AAC Business as Usual: Clinical Practice of School-Based Speech-Language Pathologists

Abstract

A group of U.S. school speech-language pathologists (SLPs; N = 233), via survey, provided the following business-as-usual (BAU) augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) practices: (a) service delivery models, (b) treatment intensity, (c) the number of aided models provided, and (d) caseload size and knowledge. In addition to descriptive analyses, logistic regressions determined if caseload predicted the most frequently used BAU practices. Group pull-out with two, 30-minute sessions per week was used most frequently. Most SLPs provided fewer than 20 aided models per 15-minute period. Logistic regressions revealed that SLPs with larger caseloads did not utilize the group pull-out model as frequently as SLPs with smaller caseloads. As caseload size increased, SLPs were more likely to use classroom-based services. Finally, only SLPs with large caseloads were considered high-frequency modelers. Overall, this survey provides clinicians with a starting point to enhance clinical decisions until additional BAU quantitative research is conducted with children who use AAC systems.

Keywords

augmentative and alternative communication BAU schools service delivery treatment intensity

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Allen

A. A.

Schlosser

R. W.

Brock

K. L.

Shane

H. C.

(2017). The effectiveness of aided augmented input for persons with developmental disabilities: A systematic review. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 33(3), 149–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434618.2017.1338752

American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2022a). 2022 Schools Survey report: SLP caseload and workload characteristics. www.asha.org/Research/memberdata/Schools-Survey/

American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2022b). 2022 Schools Survey report: SLP workforce and work conditions. www.asha.org/Research/memberdata/Schools-Survey/

Bellon-Harn

M. L.

(2012). Dose frequency: Comparison of language outcomes in preschool children with language impairment. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 28(2), 225–240. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265659012445936

Binger

Ball

Dietz

Kent-Walsh

Lasker

Lund

McKelvey

Quach

(2012). Personnel roles in the AAC assessment process. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 28(4), 278–288. https://doi.org/10.3109/07434618.2012.71607

Binger

Douglas

Kent-Walsh

(2022). Planning for implementation science in clinical practice research: An augmentative and alternative communication example. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 31(3), 1039–1053. https://doi.org/10.1044/2021_AJSLP-21-00085

Binger

Kent-Walsh

Berens

Del Campo

Rivera

(2008). Teaching Latino parents to support the multi-symbol message productions of their children who require AAC. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 24(4), 323–338. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434610802130978

Binger

Light

(2007). The effect of aided AAC modeling on the expression of multi symbol messages by preschoolers who use AAC. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 23(1), 30–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434610600807470

Brandel

(2020). Speech-language pathology services in the schools: A follow-up 9 years later. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in the Schools, 51, 1037–1048. https://doi.org/10.1044/2020_LSHSS-19-00108

10.

Brandel

Loeb

D. F.

(2011). Program intensity and service delivery models in the schools: SLP survey results. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in the Schools, 42, 461–490. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2011/10-0019)

11.

Brock

K. L.

Thomas

(2021). The effectiveness of aided AAC modeling for Belizean children: A case study. Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups, 6, 1182–1197. https://doi.org/10.1044/2021_PERSP-21-00031

12.

Bujang

M. A.

Sa’at

Bakar

T. M. I. T. A.

Joo

L. C.

(2018). Sample size guidelines for logistic regression from observational studies with large population: emphasis on the accuracy between statistics and parameters based on real life clinical data. The Malaysian Journal of Medical Sciences, 25(4), 122–130. https://doi.org/122.10.21315/mjms2018.25.4.12

13.

Cane

Connor

Michie

(2012). Validation of the theoretical domains framework for use in behaviour change and implementation research. Implementation Science, 7(1). https://doi:10.1186/1748-5908-7-37

14.

Connor

C. M.

Morrison

F. J.

Fishman

B. J.

Schatschneider

Underwood

(2007). Algorithm-guided individualized reading instruction. Science, 315(5811), 464–465. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1134513

15.

Connor

C. M.

Morrison

F. J.

Petrella

J. N.

(2004). Effective reading comprehension instruction: Examining child x instruction interactions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(4), 682–698. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.4.682

16.

Cummings

Ogiela

Brock

Blaiser

Bargen

(2022). Considerations for a workload model: Top clinical practice barriers of schools SLPs. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/acqpz

17.

Dillman

Smyth

Christian

(2014). Internet, mail, and mixed mode surveys: The tailored design method (3rd ed.). John Wiley.

