语言病理学家在早期干预中增强和替代沟通的实践。

IF 2.1 3区 医学 Q1 AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY Augmentative and Alternative Communication Pub Date : 2022-03-01 DOI:10.1080/07434618.2022.2046853
Emily Lorang, Nell Maltman, Courtney Venker, Alyson Eith, Audra Sterling
{"title":"语言病理学家在早期干预中增强和替代沟通的实践。","authors":"Emily Lorang,&nbsp;Nell Maltman,&nbsp;Courtney Venker,&nbsp;Alyson Eith,&nbsp;Audra Sterling","doi":"10.1080/07434618.2022.2046853","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This survey study examined augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) practices reported by early intervention speech-language pathologists (SLPs) across the United States (<i>N</i> = 376). The study examined (a) types of AAC that SLPs reported using (i.e., sign language, photographs, pictures, symbols, talking switches, and iPad apps or dedicated speech-generating devices); (b) SLPs' perspectives on the influence of child spoken language ability on AAC recommendations; (c) factors that influenced AAC decision-making within early intervention; and (d) perceived barriers associated with AAC implementation. SLPs reported that they were significantly more likely to introduce all types of AAC to children without spoken language abilities compared to children in later stages of language development. On average, they were most likely to report using or recommending sign language and photographs, and least likely to report using or recommending talking switches or speech-generating devices. Of the options provided, child expressive and receptive language abilities were rated as the most important factors to consider when determining AAC use, followed by cognitive ability, diagnosis, and chronological age. SLPs identified caregiver buy-in and carryover across providers as the most significant barriers to AAC implementation. Recommendations for future research and current AAC practices within early intervention are discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":49234,"journal":{"name":"Augmentative and Alternative Communication","volume":"38 1","pages":"41-52"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9549491/pdf/nihms-1837703.pdf","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Speech-language pathologists' practices in augmentative and alternative communication during early intervention.\",\"authors\":\"Emily Lorang,&nbsp;Nell Maltman,&nbsp;Courtney Venker,&nbsp;Alyson Eith,&nbsp;Audra Sterling\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/07434618.2022.2046853\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This survey study examined augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) practices reported by early intervention speech-language pathologists (SLPs) across the United States (<i>N</i> = 376). The study examined (a) types of AAC that SLPs reported using (i.e., sign language, photographs, pictures, symbols, talking switches, and iPad apps or dedicated speech-generating devices); (b) SLPs' perspectives on the influence of child spoken language ability on AAC recommendations; (c) factors that influenced AAC decision-making within early intervention; and (d) perceived barriers associated with AAC implementation. SLPs reported that they were significantly more likely to introduce all types of AAC to children without spoken language abilities compared to children in later stages of language development. On average, they were most likely to report using or recommending sign language and photographs, and least likely to report using or recommending talking switches or speech-generating devices. Of the options provided, child expressive and receptive language abilities were rated as the most important factors to consider when determining AAC use, followed by cognitive ability, diagnosis, and chronological age. SLPs identified caregiver buy-in and carryover across providers as the most significant barriers to AAC implementation. Recommendations for future research and current AAC practices within early intervention are discussed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49234,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Augmentative and Alternative Communication\",\"volume\":\"38 1\",\"pages\":\"41-52\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9549491/pdf/nihms-1837703.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Augmentative and Alternative Communication\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/07434618.2022.2046853\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Augmentative and Alternative Communication","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07434618.2022.2046853","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

本调查研究考察了美国各地早期干预言语语言病理学家(slp)报告的辅助和替代沟通(AAC)实践(N = 376)。该研究调查了(a) slp报告使用的AAC类型(即手语、照片、图片、符号、说话开关、iPad应用程序或专用语音生成设备);(b)特殊语言提供者对儿童口语能力对咨询委员会建议的影响的看法;(c)在早期干预中影响AAC决策的因素;(d)与AAC实施相关的感知障碍。slp报告说,与处于语言发展后期的儿童相比,他们更有可能向没有口语能力的儿童介绍所有类型的AAC。平均而言,他们最有可能使用或推荐手语和照片,而最不可能使用或推荐说话开关或语音生成设备。在提供的选项中,儿童表达和接受语言能力被认为是决定AAC使用时最重要的考虑因素,其次是认知能力、诊断和实足年龄。slp确定了护理人员的购买和跨提供者的传递是实施AAC的最大障碍。讨论了未来研究的建议和目前在早期干预中的AAC实践。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
Speech-language pathologists' practices in augmentative and alternative communication during early intervention.

This survey study examined augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) practices reported by early intervention speech-language pathologists (SLPs) across the United States (N = 376). The study examined (a) types of AAC that SLPs reported using (i.e., sign language, photographs, pictures, symbols, talking switches, and iPad apps or dedicated speech-generating devices); (b) SLPs' perspectives on the influence of child spoken language ability on AAC recommendations; (c) factors that influenced AAC decision-making within early intervention; and (d) perceived barriers associated with AAC implementation. SLPs reported that they were significantly more likely to introduce all types of AAC to children without spoken language abilities compared to children in later stages of language development. On average, they were most likely to report using or recommending sign language and photographs, and least likely to report using or recommending talking switches or speech-generating devices. Of the options provided, child expressive and receptive language abilities were rated as the most important factors to consider when determining AAC use, followed by cognitive ability, diagnosis, and chronological age. SLPs identified caregiver buy-in and carryover across providers as the most significant barriers to AAC implementation. Recommendations for future research and current AAC practices within early intervention are discussed.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Augmentative and Alternative Communication
Augmentative and Alternative Communication AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY-
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
15.00%
发文量
25
审稿时长
>12 weeks
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).
期刊最新文献
Nurse perspectives on supporting children and youth who use augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) in the pediatric intensive care unit. Voices from the field: exploring service providers' insights into service delivery and AAC use in Canada. What relationships exist between nouns and verbs and the use of prepositions, adverbs, and adjectives in children and adolescents who use speech generating devices? Representation of aided AAC in contemporary young adult fiction. Editorial: Recognition of excellence.
×
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