Speech-Language Pathologists' Knowledge and Consideration of Factors That May Predict, Moderate, and Mediate AAC Outcomes

Comparing and contrasting barriers in augmentative alternative communication use in nonspeaking autism and complex communication needs: multi-stakeholder perspectives

Augmentative alternative communication (AAC) devices or systems are often prescribed to minimally verbal or nonspeaking autistic individuals and other individuals with complex communication needs to facilitate communication or as an alternative to spoken language. AAC use can result in communication gains and improved quality of life for minimally verbal or nonspeaking individuals. Despite this, AAC abandonment is high, limiting societal participation of the individual on the autism spectrum with complex communication needs. Our study is a novel exploration of the barriers of AAC use from a multi-stakeholder perspective, and a qualitative analysis of similarities and differences between stakeholders. We conducted semi-structured interviews and focus groups with 30 parent-carers, educators and clinicians currently supporting AAC users in Western Australia and analysed the data using reflexive thematic analysis. Barriers from each stakeholder group were coded, resulting in 17 subthemes forming five main themes common to all stakeholders: Stakeholder Knowledge, Stakeholder Attitudes and Stigma, Resources, AAC User Engagement, and Device Fit. Contrasting perspectives included actual and perceived stigma associated with AAC use (parent-carers vs clinicians); different struggles with resources and knowledge (parent-carers vs clinicians and educators); and a lack of clinician communication in the processes that determined AAC-fit for school environments (educators only). Findings are discussed in the context of improving inter-stakeholder collaboration and capacity building in Australian health service and practice to better support minimally verbal or nonspeaking autistic individuals and individuals with complex communication needs. Suggestions are also offered for communication partner training.

Augmentative and alternative communication with children with severe/profound intellectual and multiple disabilities: speech language pathologists' clinical practices and reasoning

PURPOSE

Augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) is recommended to be included in communication interventions directed at children/youth with severe/profound intellectual and multiple disabilities (S/PIMD). Even so, the evidence base for AAC practices with children with S/PIMD is limited. Also, little is known about how frequently AAC is implemented with this target group, which AAC tools and methods are applied, and the related clinical reasoning of speech-language pathologists (SLPs). This study aimed to explore SLPs' beliefs, clinical reasoning and practices in relation to AAC implementation with children/youth with S/PIMD.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this sequential, mixed-methods study, 90 SLPs working with children with disabilities within habilitation services in Sweden participated in an online survey. The survey answers were statistically analysed. Subsequently, focus group data were collected from seven SLPs and analysed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Despite AAC being highly prioritized, SLPs found it challenging and complex to implement with this target group. A wide variety of AAC methods and tools were considered and implemented. Clinical decision-making was a balancing act between competing considerations and was mainly guided by the SLPs' individual, clinical experiences. The resources, engagement and wishes of the social network surrounding the child were considered crucial for clinical decision-making on AAC. Implications for research and practice are discussed.Implications for rehabilitationSpeech-language pathologists (SLPs) seemingly find a wide variety of Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC), ranging from unaided methods to assistive technology of various complexity, to be potentially suitable for children/youth with severe/profound intellectual and multiple disabilities (S/PIMD).The motivation and preferences of the social network surrounding the child with S/PIMD seem to influence SLPs' clinical decision-making on AAC to a high degree. Sometimes this may be considered an even more important factor than the abilities of the child.SLPs' clinical decision-making on AAC for children/youth is guided by their individual, clinical experience to a high degree.An increase in family oriented AAC intervention research targeting individuals with S/PIMD could potentially strengthen the association between research and the current, experience-based clinical practice.

Perceived Factors That Facilitate or Prevent the Use of Speech-Generating Devices in Bilingual Individuals With Aphasia

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to explore practicing speech-language pathologists' (SLPs') perceptions of factors that could facilitate or prevent the use of speech-generating devices (SGDs) in bilingual individuals with aphasia. Specifically, this exploratory study sought to identify the facilitators and barriers to SGD use in individuals with culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds.

METHOD

An online survey was distributed to SLPs through an e-mail listserv and social media of an augmentative and alternative communication company. This article focused on the results of the survey items related to (a) the presence of bilingual individuals with aphasia on an SLP's caseload, (b) training related to SGD or bilingual aphasia, and (c) barriers and facilitators to SGD use. A thematic analysis was conducted to analyze the barriers and facilitators to SGD use reported by the respondents.

RESULTS

A total of 274 SLPs who met the inclusion criteria had experience in implementing SGD for people with aphasia. Regarding relevant training, our results indicated that very few SLPs received bilingual aphasia intervention training (17.22%) or bilingual SGD training (0.56%) in graduate school. The results from our thematic analysis revealed four major themes of barriers and facilitators to SGD use, including (a) hardware and software, (b) cultural and language content, (c) SLP's cultural and linguistic competency, and (d) resources.

CONCLUSIONS

Practicing SLPs reported several barriers to SGD use in bilinguals with aphasia. Most notably, language barriers for monolingual SLPs were seen as the greatest barrier to language recovery in individuals with aphasia whose primary language is not English. Several other barriers were consistent with previous research, such as financial factors and insurance disparities. The top three most important factors that facilitate SGD use in bilinguals with aphasia, as identified by the respondents, include user-friendly symbol organization, personalized words, and ease of programming.

Clinician Proposed Predictors of Spoken Language Outcomes for Minimally Verbal Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder

Our aim was to explore insights from clinical practice that may inform efforts to understand and account for factors that predict spoken language outcomes for children with Autism Spectrum Disorder who use minimal verbal language. We used a qualitative design involving three focus groups with 14 speech pathologists to explore their views and experiences. Using the Framework Method of analysis, we identified 9 themes accounting for 183 different participant references to potential factors. Participants highlighted the relevance of clusters of fine-grained social, communication, and learning behaviours, including novel insights into prelinguistic vocal behaviours. The participants suggested the potential value of dynamic assessment in predicting spoken language outcomes. The findings can inform efforts to developing clinically relevant methods for predicting children's communication outcomes.