Playing the Long Game: Considering the Future of Augmentative and Alternative Communication Research and Service

Abstract

This article examines the growth of aided augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) in providing support to children and youth with significant communication needs. Addressing current trends and offering a discussion of needs and probable future advances is framed around five guiding principles initially introduced by Williams, Krezman, and McNaughton. These include: (1) communication is a basic right and the use of AAC, especially at a young age, can help individuals realize their communicative potential; (2) AAC, like traditional communication, requires it to be fluid with the ability to adapt to different environments and needs; (3) AAC must be individualized and appropriate for each user; (4) AAC must support full participation in society across all ages and interests; and (5) individuals who use AAC have the right to be involved in all aspects of research, development, and intervention. In each of these areas current advances, needs, and future predictions are offered and discussed in terms of researchers' and practitioners' efforts to a continued upward trajectory of research and translational service delivery.

Keywords

AAC - aided communication

• References

• 1 American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. Augmentative and alternative communication: knowledge and skills for service delivery. 2002. Available at: http://www.asha.org/policy/KS2002-00067.htm . Accessed May 13, 2016
• 2 Neider D. The wins between our losses. Uncommon Sense. 2016. Available at: http://niederfamily.blogspot.com/2016/01/the-wins-between-our-losses.html . Accessed May 13, 2016
• 3 Feallock B. Communication for the non-verbal individual. Am J Occup Ther 1958; 12 (2, Part 1): 60-63 , passim
• 4 Goldstein H, Cameron H. New method of communication for the aphasic patient. Ariz Med 1952; 9 (8) 17-21
• 5 Jones MV. Electrical communication devices. Am J Occup Ther 1961; 15: 110-111
• 6 Miller J, Carpenter C. Electronics for communication: approaches to the problem of communication in children with severe cerebral palsy. Am J Occup Ther 1964; 18: 20-23
• 7 Carr EG. Teaching autistic children to use sign language: some research issues. J Autism Dev Disord 1979; 9 (4) 345-359
• 8 Williams M, Krezman C, McNaughton D. “Reach for the stars”: five principles for the next 25 years of AAC. Augment Altern Commun 2008; 24 (3) 194-206
• 9 Knight M. Too young to communicate. AAC and ABCs. 2014. Available at: http://aacabc.blogspot.com/2014/07/too-young-to-communicate.html . Accessed May 13, 2016
• 10 American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. Roles and responsibilities of speech-language pathologists in early intervention: technical report. 2008. Available at: http://www.asha.org/policy/gl2008-00293.htm . Accessed June 6, 2016
• 11 Guralnick M. Early Childhood Inclusion: Focus on Change. Baltimore, MD: Brookes; 2001
• 12 Reichle J, Beukelman D, Light J. Exemplary Practices for Beginning Communicators: Implications for AAC. Baltimore, MD: Brookes; 2002
• 13 Romski MA, Sevcik RA, Hyatt AM, Cheslock M. A continuum of AAC language intervention strategies for beginning communicators. In: Reichle J, Beukelman DR, Light JC, , eds. Exemplary Practices for Beginning Communicators: Implications for AAC. Baltimore, MD: Brookes; 2002: 1-23
• 14 Carbone V, Lewis L, Sweeney-Kerwin E, Dixon J, Louden R, Quinn S. A comparison of two approaches for teaching VB functions: total communication vs. vocal-alone. J Speech Lang Pathol Appl Behav Anal 2006; (1) 181-191 . Available at: http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/slp/1/3/181.html . Accessed June 6, 2016
• 15 Olive ML, de la Cruz B, Davis TN , et al. The effects of enhanced milieu teaching and a voice output communication aid on the requesting of three children with autism. J Autism Dev Disord 2007; 37 (8) 1505-1513
• 16 Schlosser RW, Sigafoos J, Luiselli JK , et al. Effects of synthetic speech output on requesting and natural speech production in children with autism: a preliminary study. Res Autism Spectr Disord 2007; 1: 139-163
• 17 Yoder PJ, Layton TL. Speech following sign language training in autistic children with minimal verbal language. J Autism Dev Disord 1988; 18 (2) 217-229
