Allison Bean, Kyle Harris, Hanna Kim, Carmen DiGiovine, Amy Miller Sonntag
{"title":"扩大和替代沟通的沟通结果措施的范围审查。","authors":"Allison Bean, Kyle Harris, Hanna Kim, Carmen DiGiovine, Amy Miller Sonntag","doi":"10.1080/10400435.2023.2251041","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Although outcomes are a critical component of evidence-based practice, measuring augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) outcomes remains problematic. This is, in part, because there is no consensus on how to operationally define AAC communication outcomes. To gain greater insight into AAC communication outcomes, we used the communicative competence framework to determine which areas of AAC intervention have received the greatest attention and how these outcomes are being measured. The following data were charted from the 77 studies that met the inclusion criteria for the scoping review: study design, study participants, study communication target (e.g., language, word learning, etc.), and communication outcome measurements. Across the included studies, researchers used a variety of standardized and non-standardized measures to assess outcomes. Seventy-seven percent of the studies assessed social skills and 62% assessed linguistic skills. A limited number of studies measured operational (14%), strategic (4%), and psychosocial (18%) skills. Using the communicative competence framework enabled us to identify gaps in the research that has been conducted to date.</p>","PeriodicalId":51568,"journal":{"name":"Assistive Technology","volume":" ","pages":"S65-S86"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A scoping review of communication outcomes measures in augmentative and alternative communication.\",\"authors\":\"Allison Bean, Kyle Harris, Hanna Kim, Carmen DiGiovine, Amy Miller Sonntag\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10400435.2023.2251041\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Although outcomes are a critical component of evidence-based practice, measuring augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) outcomes remains problematic. This is, in part, because there is no consensus on how to operationally define AAC communication outcomes. To gain greater insight into AAC communication outcomes, we used the communicative competence framework to determine which areas of AAC intervention have received the greatest attention and how these outcomes are being measured. The following data were charted from the 77 studies that met the inclusion criteria for the scoping review: study design, study participants, study communication target (e.g., language, word learning, etc.), and communication outcome measurements. Across the included studies, researchers used a variety of standardized and non-standardized measures to assess outcomes. Seventy-seven percent of the studies assessed social skills and 62% assessed linguistic skills. A limited number of studies measured operational (14%), strategic (4%), and psychosocial (18%) skills. Using the communicative competence framework enabled us to identify gaps in the research that has been conducted to date.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51568,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Assistive Technology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"S65-S86\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Assistive Technology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10400435.2023.2251041\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/9/13 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"REHABILITATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Assistive Technology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10400435.2023.2251041","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/9/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
A scoping review of communication outcomes measures in augmentative and alternative communication.
Although outcomes are a critical component of evidence-based practice, measuring augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) outcomes remains problematic. This is, in part, because there is no consensus on how to operationally define AAC communication outcomes. To gain greater insight into AAC communication outcomes, we used the communicative competence framework to determine which areas of AAC intervention have received the greatest attention and how these outcomes are being measured. The following data were charted from the 77 studies that met the inclusion criteria for the scoping review: study design, study participants, study communication target (e.g., language, word learning, etc.), and communication outcome measurements. Across the included studies, researchers used a variety of standardized and non-standardized measures to assess outcomes. Seventy-seven percent of the studies assessed social skills and 62% assessed linguistic skills. A limited number of studies measured operational (14%), strategic (4%), and psychosocial (18%) skills. Using the communicative competence framework enabled us to identify gaps in the research that has been conducted to date.
期刊介绍:
Assistive Technology is an applied, scientific publication in the multi-disciplinary field of technology for people with disabilities. The journal"s purpose is to foster communication among individuals working in all aspects of the assistive technology arena including researchers, developers, clinicians, educators and consumers. The journal will consider papers from all assistive technology applications. Only original papers will be accepted. Technical notes describing preliminary techniques, procedures, or findings of original scientific research may also be submitted. Letters to the Editor are welcome. Books for review may be sent to authors or publisher.