{"title":"Vocabulary Selection and Implementation in Vocabulary Interventions for Speech-Generating Devices: A Scoping Review","authors":"Bethany J. Frick Semmler, Allison Bean","doi":"10.1044/2023_persp-23-00034","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: Intervention studies contribute to evidence-based practice in speech-language pathology. With individuals who use speech-generating devices (SGDs), it is important to determine what vocabulary to teach during intervention. However, it is unclear whether researchers are reporting the vocabulary selection techniques they used in intervention studies so that they may be replicated in clinical practice. The purpose of this scoping review was to examine the vocabulary selection techniques and other aspects of intervention studies focused on vocabulary acquisition in early symbolic communicators who use SGDs. Method: Eight databases (PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Educational Resources Information Center, Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts, Educational Research Complete, and CINAHL) were systematically searched for articles that were intervention studies targeting single-word vocabulary acquisition in early symbolic communicators who use SGDs. Data were extracted from each article and charted in Excel. Results: We found 5,405 unique articles, 18 of which met the inclusion/exclusion criteria for this review. All of the studies used a single-case design with three participants on average. Approximately half took place in the child's school, and most of the interventions were conducted by members of the research team. Eight studies targeted requesting or manding, six studies used preference assessments to select vocabulary, and seven articles used adults as informants to select the vocabulary. Conclusions: There are a limited number of studies investigating vocabulary acquisition in early symbolic communicators who use SGDs. Furthermore, the studies inconsistently used a range of methods that align with best practices for vocabulary selection.","PeriodicalId":74424,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives of the ASHA special interest groups","volume":"47 10","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Perspectives of the ASHA special interest groups","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1044/2023_persp-23-00034","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: Intervention studies contribute to evidence-based practice in speech-language pathology. With individuals who use speech-generating devices (SGDs), it is important to determine what vocabulary to teach during intervention. However, it is unclear whether researchers are reporting the vocabulary selection techniques they used in intervention studies so that they may be replicated in clinical practice. The purpose of this scoping review was to examine the vocabulary selection techniques and other aspects of intervention studies focused on vocabulary acquisition in early symbolic communicators who use SGDs. Method: Eight databases (PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Educational Resources Information Center, Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts, Educational Research Complete, and CINAHL) were systematically searched for articles that were intervention studies targeting single-word vocabulary acquisition in early symbolic communicators who use SGDs. Data were extracted from each article and charted in Excel. Results: We found 5,405 unique articles, 18 of which met the inclusion/exclusion criteria for this review. All of the studies used a single-case design with three participants on average. Approximately half took place in the child's school, and most of the interventions were conducted by members of the research team. Eight studies targeted requesting or manding, six studies used preference assessments to select vocabulary, and seven articles used adults as informants to select the vocabulary. Conclusions: There are a limited number of studies investigating vocabulary acquisition in early symbolic communicators who use SGDs. Furthermore, the studies inconsistently used a range of methods that align with best practices for vocabulary selection.
目的:干预研究有助于语言病理学的循证实践。对于使用语音生成设备(SGDs)的个体,确定在干预期间教授哪些词汇是很重要的。然而,尚不清楚研究人员是否报告了他们在干预研究中使用的词汇选择技术,以便在临床实践中复制。本综述的目的是考察词汇选择技术和干预研究的其他方面,这些研究关注的是使用sgd的早期符号传播者的词汇习得。方法:系统检索PsycINFO、PubMed、Scopus、Web of Science、Educational Resources Information Center、Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts、Educational Research Complete、CINAHL等8个数据库,检索针对使用sgd的早期符号传播者单字词汇习得的干预研究文章。从每篇文章中提取数据,并在Excel中绘制图表。结果:我们发现了5405篇独特的文章,其中18篇符合本综述的纳入/排除标准。所有的研究都采用了平均三名参与者的单案例设计。大约一半的干预是在孩子的学校进行的,大多数干预是由研究小组的成员进行的。8项研究以请求或强制为目标,6项研究使用偏好评估来选择词汇,7项研究使用成人作为信息提供者来选择词汇。结论:关于使用sgd的早期符号传播者词汇习得的研究数量有限。此外,这些研究并不一致地使用了一系列与词汇选择最佳实践相一致的方法。