One Size Fits All? Influencing SLP's Perspectives of AAC

Closing The Gap Solutions e-Magazine, Dec 2024 / Janurary 2025 Volume 43, #3 - One Size Fits All? Influencing SLP's Perspectives of AAC by Megan Hapeman and Tiffany Pierangelo

One Size Fits All? Influencing SLP's Perspectives of AAC Summary: Our article will explain ways to support speech-language pathologists (SLPs) and parents in school districts with diverse and litigious cases utilizing systems in place at large school districts. The article will describe the assessment, training, and inter- vention support framework provided to therapists. An anonymously completed survey by SLPs in different settings and school districts within the United States will be compared to the outlined support system in this article. alternative augmentative communication (AAC)

INTRODUCTION “AAC doesn’t work.” “The communication board is too big.” “Modeling is too hard.” When beginning to work towards cre- ating an AAC rich environment with a school based multidisci- plinary team, there can be many roadblocks in the way. At the end of the day, one of the biggest questions Speech-Language Pathologists (SLPs) want answers to is how to do an assessment and get a device. In the words of Bugaj (2018), “Thinking that suggestions for technology need to come from someone with the words ‘assistive technology’ in his or her job title is like think- ing that only jockeys can ride horses and only race-car drivers can operate automobiles” (p. 147).

In our AAC consultant role our team is meant to guide dis- cussions, support data collections, help encourage collabora- tion between the multidisciplinary team, and assist with report writing. At the end of the day, the decisions for each student is ultimately up to their team, rather than the AAC consultants recommendation. Our job is to empower SLPs when making this decision, and help them understand how to advocate for students with complex communication needs during IEPs. We provided a survey for a small number of SLPs we work with to indicate their level of expertise with AAC. In this survey we had 38 responses, but 73.7% of the SLPs that completed the survey noted their expertise level as ‘moderate.’ Contrary to that,

TIFFANY PIERANGELO, MA, CCC-SLP, is a Southern California Speech-Language Pathologist who is passionate about AAC and educating clinicians and parents on how to best support students with complex needs. She currently works with children and young adults in a school setting as an AAC Consultant and SLP, and is an adjunct professor at CSU Northridge. She received her B.A. in communication sciences and disorders and M.A. in speech-language pathology from Wayne State University and has presented a research findings poster at ASHA, Talking AAC, ASHA Schools Connect, and Closing the Gap. She loves hiking with her three dogs and playing with her daughter. MEGAN HAPEMAN, M.A. CCC-SLP, is a Speech and Language Pathologist based in Los Angeles, Ca. She received her B.A. in Communicative Disorders from San Francisco State University and her M.A. in Speech and Language Pathology from California State University Long Beach. Megan worked in private practice for 7 years before moving to school based therapy in 2016. She currently works as a SLP and AAC consultant for her district. In addition, she is an adjunct professor for CSU Northridge. She has presented at the Talking AAC and Closing the Gap conference.

December, 2024 / January, 2025 | www.closingthegap.com/membership

BACK TO CONTENTS

the second highest rating was ‘novice/beginner’ at 18.4%. In this small sample, we can see that the collaborative nature of AAC support can empower SLPs when working with people who use AACs.

• Will participate in training until confident to lead • Facilitates organizing the training with staff/parent BEGINNING THE COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT When beginning a school based AAC assessment, the first step is getting an assessment plan. When AAC consultants are contacted we remind SLPs that a comprehensive language and speech assessment must be completed for these students, in- cluding testing. We at times provide recommendations and support for using assessments with students with complex communication needs. There are many tests that can be used with students with complex communication needs. Standard- ized tests that we recommend are the Receptive One Word Picture Vocabulary Test - Fourth Edition (Martin & Brownell, 2011b), Expressive One Word Picture Vocabulary Test - Fourth Edition (Martin & Brownell, 2011a), Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test - Fifth Edition (Dunn, 2018), Rosetti Infant Toddler Language Scale (Rosetti, 1990), Receptive Expressive Emergent Language Test - Fourth Edition (Brown, Bzoch, & League, 2020), and Pre- school Language Scales - 5th Edition (Zimmerman, Steiner, & Evatt Pond, 2011). Criterion based assessments are often times a better measurement of students with complex communication needs skills. We recommend using The Communication Matrix (Rowland & Fried-Oken, 2010), Dynamic AAC Goals Grid - Edition 3 (DAGG-3) (Clarke & Tobii Dynavox, 2022), Functional Commu- nication Profile - Revised (Kleiman, 2003), Early Functional Com- munication Profile (Jensen, 2012), Nonverbal Communication Skills section of the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamen- tals - Fifth Edition (CELF-5) Pragmatics Profile checklist (Wiig, Semel, & Secord, 2013), and the Test of Aided Language Com- munication Symbol Performance (TASP) (Bruno, 2010). These assessments can provide a holistic assessment of how and why a student with complex communication needs expresses their wants, needs, ideas, and thoughts.

