Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) practice may have both positive and negative impacts on quality of life (QOL) of children with AAC as well as their entire family. Thirteen studies were reviewed to analyze family outcomes and perspectives on AAC practice by using a family quality of life (FQOL) framework comprised of five empirically derived domains in order to identify issues that families perceive as important to their lives. The impact of current AAC practices encompasses all five domains: Family interaction, parenting, physical/ material well-being, disability-related support, and emotional well-being. Implications are drawn for practitioners and researchers for AAC practices that impact positive FQOL outcomes.
AbidinR. R. (1995). Parenting stress index (3rd ed.). Odessa, FL: Psychological Press Resources.
2.
AllaireJ.GressardR.BlackmanJ.HostlerS. (1991). Children with severe speech impairments: Caregiver survey of AAC use. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 7, 248–255.
3.
American Speech Language Hearing Association. (1991). Report: Augmentative and alternative communication. Asha, 33(Suppl. 5), 9–12.
4.
AngeloD. (2000). Impact of augmentative and alternative communication devices on families. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 16, 31–41.
AngeloD.JonesS.KokoskaS. (1995). A family perspective on augmentative and alternative communication: Families of young children. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 11, 193–201.
7.
AngeloD.KokoskaS.JonesS. (1996). A family perspective on augmentative and alternative communication: Families of adolescents and young adults. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 12, 13–20.
8.
BaileyR. L.ParetteH. P.StonerJ. B.AngellM. E.CarrollK. (2006). Family members' perceptions of augmentative and alternative communication device use. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 37, 50–60.
9.
BeckA.FritzH.KellerA.DennisM. (2000). Attitudes of school-aged children toward their peers who use augmentative and alternative communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 16, 13–26.
10.
BeukelmanD.AnselB. (1995). Research priorities in augmentative and alternative communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 11, 131–134.
11.
BlackstoneS. (1992). Abandonment of assistive technology: What consumers need to know and professionals need to find out. Augmentative Communication News, 5, 2.
12.
BlackstoneS. (1994). AAC devices: Impact on families. Augmentative Communication News, 7, 5.
13.
BronfenbrennerU. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human development: Research perspectives. Developmental Psychology, 22, 123–142.
14.
BrownI.IsaacsB.McCormackB.BaumN.RenwickR. (2004). Family quality of life in Canada. In TurnbullA.BrownI.TurnbullH. R. (Eds.), Families and people with mental retardation and quality of life: International perspectives (pp. 183–220). Washington, DC: American Association on Mental Retardation.
15.
BrownR.DaveyR.ShearerJ.KyrkouM. (2004). Family quality of life in Australia. In TurnbullA.BrownI.TurnbullH. R. (Eds.), Families and people with mental retardation and quality of life: International perspectives (pp. 221–260). Washington, DC: American Association on Mental Retardation.
16.
CulpD. M.AmbrosiD. M.BernigerT. M.MitchellJ. O. (1986). Augmentative communication aide use: A follow-up study. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 2, 19–24.
17.
CumminsR. A. (1991). Assessing quality of life. In BrownR. I. (Ed.), Quality of life for people with disabilities: Model, research and practice (pp. 116–150). Cheltenham, UK: Stanley Thornes (Publishers) Ltd.
18.
DunstC. J.JenkinsV.TrivetteC. C. (1984). Family support scale: Reliability and validity. Journal of Individual, Family, and Community Wellness, 1, 45–52.
19.
FelceD. (1991). Defining and applying the concept of quality of life. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 41, 126–135.
20.
HetzroniO.HarrisO. (1996). Cultural aspects in the development of AAC users. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 12, 52–58.
21.
HoffmanL.MarquisJ.PostonD.SummersJ. A.TurnbullA. (2006). Assessing family outcomes: Psychometric evaluation of the Beach Center Family Quality of Life Scale. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 1069–1083.
22.
HourcadeJ.PilotteT. E.WestE.ParetteP. (2004). A history of augmentative and alternative communication for individuals with severe and profound disabilities. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 19, 235–244.
23.
HuerM.LloydL. (1990). AAC user's perspectives on augmentative and alternative communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 6, 242–249.
24.
HuerM.ParetteH. P.SaenzT. I. (2001). Conversations with Mexican Americans regarding children with disabilities and augmentative and alternative communication. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 22, 191–206.
25.
HughesC.HwangB. (1996). Attempts to conceptualize and measure quality of life. In SchalockR. L. (Ed.), Quality of life. Vol. 1: Conceptualization and measurement (pp. 51–61). Washington, DC: American Association on Mental Retardation.
26.
HuntP.SotoG.MaierJ.MullerE.GoetzL. (2002). Collaborative teaming to support students with augmentative and alternative communication needs in general education classrooms. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 18, 20–35.
27.
JonesS.AngeloD.KokoskaS. (1998). Stressors and family supports: Families with children using augmentative and alternative communication technology. Journal of Children's Communication Development, 20, 37–44.
28.
KempC. E.ParetteH. P. (2000). Barriers to minority family involvement in assistive technology decision-making process. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 35, 384–392.
29.
Kent-WalshJ.LightJ. (2003). General education teachers' experiences with inclusion of students who use augmentative and alternative communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 19, 104–124.
30.