18.

Euban

(2019, December 18). Everyday ethics: State licensing and practicing speech-language pathology in schools. The ASHA Leader. https://leader.pubs.asha.org/do/10.1044/everyday-ethics-state-licensing-and-practicing-speech-language-pathology-in-schools/full/

19.

Ewen

Jenkins

Jackson

Jutley-Neilson

Galvin

(2021). Well-being, job satisfaction, stress and burnout in speech-language pathologists: A review. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 23(2), 180–190. https://doi.org/10.1080/17549507.2020.1758210

20.

Harris

P. A.

Taylor

Minor

B. L.

Elliott

Fernandez

O’Neal

& REDCap Consortium, . (2019). The REDCap consortium: Building an international community of software platform partners. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 95, 103–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103208

21.

Hoffman

L. M.

Ireland

Hall-Mills

Flynn

(2013). Evidence-based speech-language pathology practices in schools: Findings from a national survey. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 44(3), 266–280. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2013/12-0041)

22.

Johnson

R. K.

Prebor

(2019). Update on preservice training in augmentative and alternative communication for speech-language pathologists. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 28(2), 536–549. https://doi.org/10.1044/2018_AJSLP-18-0004

23.

Justice

L. M.

Logan

Jiang

Schmitt

M. B.

(2017). Algorithm-driven dosage decisions (AD3): Optimizing treatment for children with language impairment. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 26(1), 57–68. https://doi.org/10.1044/2016_AJSLP-15-0058

24.

Kent-Walsh

Binger

(2013). Fundamentals of the ImPAACT program. Perspectives on Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 22(1), 51–58. https://doi.org/10.1044/aac22.1.51

25.

Kent-Walsh

Binger

(2018). Methodological advances, opportunities, and challenges in AAC research. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 34(2), 93–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434618.2018.1456560

26.

Moorcroft

Scarinci

Meyer

(2019). A systematic review of the barriers and facilitators to the provision and use of low-tech and unaided AAC systems for people with complex communication needs and their families. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 14(7), 710–731. https://doi.org/10.1080/17549507.2018.1454985

27.

Olswang

L. B.

Prelock

(2015). Bridging the gap between research and practice: Implementation science. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 58(6), S1627–S1882. https://doi.org/10.1044/2015_JSLHR-L-14-0305

28.

O’Neill

Light

Pope

(2018). Effects of interventions that include aided augmentative and alternative communication input on the communication of individuals with complex communication needs: A meta-analysis. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 61(7), 1743–1765. https://doi.org/10.1044/2018_JSLHR-L-17-0132

29.

Perneger

T. V.

(1998). What’s wrong with Bonferroni adjustments. British Medical Journal, 316(7139), 1236–1238. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.316.7139.1236

30.

Ratcliff

Koul

Lloyd

L. L.

(2008). Preparation in augmentative and alternative communication: An update for speech-language pathology training. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 17(1), 48–59. https://doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360(2008/005)

31.

Reichle

Ganz

J. B.

Pierson

Rodriguez

(2021). Treatment intensity: Considering persons with autism spectrum disorder and intellectual disability who have complex communication needs. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 46(3), 146–158. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F15407969211036202

32.

Rothman

K. J.

(1990). No adjustments are needed for multiple comparisons. Epidemiology, 1(1), 43–46. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20065622

33.

Schmitt

M. B.

Justice

L. M.

Logan

J. A. R.

(2017). Intensity of language treatment: Contribution to children’s language outcomes. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 52(2), 155–167. https://doi.org/10.1111/1460-6984.12254

34.

Schwemm

(2018). Weighing the workload options. ASHA Leader, 23(7). https://doi.org/10.1044/leader.SCM.23072018.34

35.

Scruggs

T. E.

Mastropieri

M. A.

Casto

(1987). The quantitative synthesis of single-subject research: Methodology and validation. Remedial and Special Education, 8(2), 24–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325870080020

36.

Simacek

Pennington

Reichle

Parker-McGowan

(2018). Aided AAC for people with severe to profound and multiple disabilities: A systematic review of interventions and treatment intensity. Advances in Neurodevelopmental Disabilities, 2, 100–115. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41252-017-0050-4

37.

Warren

S. F.

Fey

M. E.

Yoder

P. J.

(2007). Differential treatment intensity research: A missing link to creating optimally effective communication interventions. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 13, 70–77. https://doi.org/10.1002/mrdd.20139

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.

0.00 MB

0.15 MB