Parents’ experiences of using Lámh, a key word signing approach used in Ireland, were captured through in-depth face-to-face interviews with parents of children with a range of intellectual disabilities. It emerged that Lámh provides child users with one of the rudiments of inclusion, that is, a means of engaging with others. A number of factors can potentially influence the engagement achieved, namely ongoing family commitment to the sustainment of Lámh, available communication partners, accessibility, appropriate Lámh training, speech and language therapy support and the existence of a Lámh signing environment external to the home. The child’s family, education and community need to commit to Lámh in order to support a child user become an active member of their community.
AndersonKBalandinSStancliffeRJ (2014) Training for families with a new speech generating device: Insights and ideas from parents and therapists. Developmental Neurorehabilitation17(2): 75–83.
2.
AngeloDJonesAKokoskaS (1995) A family perspective on AAC: family and young children. Augmentative and Alternative Communication11: 193–201.
3.
AngeloD (2000) Impact of AAC devices on families. Augmentative and Alternative Communication16(1): 37–47.
4.
BaileyRLHowardPParetteJR, et al. (2006) Family members’ perceptions of augmentative and alternative communication device use. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools37(1): 50–60.
5.
BarreraRDLobalo-BarreraDSulzer-AzaroffB (1980) A simultaneous treatment comparison of three expressive language training programs with a mute Autistic child. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders2: 165–171.
6.
BeukelmanDRMirendaP (2013) Augmentative and Alternative Communication: Supporting Children and Adults with Complex Communication Needs. 4th ed. Baltimore: MD Paul H Brooks.
7.
BolgerMPowerMCullenM (2017) Showing signs: how users, peers and family are involved in awareness raising, training and research. Lámh research seminar, Dublin, Ireland29 September 2017.
8.
BowlesCFrizelleP (2016) Investigating peer attitudes towards the use of key word signing by children with down syndrome in mainstream schools. British Journal of Learning Disabilities44(4): 284–291.
9.
BradyNSkinnerDRobertsJHannonE (2006) Communication in young children with Fragile X Syndrome: A qualitative study of mothers perspectives. American Journal of Speech and Language Pathology15(4): 353–364.
10.
BransonDDemchakM (2009) The use of augmentative and alternative communication methods with infants and toddlers with disabilities: a research review. Augmentative and Alternative Communication25(4): 274–286.
11.
BraunVClarkeV (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology3(2): 77–101.
12.
BrownlieEBasterfieldCBloombergK (2006) Let’s Play with Sign. Callaghan: Makaton Australia.
13.
ButtimerJTierneyE (2005) Patterns of leisure participation among adolescents with a mild intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual Disabilities9(1): 25–42.
14.
CologonKMevawallaZ (2017) Increasing inclusion in early childhood: key word sing as a communication partner intervention. International Journal of Inclusive Education22(8): 902–920. Doi: 10.1080/13603116.2017.1412515.
15.
CaronJ (2016) Engagement in social media environments for individuals who use augmentative and alternative communication. NeuroRehabilitation14(39): 499–506.
16.
ChiarelloLAPalisanoRJMaggsM, et al. (2010) Family priorities for activity and participation of children and youth with cerebral palsy. Physical Therapy90(9): 1254–1264.
17.
ChungYCStoneJB (2016) A meta-synthesis of team members’ voices: what we need and what we do to support students who use AAC. Augmentative and Alternative Communication32(3): 175–186.
18.
ClarkeVBraunV (2013) Teaching thematic analysis: overcoming challenges and developing strategies for effective learning. The Psychologist26(2): 120–123.
19.
CreerSEnderbyPJudgeS, et al. (2016) Prevalence of people who could benefit from Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) in the UK: determining the need international. Journal of Language and Communication Disorders51(6): 639–653.
20.
De BortoliTArthur-KellyMMathisenB, et al. (2014) Speech-language pathologists’ perceptions of implementing communication intervention with students with multiple and severe disabilities. Augmentative and Alternative Communication30(1): 55–70.
21.
DelarosaEHornerSEisenbergC, et al. (2012) Family impact of assistive technology scale: development of a measurement scale for parents of children with complex communication needs. Augmentative and Alternative Communication28(3): 171–180.
22.
Department of Children and Youth Affairs (2010) National Standards for Pre-School Services Full Day Care Services. Dublin: Government Offices.
23.
DonnellyCLinehanSScottS, et al. (2017) Multiple perspectives on Lámh as a communication method. In: Irish association of speech and language therapists conference, Croke Park, Dublin, 25–26 May 2017.
24.
