Research Article  |   February 2012
Development of the Communication Complexity Scale
 
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Nancy C. Brady
    University of Kansas, Lawrence
  • Kandace Fleming
    University of Kansas, Lawrence
  • Kathy Thiemann-Bourque
    University of Kansas, Lawrence
  • Lesley Olswang
    University of Washington, Seattle
  • Patricia Dowden
    University of Washington, Seattle
  • Muriel D. Saunders
    University of Kansas, Lawrence
  • Janet Marquis
    University of Kansas, Lawrence
  • Correspondence to Nancy C. Brady: nbrady@ku.edu
  • Editor: Carol Scheffner Hammer
    Editor: Carol Scheffner Hammer×
  • Associate Editor: Juliann Woods
    Associate Editor: Juliann Woods×
Article Information
Research Issues, Methods & Evidence-Based Practice / Research Article
Research Article   |   February 2012
Development of the Communication Complexity Scale
American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, February 2012, Vol. 21, 16-28. doi:10.1044/1058-0360(2011/10-0099)
History: Received November 23, 2010 , Revised June 20, 2011 , Accepted August 10, 2011
 
American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, February 2012, Vol. 21, 16-28. doi:10.1044/1058-0360(2011/10-0099)
History: Received November 23, 2010; Revised June 20, 2011; Accepted August 10, 2011
Web of Science® Times Cited: 3

Purpose: Accurate description of an individual’s communication status is critical in both research and practice. Describing the communication status of individuals with severe intellectual and developmental disabilities is difficult because these individuals often communicate with presymbolic means that may not be readily recognized. Our goal was to design a communication scale and summary score for interpretation that could be applied across populations of children and adults with limited (often presymbolic) communication forms.

Method: The Communication Complexity Scale (CCS) was developed by a team of researchers and tested with 178 participants with varying levels of presymbolic and early symbolic communication skills. Correlations between standardized and informant measures were completed, and expert opinions were obtained regarding the CCS.

Results: CCS scores were within expected ranges for the populations studied, and interrater reliability was high. Comparison across other measures indicated significant correlations with standardized tests of language. Scores on informant report measures tended to place children at higher levels of communication. Expert opinions generally favored the development of the CCS.

Conclusions: The scale appears to be useful for describing a given individual’s level of presymbolic or early symbolic communication. Further research is needed to determine whether it is sensitive to developmental growth in communication.

Acknowledgments
This research was supported by Grants P01 HD018955 and R01 DC007684 from the National Institutes of Health. We wish to thank Kris Mathews, Megan Burgardt, and the individuals who participated in this research and their families.
Order a Subscription
Pay Per View
Entire American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology content & archive
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access