What terms should we use for AAC and the people who use it? Results from a terminology survey.

IF 1.6
Alyssa Hillary Zisk, Lily Konyn, David Niemeijer
{"title":"What terms should we use for AAC and the people who use it? Results from a terminology survey.","authors":"Alyssa Hillary Zisk, Lily Konyn, David Niemeijer","doi":"10.1080/07434618.2025.2588563","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study aimed to elicit and analyze the views and preferences of a variety of AAC stakeholders regarding terminology related to augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) and the people who use or could benefit from it. We used an anonymous online survey to ask nonspeaking AAC users, speaking AAC users, relatives of AAC users, and AAC professionals their preferences on 119 English terms related to AAC, AAC users, and communication disability. The survey also collected demographic information, including age, country, connection to AAC, and disability identity. A total of 556 participants completed the survey. We aimed to determine broad terminology preferences across stakeholder groups and identify areas of disagreement between stakeholders. By making comparisons between related terms and between stakeholder groups, we were able to achieve this aim. There were statistically significant preferences between terms within all groups of related terms. Stakeholder groups also frequently disagreed with each other about AAC terminology: between-group differences in the frequency with which respondents supported, disliked, and/or were unfamiliar with terms were present for 81 of the 119 terms. The preferences uncovered in this study can support respectful language guidance around AAC. Further work should ideally address terminology preferences among stakeholder samples that are less focused on the United States, more focused on marginalized cultural groups, include stakeholders with more limited language skills, and/or address terminology in languages other than English.</p>","PeriodicalId":520566,"journal":{"name":"Augmentative and alternative communication (Baltimore, Md. : 1985)","volume":" ","pages":"1-12"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-11-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Augmentative and alternative communication (Baltimore, Md. : 1985)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07434618.2025.2588563","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study aimed to elicit and analyze the views and preferences of a variety of AAC stakeholders regarding terminology related to augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) and the people who use or could benefit from it. We used an anonymous online survey to ask nonspeaking AAC users, speaking AAC users, relatives of AAC users, and AAC professionals their preferences on 119 English terms related to AAC, AAC users, and communication disability. The survey also collected demographic information, including age, country, connection to AAC, and disability identity. A total of 556 participants completed the survey. We aimed to determine broad terminology preferences across stakeholder groups and identify areas of disagreement between stakeholders. By making comparisons between related terms and between stakeholder groups, we were able to achieve this aim. There were statistically significant preferences between terms within all groups of related terms. Stakeholder groups also frequently disagreed with each other about AAC terminology: between-group differences in the frequency with which respondents supported, disliked, and/or were unfamiliar with terms were present for 81 of the 119 terms. The preferences uncovered in this study can support respectful language guidance around AAC. Further work should ideally address terminology preferences among stakeholder samples that are less focused on the United States, more focused on marginalized cultural groups, include stakeholders with more limited language skills, and/or address terminology in languages other than English.

我们应该用什么术语来描述AAC和使用它的人?术语调查的结果。
本研究旨在引出和分析各种辅助和替代沟通利益相关者对辅助和替代沟通(AAC)相关术语的看法和偏好,以及使用或可能从中受益的人。我们采用匿名在线调查的方式,询问不讲英语的AAC用户、讲英语的AAC用户、AAC用户的亲属和AAC专业人员对119个与AAC、AAC用户和沟通障碍相关的英语术语的偏好。该调查还收集了人口统计信息,包括年龄、国家、与AAC的联系以及残疾身份。共有556名参与者完成了调查。我们旨在确定利益相关者群体的广泛术语偏好,并确定利益相关者之间存在分歧的领域。通过在相关术语和利益相关者群体之间进行比较,我们能够实现这一目标。在所有相关术语组中,术语之间存在统计学上显著的偏好。利益相关者群体也经常对AAC术语产生分歧:在119个术语中,有81个术语出现了受访者支持、不喜欢和/或不熟悉术语的频率差异。本研究揭示的偏好可以支持围绕AAC的尊重语言指导。理想情况下,进一步的工作应该解决利益相关者样本对术语的偏好,这些样本不太关注美国,更关注边缘文化群体,包括语言技能更有限的利益相关者,和/或使用英语以外的语言处理术语。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书