{"title":"Speech-language pathologists' perceptions of augmentative and alternative communication in Thailand.","authors":"Wansiya Kamonsitichai, Howard Goldstein","doi":"10.1080/07434618.2023.2208222","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) systems are not well-known and broadly used in Thailand. To begin introducing AAC systems and interventions to children with complex communication needs in Thailand, understanding speech-language pathologists' (SLPs) perceptions toward various AAC systems is an important first step. This study assessed SLPs' perceptions of three AAC modalities: gestural communication, communication boards, and iPad<sup>1</sup>-based speech-output technologies. A total of 78 SLPs watched three video vignettes of a child using each mode and rated their impressions of intelligibility, ease of learnability and use, effectiveness, and preference. Then they were asked to rate factors on visual analog scales that provided additional insights into their rationales and their preferences for AAC modalities for nonverbal clients and for themselves if they were nonverbal. The results indicated that most of the SLPs rated iPad-based speech-output technologies as being the more intelligible, effective, and preferred mode of communication. Gestural communication was rated as the easiest mode to learn and use for a child with complex communication needs. Despite infrequent use of iPad-based speech-output technologies in Thailand, SLPs' ratings indicated high social acceptance of this modality for promoting communication abilities of children with complex communication needs. Results also revealed some biases and lack of knowledge about AAC systems in Thailand.</p>","PeriodicalId":49234,"journal":{"name":"Augmentative and Alternative Communication","volume":" ","pages":"230-240"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Augmentative and Alternative Communication","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07434618.2023.2208222","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/5/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
Augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) systems are not well-known and broadly used in Thailand. To begin introducing AAC systems and interventions to children with complex communication needs in Thailand, understanding speech-language pathologists' (SLPs) perceptions toward various AAC systems is an important first step. This study assessed SLPs' perceptions of three AAC modalities: gestural communication, communication boards, and iPad1-based speech-output technologies. A total of 78 SLPs watched three video vignettes of a child using each mode and rated their impressions of intelligibility, ease of learnability and use, effectiveness, and preference. Then they were asked to rate factors on visual analog scales that provided additional insights into their rationales and their preferences for AAC modalities for nonverbal clients and for themselves if they were nonverbal. The results indicated that most of the SLPs rated iPad-based speech-output technologies as being the more intelligible, effective, and preferred mode of communication. Gestural communication was rated as the easiest mode to learn and use for a child with complex communication needs. Despite infrequent use of iPad-based speech-output technologies in Thailand, SLPs' ratings indicated high social acceptance of this modality for promoting communication abilities of children with complex communication needs. Results also revealed some biases and lack of knowledge about AAC systems in Thailand.
期刊介绍:
As the official journal of the International Society for Augmentative and Alternative Communication (ISAAC), Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) publishes scientific articles related to the field of augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) that report research concerning assessment, treatment, rehabilitation, and education of people who use or have the potential to use AAC systems; or that discuss theory, technology, and systems development relevant to AAC. The broad range of topic included in the Journal reflects the development of this field internationally. Manuscripts submitted to AAC should fall within one of the following categories, AND MUST COMPLY with associated page maximums listed on page 3 of the Manuscript Preparation Guide.
Research articles (full peer review), These manuscripts report the results of original empirical research, including studies using qualitative and quantitative methodologies, with both group and single-case experimental research designs (e.g, Binger et al., 2008; Petroi et al., 2014).
Technical, research, and intervention notes (full peer review): These are brief manuscripts that address methodological, statistical, technical, or clinical issues or innovations that are of relevance to the AAC community and are designed to bring the research community’s attention to areas that have been minimally or poorly researched in the past (e.g., research note: Thunberg et al., 2016; intervention notes: Laubscher et al., 2019).