泰国语言病理学家对辅助和替代交流的看法。

IF 2.1 3区 医学 Q1 AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY
Wansiya Kamonsitichai, Howard Goldstein
{"title":"泰国语言病理学家对辅助和替代交流的看法。","authors":"Wansiya Kamonsitichai, Howard Goldstein","doi":"10.1080/07434618.2023.2208222","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) systems are not well-known and broadly used in Thailand. To begin introducing AAC systems and interventions to children with complex communication needs in Thailand, understanding speech-language pathologists' (SLPs) perceptions toward various AAC systems is an important first step. This study assessed SLPs' perceptions of three AAC modalities: gestural communication, communication boards, and iPad<sup>1</sup>-based speech-output technologies. A total of 78 SLPs watched three video vignettes of a child using each mode and rated their impressions of intelligibility, ease of learnability and use, effectiveness, and preference. Then they were asked to rate factors on visual analog scales that provided additional insights into their rationales and their preferences for AAC modalities for nonverbal clients and for themselves if they were nonverbal. The results indicated that most of the SLPs rated iPad-based speech-output technologies as being the more intelligible, effective, and preferred mode of communication. Gestural communication was rated as the easiest mode to learn and use for a child with complex communication needs. Despite infrequent use of iPad-based speech-output technologies in Thailand, SLPs' ratings indicated high social acceptance of this modality for promoting communication abilities of children with complex communication needs. Results also revealed some biases and lack of knowledge about AAC systems in Thailand.</p>","PeriodicalId":49234,"journal":{"name":"Augmentative and Alternative Communication","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Speech-language pathologists' perceptions of augmentative and alternative communication in Thailand.\",\"authors\":\"Wansiya Kamonsitichai, Howard Goldstein\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/07434618.2023.2208222\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) systems are not well-known and broadly used in Thailand. To begin introducing AAC systems and interventions to children with complex communication needs in Thailand, understanding speech-language pathologists' (SLPs) perceptions toward various AAC systems is an important first step. This study assessed SLPs' perceptions of three AAC modalities: gestural communication, communication boards, and iPad<sup>1</sup>-based speech-output technologies. A total of 78 SLPs watched three video vignettes of a child using each mode and rated their impressions of intelligibility, ease of learnability and use, effectiveness, and preference. Then they were asked to rate factors on visual analog scales that provided additional insights into their rationales and their preferences for AAC modalities for nonverbal clients and for themselves if they were nonverbal. The results indicated that most of the SLPs rated iPad-based speech-output technologies as being the more intelligible, effective, and preferred mode of communication. Gestural communication was rated as the easiest mode to learn and use for a child with complex communication needs. Despite infrequent use of iPad-based speech-output technologies in Thailand, SLPs' ratings indicated high social acceptance of this modality for promoting communication abilities of children with complex communication needs. Results also revealed some biases and lack of knowledge about AAC systems in Thailand.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49234,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Augmentative and Alternative Communication\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Augmentative and Alternative Communication\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/07434618.2023.2208222\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/5/12 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Augmentative and Alternative Communication","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07434618.2023.2208222","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/5/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

增强和替代通信(AAC)系统在泰国并不为人所知和广泛使用。要开始向泰国有复杂沟通需求的儿童引入AAC系统和干预措施,了解言语病理学家(SLP)对各种AAC系统的看法是重要的第一步。本研究评估了SLP对三种AAC模式的感知:手势通信、通信板和基于iPad1的语音输出技术。共有78名SLP观看了一个孩子使用每种模式的三个视频片段,并对他们对可理解性、易学性和易用性、有效性和偏好的印象进行了评分。然后,他们被要求在视觉模拟量表上对一些因素进行评分,这些因素为非语言客户和他们自己(如果他们是非语言的)提供了更多的理由和对AAC模式的偏好。结果表明,大多数SLP认为基于iPad的语音输出技术是更容易理解、有效和首选的通信模式。手势交流被认为是有复杂交流需求的儿童最容易学习和使用的模式。尽管在泰国很少使用基于iPad的语音输出技术,但SLP的评分表明,社会高度接受这种模式,以提高有复杂沟通需求的儿童的沟通能力。调查结果还显示,泰国对AAC系统存在一些偏见和缺乏了解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Speech-language pathologists' perceptions of augmentative and alternative communication in Thailand.

Augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) systems are not well-known and broadly used in Thailand. To begin introducing AAC systems and interventions to children with complex communication needs in Thailand, understanding speech-language pathologists' (SLPs) perceptions toward various AAC systems is an important first step. This study assessed SLPs' perceptions of three AAC modalities: gestural communication, communication boards, and iPad1-based speech-output technologies. A total of 78 SLPs watched three video vignettes of a child using each mode and rated their impressions of intelligibility, ease of learnability and use, effectiveness, and preference. Then they were asked to rate factors on visual analog scales that provided additional insights into their rationales and their preferences for AAC modalities for nonverbal clients and for themselves if they were nonverbal. The results indicated that most of the SLPs rated iPad-based speech-output technologies as being the more intelligible, effective, and preferred mode of communication. Gestural communication was rated as the easiest mode to learn and use for a child with complex communication needs. Despite infrequent use of iPad-based speech-output technologies in Thailand, SLPs' ratings indicated high social acceptance of this modality for promoting communication abilities of children with complex communication needs. Results also revealed some biases and lack of knowledge about AAC systems in Thailand.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Augmentative and Alternative Communication
Augmentative and Alternative Communication AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY-
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
15.00%
发文量
25
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: As the official journal of the International Society for Augmentative and Alternative Communication (ISAAC), Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) publishes scientific articles related to the field of augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) that report research concerning assessment, treatment, rehabilitation, and education of people who use or have the potential to use AAC systems; or that discuss theory, technology, and systems development relevant to AAC. The broad range of topic included in the Journal reflects the development of this field internationally. Manuscripts submitted to AAC should fall within one of the following categories, AND MUST COMPLY with associated page maximums listed on page 3 of the Manuscript Preparation Guide. Research articles (full peer review), These manuscripts report the results of original empirical research, including studies using qualitative and quantitative methodologies, with both group and single-case experimental research designs (e.g, Binger et al., 2008; Petroi et al., 2014). Technical, research, and intervention notes (full peer review): These are brief manuscripts that address methodological, statistical, technical, or clinical issues or innovations that are of relevance to the AAC community and are designed to bring the research community’s attention to areas that have been minimally or poorly researched in the past (e.g., research note: Thunberg et al., 2016; intervention notes: Laubscher et al., 2019).
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信