A scoping review of communication outcomes measures in augmentative and alternative communication.

IF 2.5 4区 医学 Q1 REHABILITATION Assistive Technology Pub Date : 2025-02-14 Epub Date: 2023-09-13 DOI:10.1080/10400435.2023.2251041
Allison Bean, Kyle Harris, Hanna Kim, Carmen DiGiovine, Amy Miller Sonntag
{"title":"A scoping review of communication outcomes measures in augmentative and alternative communication.","authors":"Allison Bean, Kyle Harris, Hanna Kim, Carmen DiGiovine, Amy Miller Sonntag","doi":"10.1080/10400435.2023.2251041","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Although outcomes are a critical component of evidence-based practice, measuring augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) outcomes remains problematic. This is, in part, because there is no consensus on how to operationally define AAC communication outcomes. To gain greater insight into AAC communication outcomes, we used the communicative competence framework to determine which areas of AAC intervention have received the greatest attention and how these outcomes are being measured. The following data were charted from the 77 studies that met the inclusion criteria for the scoping review: study design, study participants, study communication target (e.g., language, word learning, etc.), and communication outcome measurements. Across the included studies, researchers used a variety of standardized and non-standardized measures to assess outcomes. Seventy-seven percent of the studies assessed social skills and 62% assessed linguistic skills. A limited number of studies measured operational (14%), strategic (4%), and psychosocial (18%) skills. Using the communicative competence framework enabled us to identify gaps in the research that has been conducted to date.</p>","PeriodicalId":51568,"journal":{"name":"Assistive Technology","volume":" ","pages":"S65-S86"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Assistive Technology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10400435.2023.2251041","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/9/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Although outcomes are a critical component of evidence-based practice, measuring augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) outcomes remains problematic. This is, in part, because there is no consensus on how to operationally define AAC communication outcomes. To gain greater insight into AAC communication outcomes, we used the communicative competence framework to determine which areas of AAC intervention have received the greatest attention and how these outcomes are being measured. The following data were charted from the 77 studies that met the inclusion criteria for the scoping review: study design, study participants, study communication target (e.g., language, word learning, etc.), and communication outcome measurements. Across the included studies, researchers used a variety of standardized and non-standardized measures to assess outcomes. Seventy-seven percent of the studies assessed social skills and 62% assessed linguistic skills. A limited number of studies measured operational (14%), strategic (4%), and psychosocial (18%) skills. Using the communicative competence framework enabled us to identify gaps in the research that has been conducted to date.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
扩大和替代沟通的沟通结果措施的范围审查。
虽然结果是循证实践的关键组成部分,但衡量增强型和替代性沟通(AAC)结果仍然存在问题。这在一定程度上是因为对于如何在操作上定义AAC通信结果没有达成共识。为了更深入地了解AAC的沟通结果,我们使用交际能力框架来确定哪些AAC干预领域受到了最大的关注,以及如何衡量这些结果。以下数据来自77项符合纳入标准的研究:研究设计、研究参与者、研究交流目标(如语言、单词学习等)和交流结果测量。在纳入的研究中,研究人员使用了各种标准化和非标准化的方法来评估结果。77%的研究评估了社交技能,62%的研究评估了语言技能。数量有限的研究测量了操作技能(14%)、战略技能(4%)和社会心理技能(18%)。使用交际能力框架使我们能够识别迄今为止进行的研究中的差距。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Assistive Technology
Assistive Technology REHABILITATION-
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
5.60%
发文量
40
期刊介绍: Assistive Technology is an applied, scientific publication in the multi-disciplinary field of technology for people with disabilities. The journal"s purpose is to foster communication among individuals working in all aspects of the assistive technology arena including researchers, developers, clinicians, educators and consumers. The journal will consider papers from all assistive technology applications. Only original papers will be accepted. Technical notes describing preliminary techniques, procedures, or findings of original scientific research may also be submitted. Letters to the Editor are welcome. Books for review may be sent to authors or publisher.
期刊最新文献
RESNA position on the application of ultralight manual wheelchairs. Wheeled repair alliance: Rolling out wheelchair repair and maintenance in community bicycle shops. Quantifying toddler exploration in different postures with powered mobility. Program evaluation and healthcare process improvement focused on complex wheelchair procurement. On-time power mobility and physical activity in toddlers with motor delays: A randomized controlled trial using body-worn sensors.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1