DragerKLightJMcNaughtonD (2010) Effects of AAC interventions on communication and language for young children with complex communication needs. Journal of Pediatric Rehabilitation Medicine: An Interdisciplinary Approach3(2010): 303–310.
25.
GlackenMHealyDHealy-Mc, et al. (2017) Lámh: Parents’ Experiences. Sligo: St Angela’s College.
26.
GolbartTMarshallJ (2004) “Pushes and pulls” on the parents of children who use AAC. Augmentative and Alternative Communication20(4): 194–208.
27.
GompertzJ (1997) Developing communication: early intervention and augmentative signing from birth to five years. In: FawcusM (Ed) Children with learning difficulties. London: Whurr Publishers, pp. 64–96.
28.
GranlundMBjorck-AkessonEWilderJ, et al. (2008) AAC interventions for children in a family environment: implementing evidence in practice. Augmentative and Alternative Communication24(3): 207–219.
29.
GroveNWalkerM (1990) The Makaton vocabulary: using manual signs and graphic symbols to develop interpersonal communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication6(1): 15–28.
30.
GroveNMc DougallS (1991) Exploring sign use in two settings. British Journal of Special Education18(4): 149–156.
31.
GroveNWollB (2017) Assessing language skills in adult key word signers with intellectual disabilities: insights from sign linguistics. Research in Developmental Disabilities62: 174–183.
32.
IaconoTCameronM (2009) Australian speech and language pathologists’ perceptions and experiences of augmentative and alternative communication in early childhood intervention. Augmentative and Alternative Communication25(4): 236–249.
33.
IaconoTLyonKJohnsonH, et al. (2013) Experiences of adults with complex communication needs receiving and using low tech AAC: an Australian context. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology8(5): 392–401.
34.
International Society of Augmentative and Alternative Communication (2013) Available at: https://www.isaac-online.org/(accessed 2 December 2017).
35.
JohnsonJMInglebretEJonesC, et al. (2006) Perspectives of speech language pathologists regarding success versus abandonment of AAC. Augmentative and Alternative Communication22(2): 85–99.
36.
Kent-WalshJBingerC (2009) Addressing the language and communication demands of the classroom for beginning communicators and early language users. In: ZangariCSotoG (eds) Practically Speaking: Language, Literacy, and Academic Development for Students with AAC Needs. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
37.
Kent-WalshJMurzaKAMalaniMD, et al. (2015) Effects of communication partner instruction on the communication of individuals using AAC: a meta-analysis. International Society for Augmentative and Alternative Communication31(4): 271–84.
38.
KonstantareasMMWebsterCDOxmanJ (1979) Manual language acquisition and its influence on other areas of functioning in four autistic-like children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry20: 337–350.
39.
KrugerSBerberianAP (2015) Augmentative and Alternative Communication System (AAC) for social inclusion of people with complex communication needs in the industry. Assistive technology27(2): 101–111.
40.
LalR (2010) Effect of an augmentative and alternative communication on language and social behaviour of children with autism. Educational Research and Review5(93): 119–125.
LaunonenK (1996) Enhancing communication skills of children with down syndrome: early use of manual signs. In: von TetzchnerSJensenMH (eds) Augmentative and Alternative Communication: European Perspective. London: Whurr.
43.
LightJ (1997) “Lets go star fishing”: reflections on the contexts of language learning for children who use aided ACC. Augmentative and Alternative Communication13: 158–171.
44.
LightJMcNaughtonD (2012) The changing face of augmentative and alternative communication: past, present and future challenges. Augmentative and Alternative Communication28(4): 197–204.
45.
LightJMcNaughtonD (2014) Communicative competence for individuals who require augmentative and alternative communication: a new definition for a new era of communication?Augmentative and Alternative Communication30(1): 1–18.
46.
LonckeFBosH (1997) Unaided AAC symbols. In: LloydLFullerDArvidsonH (eds) Augmentative and Alternative Communication: A Handbook of Principles and Practices. Needham Heights: Allyn & Bacon, pp.80–106.
47.
LorahERTincaniMDodgeJ, et al. (2013) Evaluating picture exchange and the iPad as a speech generating device to teach communication to young children with autism. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities25(6): 637–649.
48.
LorahER (2016) Comparing teacher and student Use and preference of two methods of augmentative and alternative communication: Picture exchange and a speech-generating device. Journal Development Physical Disability28(5): 751–767.
49.
LundKSLightJ (2007) Long term outcomes for individuals who use augmentative and alternative communication: part III–contributing factors. Augmentative and Alternative Communication23(4): 323–335.