• 18 Harris MD, Reichle J. The impact of aided language stimulation on symbol comprehension and production in children with moderate cognitive disabilities. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 2004; 13 (2) 155-167
• 19 Knight M. Building the foundation for speech. AAC and ABCs. 2014. Available at: http://aacabc.blogspot.com/2014/09/building-foundation-for-speech.html . Accessed May 13, 2016
• 20 Branson D, Demchak M. The use of augmentative and alternative communication methods with infants and toddlers with disabilities: a research review. Augment Altern Commun 2009; 25 (4) 274-286
• 21 Cress C, Marvin C. Common questions about AAC services in early intervention. Augment Altern Commun 2003; 19 (4) 254-272
• 22 Hustad KC, Keppner K, Schanz A, Berg A. Augmentative and alternative communication for preschool children: intervention goals and use of technology. Semin Speech Lang 2008; 29 (2) 83-91
• 23 Romski M, Sevcik RA, Barton-Hulsey A, Whitmore AS. Early intervention and AAC: what a difference 30 years makes. Augment Altern Commun 2015; 31 (3) 181-202
• 24 Axmear E, Reichle J, Alamsaputra M, Kohnert K, Drager K, Sellnow K. Synthesized speech intelligibility in sentences: a comparison of monolingual English-speaking and bilingual children. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch 2005; 36 (3) 244-250
• 25 Beukelman D, Mirenda P. In: Augmentative and Alternative Communication Issues for People with Developmental Disabilities. 4th ed. Baltimore, MD: Brookes; 2013
• 26 Horner RH, Day HM. The effects of response efficiency on functionally equivalent competing behaviors. J Appl Behav Anal 1991; 24 (4) 719-732 . Accessed June 6, 2016
• 27 Day HM, Horner RH, O'Neill RE. Multiple functions of problem behaviors: assessment and intervention. J Appl Behav Anal 1994; 27 (2) 279-289
• 28 Johnston SS, Reichle J, Evans J. Supporting augmentative and alternative communication use by beginning communicators with severe disabilities. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 2004; 13 (1) 20-30
• 29 Mirenda P. Supporting individuals with challenging behavior through functional communication training and AAC: research review. Augment Altern Commun 1997; 13 (4) 207-225
• 30 Reichle J, Johnston S. Teaching the conditional use of communicative requests to two school-age children with severe developmental disabilities. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch 1999; 30 (4) 324-334
• 31 Hoover J, Reichle J, Van Tasell D, Cole D. The intelligibility of synthesized speech: ECHO II versus VOTRAX. J Speech Hear Res 1987; 30 (3) 425-431
• 32 Pinkoski-Ball CL, Reichle J, Munson B. Synthesized speech intelligibility and early preschool-age children: comparing accuracy for single-word repetition with repeated exposure. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 2012; 21 (4) 293-301
• 33 Drager KDR, Clark-Serpentine EA, Johnson KE, Roeser JL. Accuracy of repetition of digitized and synthesized speech for young children in background noise. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 2006; 15 (2) 155-164
• 34 Blackstone S. What are visual scene displays. RERC on Communication Enhancement 2015; 1 (2) . Available at: http://mcn.ed.psu.edu/dbm/RERC_Newsletter/Winter%202005%20-%20Vol1,%20Issue%202/RERC%20on%20Communication%20Enhancement%20eNews_%20What%20are%20visual%20scene%20displays.pdf . Accessed June 7, 2016
• 35 Drager KDR, Light JC, Speltz JC, Fallon KA, Jeffries LZ. The performance of typically developing 2 1/2-year-olds on dynamic display AAC technologies with different system layouts and language organizations. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2003; 46 (2) 298-312
• 36 Olin AR, Reichle J, Johnson L, Monn E. Examining dynamic visual scene displays: implications for arranging and teaching symbol selection. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 2010; 19 (4) 284-297
• 37 Wilkinson KM, Light J, Drager K. Considerations for the composition of visual scene displays: potential contributions of information from visual and cognitive sciences. Augment Altern Commun 2012; 28 (3) 137-147
• 38 Reichle J, Drager KD. Examining issues of aided communication display and navigational strategies for young children with developmental disabilities. J Dev Phys Disabil 2010; 22 (3) 289-311
• 39 Johnston SS, Reichle J, Feeley KM, Jones EA. AAC Strategies for Individuals with Moderate to Severe Disabilities. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing Company; 2012
