37. https://doi.org/10.1044/persp1.SIG12.32
CrossR. T. (2010). Developing evidence-based clinical resources. In RoddamH.SkeatJ. (Eds.), Embedding evidence-based practice in speech and language therapy (pp. 114–121). John Wiley & Sons.
FoleyB. E.StaplesA. H. (2003). Developing augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) and literacy interventions in a supported employment setting. Topics in Language Disorders, 23(4), 325–343. https://doi.org/10.1097/00011363-200310000-00007
11.
HammB.MirendaP. (2006). Post-school quality of life for individuals with developmental disabilities who use AAC. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 22(2), 134–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434610500395493
12.
HeilmannJ.TucciA.PlanteE.MillerJ. F. (2020). Assessing functional language in school-aged children using language sample analysis. Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups, 5, 622–636. https://doi.org/10.1044/2020_PERSP-19-00079
13.
HellingC.MingaJ. (2014). Developing an effective framework for the augmentative and alternative communication evaluation process. Perspectives on Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 23(2), 91–98. https://doi.org/10.1044/aac23.2.91
14.
HenneberryS.KelsoJ.SotoG. (2012). Using standards-based instruction to teach language to children who use AAC. Perspectives on Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 21(3), 92–98. https://doi.org/10.1044/aac21.3.92
HillK. (2009). Data collection and monitoring AAC intervention in the schools. Perspectives on Augmentative and Alter-native Communication, 18(2), 58–64. https://doi.org/10.1044/aac18.2.58
17.
HillK.RomichB. A (2002). Rate index for augmentative and alternative communication. International Journal of Speech Technology, 5, 57–64. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013638916623
18.
HillK.RomichB. (2007). AAC evidence-based practice: Four steps to optimized communication. AAC Institute Press, 6(1), 1–5.
19.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act, 20 U.S.C. §1414 (2004).
20.
JacksonL.RyndakD. L.BillingsleyF. (2000). Useful Practices in Inclusive Education: A Preliminary View of What Experts in Moderate to Severe Disabilities are Saying. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 25(3), 129–141. https://doi.org/10.2511/rpsd.25.3.129
21.
KleinertH. (2020). Students with the most significant disabilities, communicative competence, and the full extent of their exclusion. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 45(1), 34–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796919892740
22.
KleinertH.Towles-ReevesE.QuenemoenR.ThurlowM.FlueggeL.WesemanL.KerbelA. (2015). Where students with the most significant cognitive disabilities are taught: Implications for general curriculum access. Exceptional Children, 81(3), 312–328. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402914563697
23.
KovachT. (2009). AAC profile: A continuum of learning. Pro-ED.
24.
KovacT.HillK. (2015). A tutorial on reliability testing in AAC language sample transcription and analysis. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 31(2), 159–169. https://doi.org/10.3109/07434618.2015.1036118
25.
KovacT.HillK. (2017). Language samples from children who use speech-generating devices: Making sense of small samples and utterance length. American Journal of Speech-language Pathology, 26(3), 939–950. https://doi.org/10.1044/2017_AJSLP-16-0114
26.
KovachT. M.FrisbeeA.MooreS. M. (2016). Using ongoing outcomes-based assessment and monitoring to drive intervention in AAC. Perspectives on Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 1(4), 153–163. https://doi.org/10.1044/persp1.SIG12.153
27.
LightJ. (1989). Toward a definition of communicative competence for individuals using augmentative and alternative communication systems. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 5(2), 137–144. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434618912331275126
28.
LightJ.GulensM. (2002). Rebuilding communicative competence and self-determination. In D. R. Beukelman, K. M., Yorkston, & J. Reichle (Eds.), Augmentative and alternative communication for adults with acquired neurologic disorders (pp. 137–179). Paul H. Brooks.
29.
LightJ.McNaughtonD. (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), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3109/07434618.2014.885080
30.
MillerJ. F.AndriacchiK.NockertsA. (2016). Using language sample analysis to assess spoken language production in adolescents. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 47(2), 99–112. https://doi.org/10.1044/2015_LSHSS-15-0051
31.
MillerJ. F.IglesiasA. (2015). Systematic Analysis of Language Transcripts (SALT). SALT Software.
32.
MooneyA.BeanA.SonntagA. M. (2021). Language sample collection and analysis in people who use augmentative and alternative communication: Overcoming obstacles. American Journal of Speech-language Pathology, 30(1), 47–62. https://doi.org/10.1044/2020_AJSLP-19-00055
33.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards. Author. http://corestandards.org/
34.
NippoldM. A. (2020). Language sampling with children and adolescents: Implications for intervention. Plural.
35.
PotratzJ. R.Gildersleeve-NeumannC.RedfordM. A. (2022). Measurement properties of mean length of utterance in school-age children. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 53(4), 1088–1100. https://doi.org/10.1044/2022_LSHSS-21-00115
36.
RamosM. N.CollinsP.PeñaE. D. (2022). Sharpening our tools: A systematic review to identify diagnostically accurate language sample measures. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 65(10), 3890–3907. https://doi.org/10.1044/2022_JSLHR-22-00121
37.
RomichB.HillK.SpaethD. M. (2000). AAC communication rate measurement: Tools and methods for clinical use. In Proceedings of the RESNA 2000 Annual Conference: Technology for the New Millennium (Vol. 20, pp. 61–63). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED449592
38.
RomichB.HillK.SpaethD. M. (2001). AAC selection rate measurement: A method for clinical use based on spelling. In The AT Odyssey Continues. Proceedings of the RESNA 2001 Annual Conference (Vol. 21, pp. 52–54). https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED456594.pdf
39.
RowlandC. (1996). Communication matrix: A communication skills assessment. Oregon Health & Science University, Design to Learn.
40.
Savaldi-HarussiG.SotoG. (2016). Using SALT: Considerations for the analysis of language transcripts of children who use SGDs. Perspectives on Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 1, 110–124. https://doi.org/10.1044/persp1.SIG12.110
41.
SotoG. (2022). The protocol for the analysis of aided language samples in Spanish: A tutorial. Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups, 7(2), 523–532. https://doi.org/10.1044/2021_PERSP-21-00236
42.
Van TatenhoveG. (2014). Issues in language sample collection and analysis with children who use AAC. Perspectives on Augmentative & Alternative Communication, 23(2), 60–111. https://doi.org/10.1044/aac23.2.65
43.
WalkerV. L.ChungY. C. (2022). Augmentative and alternative communication in an elementary school setting: A case study. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 53(1), 167–180. https://doi.org/10.1044/2021_LSHSS-21-00052
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
