Vocabulary Selection for Augmentative Communication Systems A Comparison of Three Techniques Clinical Focus
Clinical Focus  |   May 01, 1993
Vocabulary Selection for Augmentative Communication Systems
 
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Deanna R. Morrow
    Park Ridge Hospital, Rochester, NY
  • Pat Mirenda
    CBI Consultants Ltd., 405-1549 Kitchener Street, Vancouver, BC V5L 2V8, Canada
  • David R. Beukelman
    University of Nebraska-Lincoln
  • Kathryn M. Yorkston
    University of Washington, Seattle
Article Information
Augmentative & Alternative Communication / Clinical Focus
Clinical Focus   |   May 01, 1993
Vocabulary Selection for Augmentative Communication Systems
American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, May 1993, Vol. 2, 19-30. doi:10.1044/1058-0360.0202.19
History: Received December 16, 1991 , Accepted September 21, 1992
 
American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, May 1993, Vol. 2, 19-30. doi:10.1044/1058-0360.0202.19
History: Received December 16, 1991; Accepted September 21, 1992

The vocabulary size, vocabulary characteristics, and informant reactions associated with three different methods of vocabulary selection for augmentative communication and three different types of informants were compared. Six school-aged children with severe communication disorders and physical disabilities served as student subjects. For each subject, three adult informants (primary caregiver, teacher, and speech-language pathologist) completed three vocabulary selection tools (blank page, categorical inventory, and vocabulary checklist). Informants also were asked to complete a questionnaire in order to document their reactions to using the various tools. Results indicated that the vocabulary checklist yielded more words than did the blank page or the categorical tools. For half of the subjects, the parents contributed more words than the speech-language pathologist or teacher; for the other half of the subjects, the speech-language pathologist contributed more words than the parent or the teacher. Commonality among the list of words and implications for clinical applications and future research are addressed.

Acknowledgments
This research was completed as a master’s thesis by the first author at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. The authors wish to thank the parents, teachers, and speech-language pathologists who gave so generously of their time during data collection; Ellen Weissinger for her assistance with research design; and Janice Light for helpful suggestions during the development of this manuscript. Manuscript preparation was supported in part by Maternal and Child Health Grants MCJ243270 and MCH00917.
Order a Subscription
Pay Per View
Entire American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology content & archive
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access