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×
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: Accepted 10 Aug 2011 , Received 23 Nov 2010 , Revised 20 Jun 2011
American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology February 2012, Vol.21, 16-28. doi:10.1044/1058-0360(2011/10-0099)
History: Accepted 10 Aug 2011 , Received 23 Nov 2010 , Revised 20 Jun 2011

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.

Order a Subscription
Pay Per View
Entire American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology content & archive
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access

Related Articles

Preliminary Investigation of Visual Attention to Human Figures in Photographs: Potential Considerations for the Design of Aided AAC Visual Scene Displays
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research December 2011, Vol.54, 1644-1657. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2011/10-0098)
Eye-Tracking Measures Reveal How Changes in the Design of Aided AAC Displays Influence the Efficiency of Locating Symbols by School-Age Children Without Disabilities
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research March 2014, Vol., 1-12. doi:10.1044/2013_JSLHR-L-12-0159
Communicative Acts of Children With Autism Spectrum Disorders in the Second Year of Life
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research October 2009, Vol.52, 1139-1156. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2009/07-0280)
The Effect of Word Frequency on Noun and Verb Definitions: A Developmental Study
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research October 2006, Vol.49, 1001-1021. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2006/072)
Times Change and We With Them
Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools October 2012, Vol.43, 393-394. doi:10.1044/0161-1461(2012/ed-04)