• 40 O'Neill R, Reichle J. Addressing socially motivated challenging behaviors by establishing communicative alternatives: basics of a general-case approach. In Reichle J, Wacker D, , eds. Communicative Alternatives to Challenging Behavior: Integrating Functional Assessment and Intervention Strategies. Baltimore, MD: Brookes; 1993: 205-236
• 41 Horner RH, Albin RW. Research on general-case procedures for learners with severe disabilities. Educ Treat Child 1988; 11: 375-388
• 42 Stokes TF, Baer DM. An implicit technology of generalization. J Appl Behav Anal 1977; 10 (2) 349-367
• 43 Stokes TF, Osnes PG. An operant pursuit of generalization. Behav Ther 1989; 20 (3) 337-355
• 44 Chadsey-Rusch J, Halle J. The application of general-case instruction to the requesting repertoires of learners with severe disabilities. Res Pract Sever Disabil 1992; 17 (3) 121-132
• 45 Horner RH, Sprague J, Wilcox B. General case programming for community activities. Design High School Prog Sever Handicap Stud 1982; xx: 61-98
• 46 Chadsey-Rusch J, Drasgow E, Reinoehl B, Halle J, Collet-Klingenberg L. Using general-case instruction to teach spontaneous and generalized requests for assistance to learners with severe disabilities. Res Pract Sever Disabil 1993; 18 (3) 177-187
• 47 Kreibich SR, Chen M, Reichle J. Teaching a child with autism to request breaks while concurrently increasing task engagement. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch 2015; 46 (3) 256-265
• 48 Light J, Drager K. AAC technologies for young children with complex communication needs: state of the science and future research directions. Augment Altern Commun 2007; 23 (3) 204-216
• 49 Light J, McNaughton D. Putting people first: re-thinking the role of technology in augmentative and alternative communication intervention. Augment Altern Commun 2013; 29 (4) 299-309
• 50 Mirenda P, Iacono T , eds. Autism Spectrum Disorders and AAC. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing; 2009
• 51 Lloyd L, Fuller D, Arvidson H , eds. Augmentative and Alternative Communication. 1st ed. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon; 1997
• 52 World Health Organization. International Classification of Functioning, Disability, And Health: Children & Youth Version: ICF-CY. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2007. . Available at: http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/43737/1/9789241547321_eng.pdf . Accessed June 7, 2016
• 53 Simeonsson RJ, Björck-Åkessön E, Lollar DJ. Communication, disability, and the ICF-CY. Augment Altern Commun 2012; 28 (1) 3-10
• 54 Gosnell J, Costello J, Shane H. There isn't always an app for that!. Perspectives 2011; 20 (1) 7-8
• 55 Light JC, Drager KD. Improving the design of augmentative and alternative technologies for young children. Assist Technol 2002; 14 (1) 17-32
• 56 Light J, Wilkinson K, Drager K. Designing effective AAC systems: research evidence and implications for practice. Paper presented at: American Speech-Language-Hearing Association; November 20–22, 2008; Chicago, IL
• 57 Light J, McNaughton D. Supporting the communication, language, and literacy development of children with complex communication needs: state of the science and future research priorities. Assist Technol 2011; 24 (1) 34-44
• 58 Light J, McNaughton D. From basic to applied research to improve outcomes for individuals who require augmentative and alternative communication: potential contributions of eye tracking research methods. Augment Altern Commun 2014; 30 (2) 99-105
• 59 Wilkinson KM, Mitchell T. Eye tracking research to answer questions about augmentative and alternative communication assessment and intervention. Augment Altern Commun 2014; 30 (2) 106-119
• 60 Gillespie-Smith K, Fletcher-Watson S. Designing AAC systems for children with autism: evidence from eye tracking research. Augment Altern Commun 2014; 30 (2) 160-171
• 61 Blackstone SW, Williams MB, Joyce M. Future AAC technology needs: consumer perspectives. Assist Technol 2002; 14 (1) 3-16
• 62 Green CW, Reid DH, White LK, Halford RC, Brittain DP, Gardner SM. Identifying reinforcers for persons with profound handicaps: staff opinion versus systematic assessment of preferences. J Appl Behav Anal 1988; 21 (1) 31-43
• 63 Carr JE, Nicolson AC, Higbee TS. Evaluation of a brief multiple-stimulus preference assessment in a naturalistic context. J Appl Behav Anal 2000; 33 (3) 353-357 . Accessed June 7, 2016