50.
LlyodLFullerD (1986) Toward an augmentative and alternative communication symbol taxonomy: a proposed superordinate classification. Augmentative and Alternative Communication2: 165–171.
51.
McLayLSchaferCMVan der MeerL, et al. (2016) Acquisition, preference, and follow-up comparisons across three AAC modalities taught to two children with autism spectrum disorder. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education64(2): 117–130.
52.
McNaughtonDRackenspergerTBendek-WoodE, et al. (2008) A child needs to be given a chance to succeed. Parents of individuals who use AAC describe the benefits of learning AAC technologies. Augmentative and Alternative Communication24(1): 43–55.
53.
McNaughtonDLightJ (2013) The iPad and mobile technology revolution: Benefits and challenges for individuals who require augmentative and alternative communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication29(2): 107–116.
54.
MarshallJGoldbartJ (2008) ‘Communication is everything I think.’ Parenting a child who needs augmentative and alternative communication. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders43(1): 77–98.
55.
MemisevicHHadzicS (2013) Speech and language disorders in children with intellectual disability in Bosnia and Herzegovina disability. CBR and Inclusive Development24(2): 92–99.
56.
MillarDCLightJCSchlooserRW (2006) The impact of augmentative and alternative communication intervention on the speech production of individuals with developmental disabilities: a research review. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research49(2): 594–604.
57.
MillerJF (1992) Development of speech and Language in children with Down syndrome. In: LottITMc CoyEE (eds) Down Syndrome: Advances in Medical Care. Chichester: Wiley.
58.
MirendaP (2003) Toward functional augmentative and alternative communication for students with autism: Manual signs, graphic symbols, and voice output communication aids. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools34: 203–216.
59.
MirendaPIaconoT (2009) Autism Spectrum Disorders and AAC. Balltimore: Paul H Brooks.
60.
MurphyNCarboneP (2008) Promoting the participation of children with disabilities in sports, recreation, and physical activities. Paediatrics121(5): 1057–1061.
61.
PattersonIPeggS (2009) Serious leisure and people with intellectual disabilities: Benefits and opportunities. Leisure Studies28(4): 387–402.
62.
RimmerJRowlandJYamakiK (2007) Obesity and secondary conditions in adolescents with disabilities: addressing the needs of an underserved population. Journal of Adolescent Health41(3): 224–229.
63.
RemingtonBClarkeS (1996) Alternative and augmentative systems of communication for children with Down’s syndrome. In: RondalJPereraJNadelL (eds) Down Syndrome: Psychological, Psychobiological and Socio-Educational Perspectives. London: Whurr.
64.
RobertsMYKaiserAP (2011) The effectiveness of parent-implemented language interventions: a meta-analysis. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology20(3): 180–199.
65.
RomboutsEMaesBZinkI (2017) Key word signing usage of adults with intellectual disability: Influence of communication partners’ sign usage and responsivity. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology26(3): 853–864.
66.
RomskiMASevcikRA (2005) Augmentative communication and early intervention: myths and realities. Infants and Young Children18(3): 174–185.
67.
RoweMLGolden-MeadowS (2009) Differences in early gesture explain SES disparities in child vocabulary size at school entry. Science323: 951–53.
68.
SchlosserRWWendtO (2008) Effects of augmentative and alternative communication intervention on speech production in children with Autism: a systematic review. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology17(3): 212–230.
69.
SheehyKDuffyH (2009) Attitudes to Makaton in the age of integration and inclusion. International Journal of Special Education24(2): 91–102.
70.
SinghJSHussainHNKamalRM, et al. (2017) Reflections of Malaysian parents of children with developmental disabilities on their experiences with AAC. Augmentative and Alternative Communication33(2): 110–120.
71.
TanXTTrembathDBloombergK, et al. (2014) Acquisition and generalization of key word signing by three children with autism. Developmental Neourorehabilitation17(92): 125–136.
72.
Van der MeerLDiddenRSutherlandD, et al. (2012) Comparing three augmentative and alternative communication modes for children with developmental disabilities. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities24: 451–468.
73.
WalkerVLSnellME (2013) Effects of augmentative and alternative communication on challenging behaviour: a meta-analysis. Augmentative and Alternative Communication. 29(2): 117–131.
74.
WendtO (2009) Research on the use of manual signs and graphic symbols in Autism spectrum disorders: a systematic review. In: MirendaPIaconoT (eds) Autism Spectrum Disorders and AAC. Baltimore: Paul H Brooks, pp. 83–140.
