Turkish speech-language therapists' perceptions and experiences of augmentative and alternative communication

Abstract

Objectives: In this study, it is aimed to reveal what extent speech and language therapists (SLT) working in Turkey used augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) systems in their working area. For this purpose, it was investigated how they perceive AAC in terms of its scope and role; ACC applications within the scope of interventions for communication, language and speech disorders; best practice insights on AAC; what factors are seen as facilitating or limiting the implementation of AAC within the scope of intervention and suggestions for providing the best practice for AAC.

Methods: Phenomenology, one of the qualitative research methods, was used in the study. The subject of the study is the opinions of SLTs working in Turkey on their clinical practices and thoughts on the use of AAC. The study group consists of 15 SLTs from Turkey and determined by using maximum diversity sampling method. The semi-structured interview forms were used in which SLTs’ views, suggestions and expectations about AAC applications in the service delivery as a data collection tool. The obstacles and difficulties in these applications were discussed. Content analysis was used and also carried out using the qualitative data analysis program MAXQDA 2018. In order to ensure the consistency of the data analysis, the data were analyzed by another field expert and the 92% consensus was tried to be reached by using the consistency formula.

Results: Participant opinions consist of benefiting status from AAC, opinions on the importance of AAC, preferred case groups and reasons for AAC implementation, opinions on current best practice understanding on communication and language intervention/use of AAC, opinions on current working conditions on AAC practices, opinions on the limitations of the use of AAC in communication and language intervention and recommendations for ensuring effective use of AAC themes.

Conclusions: The results of the study show that supporting individuals who can benefit from AAC in the context of intervention services for communication disorders requires great effort. In addition, SLTs stated that they strongly believed in AAC and its potential value for individuals with communication disorders, but did not have sufficient self-confidence about their current or developing skills in this area. It is also seen that clinicians need training and support from employers, professional or government agencies that set policies and standards to achieve their AAC related goals.

Keywords

• Augmentative and alternative communication systems
• speech and language therapy services
• qualitative research
• speech
• language

References

1. 1. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association ASHA). Roles and responsibilities of speech-language pathologists in schools [Professional Issues Statement]. 2010. Available from www.asha.org/policy/.
2. 2. Beukelman DR, Pat M. Augmentative and Alternative Communication : Supporting Children and Adults with Complex Communication Needs, Brookes Publishing, 2012. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/bahcesehir-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1787388. Created from bahcesehir-ebooks on 2023-03-20 17:27:11.
3. 3. Fidan K. The knowledge, experiences and recommendations of the health personnels working in the intensive care unit about augmentative and alternati̇ve communi̇cation: A mixed method study. [Unpublished MSC thesis]. Üsküdar University, Health Sciences Institure, İstanbul. 2021.
4. 4. Yırtık HN, Yelek EN, Karahan Tığrak T, Bozkuş İB, Kulak Kayıkçı ME. [Development of a prototype and determination of high-tech augmentative and alternative communication system requirements for individuals in intensive care units]. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi 2023;10:58-84. [Article in Turkish]
5. 5. Iacono T, Cameron M. Australian speech-language pathologists' perceptions and experiences of augmentative and alternative communication in early childhood intervention. Augment Altern Commun 2009;25:236-49.
6. 6. Hemmings B, Hill D, Davies S. Evaluating a rural-based early childhood intervention service. Spec Educ Perspect 2004;13:31-54.
7. 7. Kemp C, Hayes A. Early intervention in Australia. In: Guralnick M, ed., The developmental systems approach to early intervention. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes, 2005: pp. 401-23.
8. 8. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2008a). Core knowledge and skills in early intervention speech language pathology practice [Knowledge and Skills]. Available from: http://www.asha.org/policy

9. 9. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2008b). Roles and responsibilities of speech-language pathologists in early intervention: Technical report [Technical Report]. Available from http://www.asha.org/policy
10. 10. Reilly S. What constitutes evidence? In: Reilly S, Douglas J, Oates J, eds., Evidence based practice in speech pathology. London: Whurr, 2004: pp. 18-34.
11. 11. Schlosser RW, Raghavendra P. Evidence-based practice in augmentative and alternative communication. Augment Altern Commun 2004;2:1-21.
12. 12. Iacono T. The evidence base for augmentative and alternative communication. In: Reilly S, Douglas J, Oates J, eds., Evidence-based practice in speech pathology, London: Whurr Publishers, 2004: pp. 288-313.
13. 13. Vagle MD. Crafting phenomenological research. Walnut Creek, Ca: Left Coast Press. 2014.
14. 14. Thomas J, Harden A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 2008;8:45.
15. 15. Miles M, Huberman M. Data management and analysis methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 1994.
16. 16. Erdoğan Ç, Demirkasımoğlu N. [Teachers’ and school administrators’ views of parent involvement in education process]. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi 2010;16:399-431. [Article in Turkish]
17. 17. Murray J, Goldbart J. Augmentative and alternative communication: a review of current issues. Pediatrics and Child Health. 2009;19(10):464-8.
18. 18. Millar D, Light J, Schlosser, R. The impact of augmentative and alternative communication on the speech production of individuals with developmental disabilities: a research review. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2006;49:248-64.
19. 19. McNaughton D, Rackensperger T, Benedek-Wood E, Krezman C, Williams MB, Light J. A child needs to be given a chance to succeed: parents of individuals who use AAC describe the benefits and challenges of learning AAC Technologies. Augment Altern Commun 2008;24:43-55.
20. 20. Campbell PH, Milbourne S, Dugan LM, Wilcox MJ. A review of evidence on practices for teaching young children to use assistive technology devices. Topics Early Child Spec Educ 2006;26:3-13.
21. 21. Hodgdon LA. Visual strategies for improving communication: Practical supports for school and communication. Michigan: Quirk Roberts Publishing. 2000.
22. 22. Johnston S, Nelson C, Evans J, Palazolo K. The use of visual supports in teaching young children with Autism Spectrum Disorder to initiate interactions. Augment Altern Commun 2003;19:86-103.
23. 23. Mirenda P, Brown K. A picture is worth a thousand words: using visual supports for augmented input with individuals with autism. In: Mirenda P, Iacono T. eds., Autism and AAC. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes, 2008: pp. 303-32.
24. 24. Iacono T. Language intervention in early childhood. Int J Disabil Dev Educ 1999;46:383-420.
25. 25. Snell ME. Using dynamic assessment with learners who communicate nonsymbolically. Augment Altern Commun 2002;18:163-76.
26. 26. Beamish W, Bryer, F. Practitioners and parents have their say about best practice: Early intervention in Queensland. Int J Disabil Dev Educ 1999;46:261-78.
27. 27. Kent Walsh J, Light J. General education teachers’ experiences with inclusion of students who use augmentative and alternative communication. Augment Altern Commun 2003;19:104-24.
28. 28. Scope. More than my child’s disability: A study of family-centered practices and family experiences of Scope early childhood intervention services and supports. (Research Project). Melbourne: Scope (Vic). 2004.
29. 29. Smith MM, Connolly I. Roles of aided communication: perspectives of adults who use AAC. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2008;3:260-73.