Personnel roles in the AAC assessment process

AAC: Augmentative and Alternative Communication

Volumn 28, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 278-288

  Binger, Cathy ^a   Ball, Laura ^b   Dietz, Aimee ^c   Kent Walsh, Jennifer ^d   Lasker, Joanne ^e   Lund, Shelley ^f   McKelvey, Miechelle ^g   Quach, Wendy ^h  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO   (United States)

^b MGH INSTITUTE OF HEALTH PROFESSIONS   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA   (United States)

^e EMERSON COLLEGE   (United States)

^f UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE   (United States)

^g UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA AT KEARNEY   (United States)

^h SAN JOSE STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Assessment; Augmentative and alternative communication (AAC); Evaluation; Funding

Indexed keywords

ASSESSMENT; ASSESSMENT PROCESS; AUGMENTATIVE-AND-ALTERNATIVE COMMUNICATION; COMMUNICATION PARTNERS; COMPLEX PROCESSES; EVALUATION; FUNDING; FUNDING AGENCIES; PROFESSIONAL ROLE;

SPEECH;

HUMAN REHABILITATION ENGINEERING;

ADULT; ARTICLE; COMMUNICATION AID; COOPERATION; HUMAN; MANPOWER; METHODOLOGY; NEEDS ASSESSMENT; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PUBLIC RELATIONS; SPEECH DISORDER; UTILIZATION REVIEW;

ADULT; COMMUNICATION AIDS FOR DISABLED; COOPERATIVE BEHAVIOR; HUMANS; INTERPROFESSIONAL RELATIONS; NEEDS ASSESSMENT; SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY;