• 64 Ortiz K, Carr J. Multiple-stimulus preference assessments: a comparison of free operant and restricted-operant formats. Behav Interv 2000; 15: 345-353
• 65 Piazza CC, Fisher WW, Hagopian LP, Bowman LG, Toole L. Using a choice assessment to predict reinforcer effectiveness. J Appl Behav Anal 1996; 29 (1) 1-9 . Accessed June 7, 2016
• 66 Fallon KA, Light J, McNaughton D, Drager K, Hammer C. The effects of direct instruction on the single-word reading skills of children who require augmentative and alternative communication. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2004; 47 (6) 1424-1439
• 67 Caron J, Light J. Social media experiences of adolescents and young adults with cerebral palsy who use augmentative and alternative communication. Int J Speech Lang Pathol 2016; (April 6): 1-13 (Epub ahead of print)
• 68 Shane HC, Blackstone S, Vanderheiden G, Williams M, DeRuyter F. Using AAC technology to access the world. Assist Technol 2011; 24 (1) 3-13
• 69 Lucyshyn JM In: Contextual Fit Encyclopedia of Behavior Modification and Cognitive Behavior Therapy: Vol. III: Educational Applications. Hersen M, Sugai G, Horner R, , eds. Contextual Fit Encyclopedia of Behavior Modification and Cognitive Behavior Therapy: Vol. III: Educational Applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2005
• 70 Warren SF, Fey ME, Yoder PJ. Differential treatment intensity research: a missing link to creating optimally effective communication interventions. Ment Retard Dev Disabil Res Rev 2007; 13 (1) 70-77
• 71 Baker E. Optimal intervention intensity. Int J Speech-Language Pathol 2012; 14 (5) 401-409
• 72 Fey ME, Yoder PJ, Warren SF, Bredin-Oja SL. Is more better? Milieu communication teaching in toddlers with intellectual disabilities. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2013; 56 (2) 679-693
• 73 McGinty AS, Breit-Smith A, Fan X, Justice LM, Kaderavek JN. Does intensity matter? Preschoolers' print knowledge development within a classroom-based intervention. Early Child Res Q 2011; 26 (3) 255-267
• 74 Kamhi AG. Improving clinical practices for children with language and learning disorders. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch 2014; 45 (2) 92-103
• 75 Neil N, Jones EA. Studying treatment intensity: lessons from two preliminary studies. J Behav Educ 2014; 2014: 1-23
• 76 Dunst CJ, Trivette CM, Raab M. An implementation science framework for conceptualizing and operationalizing fidelity in early childhood intervention studies. J Early Interv 2013; 35 (2) 85-101
• 77 Blackstone SW, Williams MB, Wilkins DP. Key principles underlying research and practice in AAC. Augment Altern Commun 2007; 23 (3) 191-203
• 78 Charlton J. Nothing about Us without Us. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press; 1998
• 79 Chung Y, Behrmann M, Bannan B, Thorp E. Perspectives of high tech augmentative and alternative communication users with cerebral palsy at the post-secondary level. Perspectives 2012; 21 (2) 43
• 80 McNaughton D, Light J, Arnold K. Getting your wheel in the door: Successful full-time employment experiences of individuals with cerebral palsy who use augmentative and alternative communication. Augment Altern Commun 2002; 18 (2) 59-76
• 81 Rackensperger T, Krezman C, McNaughton D, Williams M, D'Silva K. “When I first got it, I wanted to throw it off a cliff”: the challenges and benefits of learning AAC technologies as described by adults who use AAC. Augment Altern Commun 2005; 21 (3) 165-186
• 82 Oliver M. Changing the social relations of research production?. Disabil Handicap Soc 1992; 7 (2) 101-114
• 83 Foley A, Ferri B. Technology for people, not disabilities: ensuring access and inclusion. J Res Spec Educ Needs 2012; 12 (4) 192-200
• 84 Goggin G, Newell G. Digital Disability. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.; 2003
• 85 Granlund M, Björck-Akesson E, Wilder J, Ylvén R. AAC interventions for children in a family environment: implementing evidence in practice. Augment Altern Commun 2008; 24 (3) 207-219
• 86 McNaughton D, Rackensperger T, Wehmeyer M, Wright S. Self-determination and young adults who use AAC. In: McNaughton D, Beukelman D, , eds. Transition Strategies for Adolescents and Young Adults Who Use AAC. 1st ed. Baltimore, MD: Brookes; 2010: 17-32
• 87 Wehmeyer M. Self-determination and individuals with significant disabilities: Examining meanings and misinterpretations. J Assoc Pers Sev Handicaps 1998; 23 (1) 5-16
• 88 Gabor D. Inventing the Future. New York, NY: Knopf; 1963