LahmE. A.SizemoreL. (2002). Factors that influence assistive technology decision making. Journal of Special Education Technology, 17, 15–26.
31.
LakinK. C.TurnbullA. P., (Eds.) (2005). National goals and research for persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Washington, DC: American Association on Mental Retardation.
32.
McCordM. S.SotoG. (2004). Perceptions of AAC: An ethnographic investigation of Mexican-American families. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 20, 209–227.
33.
NeikrugS.JudesJ.RothD.KraussB. (2004). Family quality of life in Israel. In TurnbullA.BrownI.TurnbullH. R. (Eds.), Families and people with mental retardation and quality of life: International perspectives (pp. 149–182). Washington, DC: American Association on Mental Retardation.
34.
OdomS. L.BrantlingerE.GerstenR.HornerR. H.ThompsonB.HarrisK. (2005). Research in special education: Scientific methods and evidence-based practices. Exceptional Children, 71, 137–148.
35.
ParetteH. P.AngeloD. (1996). Augmentative and alternative communication impact on families: Trends and future directions. Journal of Special Education, 30, 77–98.
36.
ParetteH. P.BrothersonM. J. (2004). Family-centered and culturally responsive assistive technology decision-making. Infants and Young Children, 17, 355–367.
37.
ParetteH. P.BrothersonM. J.HuerM. B. (2000). Giving families a voice in augmentative and alternative communication decision-making. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 35, 177–190.
38.
ParetteH. P.ChuangS. L.HuerM. B. (2004). First generation Chinese American families' attitudes regarding disabilities and educational interventions. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 19, 114–124.
39.
ParetteH. P.HourcadeJ. J. (1997). Family issues and assistive technology needs: A sampling of state practices. Journal of Special Education Technology, 13, 27–43.
40.
ParetteH. P.HuerM. B. (2002). Working with Asian American families whose children have augmentative and alternative communication needs. Journal of Special Education Technology, 17, 5–13.
41.
ParetteH. P.HuerM. B.BrothersonM. J. (2001). Related service personnel perceptions of team AAC decision-making across cultures. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 36, 69–82.
42.
ParetteH. P.HuerM. B.HourcadeJ. J. (2003). Using assistive technology focus groups with families across cultures. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 38, 429–440.
43.
ParetteH. P.McMahanG. A. (2002). What should we expect of assistive technology? Being sensitive to family goals. Teaching Exceptional Children, 35, 56–61.
44.
ParkJ.HoffmanL.MarquisJ.TurnbullA. P.PostonD.MannanH. (2003). Toward assessing family outcomes of service delivery: Validation of a family quality of life survey. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 47, 367–384.
45.
PeckC. A. (1993). Ecological perspectives on the implementation of integrated early childhood programs. In PeckC. A.OdomS. L.BrickerD. D. (Eds.), Integrating young children with disabilities into community programs: Ecological perspectives on research and implementation (pp. 3–15). Baltimore, MO: Paul H. Brooks.
PostonD.TurnbullA.ParkJ.MannanH.MarquisJ.WangM. (2003). Family quality of life outcomes: A qualitative inquiry launching a long-term research program. Mental Retardation, 41, 313–320.
48.
RobinsonN. B.SadaoK. C. (2005). Person-focused learning: A collaborative teaching model to prepare future AAC professionals. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 21, 149–163.
49.
SchalockR. L. (2000). Three decades of quality of life: Mental retardation in the 21st century. In WehmeyerM. L.PattonJ. R. (Eds.), Mental retardation in the year 2000. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
50.
SchalockR. L.BrownI.BrownR.CumminsR. A.FelceD. (2002). Quality of life: Conceptualization, measurement, and application. Mental Retardation, 40, 457–470.
51.
SchlosserR. W. (1999). Social validation of interventions in augmentative and alternative communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 15, 234–247.
52.
SchlosserR. W.RaghavendraP. (2004). Evidence-based practice in augmentative and alternative communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 20, 1–21.
53.
SchwartzI. S.BareD. B. (1991). Social validity assessments: Is current practice state of the art?Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 189–204.
54.
SummersJ. A.PostonD. J.TurnbullA. P.MarquisJ.HoffmanL.MannanH. (2005). Conceptualizing and measuring family quality of life. Journal of Intellectual Disability, 49, 777–783.
55.
TodisB. (1996). Tools for the task? Perspectives on assistive technology in educational settings. Journal of Special Education Technology, 13, 49–61.
56.
TurnbullA. P.MarquisJ. G.HoffmanL.PostonD. J.MannanH.WangM. (2004). A new tool for assessing family outcomes: Psychometric evaluation of family quality of life scale. Manuscript submitted for publication.
57.
TurnbullA. P.TurbivilleV.TurnbullH. R. (2000). Evolution of family–professional partnerships: Collective empowerment as the model for the early twenty-first century. In MeiselsS. J.ShonkoffJ. P. (Eds.), Handbook of early intervention (pp. 630–650). New York: Cambridge University Press.
58.
TurnbullA. P.TurnbullH. R.ErwinE. J.SoodakL. C. (Eds.) (2006). Policies shaping school reform. In Families, Professionals and Exceptionality (pp. 113–135). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
59.
WolfM. M. (1978). Social validity: The case for subjective measurement, or how behavior analysis is finding its heart. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 203–214.