EID: 84871557941     PISSN: 07434618     EISSN: 14773848     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/07434618.2012.716079     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. AAC-RERC. (2012). Overview of the health-based funding programs that cover speech generating devices. Retrieved June 5 2012, from http://aac-rerc.psu.edu/index.php/webcasts/show/id/8.
2. AAC-RERC. (2011). Mobile devices and communication apps. Retrieved June 5 2012, from http://aac-rerc.psu.edu/index.php/pages/show/id/46.
3. AAC TechConnect (2012). AAC device assistant. Retrieved January 27, 2012, from http://www.aactechconnect.com.
4. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2002). A workload analysis approach for establishing speech-language caseload standards in the schools: [Technical Report]. Available from www.asha.org/policy
5. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (1997). Multiskilled personnel [Position Statement]. Available from www.asha.org/policy.
6. Assistive Technology Act of 2004. (2004). Public Law 108-364, 118 Stat 1701.
7. Assistive Technology Law Center (2012). SGD funding solutions from Assistive Technology Law Center. Retrieved January 31, 2012, from http://www.aacfundinghelp.com.
8. Ball, L., Beukelman, D., & Pattee, G. (2004). Acceptance of augmentative and alternative communication technology by persons with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 20, 113-122.
9. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
10. Beukelman, D., Ball, L., & Fager, S. (2008). An AAC personnel framework: Adults with acquired complex communication needs. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 24, 255-267.
11. Beukelman, D., Hanson, E., Hiatt, E., Fager, S., & Bilyeu, D. (2005). AAC technology learning part 3: Regular AAC team members. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 21, 187-194.
12. Beukelman, D., & Mirenda, P. (2005). Augmentative and alternative communication: Supporting children and adults with complex communication needs. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
13. Beukelman, D., Yorkston, K., & Garrett, K. (2007). An introduction to AAC services for adults with chronic medical conditions. In D. Beukelman, K. Garrett, & K. Yorkston (Eds.), Augmentative communication strategies for adults with acute or chronic medical conditions (pp. 1-15). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
14. Binger, C., & Kent-Walsh, J. (2009). What every speech-language pathologist needs to know about augmentative and alternative communication. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
15. Bowser, G., & Roberts, D. (2003). Aspects of role release in the provision of services to young children: A concept paper offered by the collaborative teaming work group. Available from http://www.rsoi. org/Documents/Aspects%20of%20Role%20Release%20in%20 the%20Provision%20of%20Services%20to%20Young%20 Children.PDF
16. Bruno, J. (2003). Test of aided communication symbol performance. Mayer-Johnson Co.
17. Burke, R., Beukelman, D., Ball, L., & Horn, C. (2002). Augmentative and alternative communication learning part 1: Augmentative and alternative communication intervention specialists. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 18, 242-249.
18. Calculator, S., & Black, T. (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, 329-342.
19. Dietz, A., Quach, W., Lund, S., & McKelvey, M. (2012). AAC assessment and clinical decision-making: The impact of experience. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 28, 148-159.
20. Fager, S., Hux, K., Beukelman, D., & Karantounis, R. (2006). Augmentative and alternative communication use and acceptance by adults with traumatic brain injury. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 22, 37-47.
21. Fried-Oken, M., & Granlund, M. (2012). AAC and ICF: A good fit to emphasize outcomes. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 28, 1-2.
22. Georgia Project for Assistive Technology (2012). Retrieved June 2, 2012, from http://gpat.org
23. Glennen, S., & DeCoste, D. (1997). Handbook of augmentative and alternative communication. San Diego, CA: Singular Publishing Group, Inc.
24. Hustad, K., Keppner, K., Schanz, A., & Berg, A. (2008). Augmentative and alternative communication for preschool children: Intervention goals and the use of technology. Seminars in Speech and Language, 29, 83-91.
25. Jinks, A., Cornis-Pop, M., Caudill, T., & Schein, R. (November, 2010). VA Polytrauma assistive technology labs: Focus on AAC and electronic cognitive devices. American Speech Language Hearing Association Convention, Philadelphia. Retrieved June 15, 2011, from http://www.aacfundinghelp.com/
26. Johnson, J., Inglebret, E., Jones, C., & Ray, J. (2006). Perspectives of speech language pathologists regarding success versus abandonment of AAC. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 22, 85-99.
27. Kawamoto, K., Houlihan, C., Balas, E., & Lobach, D. (2005). Improving clinical practice using clinical decision support systems: A systematic review of trials to identify features critical to success. British Medical Journal. Retrieved January 26, 2012, from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/ PMC555881. doi: 10.1136/bmj.38398.500764.8F.
28. Kent-Walsh, J., & McNaughton, D. (2005). Communication partner instruction in AAC: Present practices and future directions. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 21, 195-204.
29. Kent-Walsh, J., Stark, C., & Binger, C. (2008). Tales from school trenches: AAC service-delivery and professional expertise. Seminars in Speech and Language, 29, 146-154.
30. Lasker, J., & Garrett, K. (2006). Using the Multimodal Communication Screening Test for Persons with Aphasia (MCST-A) to guide the selection of alternative communication strategies for people with aphasia. Aphasiology, 20, 217-232.
31. Lasker, J., Garrett, K., & Cave, A. (2010, May). Construct validity of the AAC-Aphasia framework: Partner-dependent and independent communicators. Platform presentation at the Clinical Aphasiology conference, SC.
32. Lund, S., & Light, J. (2007). Long-term outcomes for individuals who use augmentative and alternative communication: Part III-contributing factors. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 23, 323-335.
33. Marvin, L. A., Montano, J. J., Fusco, L. M., & Gould, E. P. (2003). Speech-language pathologists' perceptions of their training and experience in using alternative and augmentative communication. Contemporary Issues in Communication Science & Disorders, 30, 76-83.
34. Nordness, A., Ball, L., Fager, S., Beukelman, D., & Pattee, G. (2010). Late AAC assessment for individuals with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Journal of Medical Speech-Language Pathology, 18, 48-56.
35. Ratcliff, A., Koul, R., & Lloyd, L. (2008). Preparation in augmentative and alternative communication: An update for speech-language pathology training. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 17, 48-59.
36. Schlosser, R., & Raghavendra, P. (2004). Evidence-based practice in augmentative and alternative communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 20, 1-21.
37. Styles, J. (2008). Service users' acceptability of videoconferencing as a form of service delivery. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare, 14, 415-420.
38. van der Meer, L., Sigafoos, J., O'Reilly, M., & Lancioni, G. (2011). Assessing preferences for AAC options in communication interventions for individuals with developmental disabilities: A review of the literature. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 32, 1422-1431.
39. Wisconsin Assistive Technology Initiative (2012). Retrieved June 2, 2012, from http://wati.org
40. World Health Organization (2001). International classification of functioning, disability and health. Retrieved January 31, 2012, from http://www.who.int/classifications/icf/en.