Image 1 - School district survey pie chart addressing level of expertise with AAC.

SUPPORTING SLPS Our team implements a train the trainer approach to AAC education and support for each school site's multidisciplinary team. We are meant to give these SLPs all the resources we can to help them feel like experts themselves! This all starts at the assessment. When we are contacted by the SLPs we outline the assessment process. The real work begins when we meet for the assessment and device trials. At times, SLPs are excited and hap- py to see us, but sometimes they are nervous and overwhelmed about the unique dynamic assessment style that is required with an AAC assessment. Before we even begin the appoint- ment, we talk about the students. Emphasizing the needs and strengths for the students during the device trials is incredibly important. Although we may have the most knowledge about AAC during the assessment, these SLPs are the experts on their students. Each student has unique needs, challenges, interests, and strengths. It’s our job to help highlight and support them to the best of our ability. AAC Consultant: An SLP who supports the school’s SLP with their AAC needs - • Does not do the assessment independently • Reviews report • Orders devices • Helps with maintenance. • Leads training until SLP is confident • Houses a variety of Lite, No, Mid and High tech devices. School Site Provider/SLP: The SLP assigned to the school to carry out assessments and treatment - • Administers most of the AAC assessment • Write the report • Presents the information at the IEP • Does the therapy

Image 2 - Flow chart for AAC assessment process.

BACK TO CONTENTS

When working with students with complex communication needs we tend to emphasize using the Communication Matrix (Rowland & Fried-Oken, 2010) and the DAGG-3 (Clarke & Tobii Dynavox, 2022). The Communication Matrix (Rowland & Fried- Oken, 2010) measures pre-intentional behavior, intentional behavior, unconventional communication, conventional com- munication, concrete symbols, abstract symbols, and language regarding the following reasons to communicate: refuse, obtain, social, and relaying/seeking information. These are marked as not used, emerging, or mastered throughout the assessment. This assessment is very powerful when students with complex communication needs use alternative methods of communicat- ing (i.e., gestures, vocalizations, affect, directed eye gaze), that assessors may not note as a means to communicate. When as- sisting SLPs that are unfamiliar with the assessment, we can help them unpack effective modalities for the student to use to com- municate, and build upon their areas of needs efficiently.

Image 4 - DAGG 3 assessment cover page from Tobii Dynavox.

Image 3 - Communication Matrix Chart from a fictional client.

The DAGG-3 (Clarke & Tobii Dynavox, 2022) is helpful when guiding the intervention plan with a student with complex communication needs. It starts with identifying the communi- cation ability level of the student with complex communication needs. These include emergent, emergent transitional, context dependent, transitional independent, and independent com- municators. Each of these are examined within the four differ- ent competencies: linguistic, operational, social, and strategic. The linguistic competency is noted as “expressing and under- standing language. Learning and using vocabulary. Reading, writing, and spelling;” the operational competency is noted as “ability to maintain, navigate, and operate the AAC system us- ing the chosen access method;” the social competency is not- ed as “communicating effectively in socially appropriate ways;” and the strategic competency is noted as “utilizing strategies to overcome or minimize the functional limitation of AAC” (Clarke & Tobii Dynavox, 2022, p.5). These competencies can help identi- fy strengths and areas of growth for students who use AACs. We recommend using this to help with goal writing as well.

Image 5 - DAGG 3 assessment checklist page from Tobii Dynavox.

BEGINNING THE AAC ASSESSMENT After the comprehensive language test is done, we begin to address the AAC device trials. We start by providing an AAC assessment checklist which includes each step of the assess- ment that SLPs need to complete. The list includes 31 steps that outline each part of the assessment, from obtaining a correctly completed signed assessment plan to contacting the AAC con- sultant after the IEP is signed so they can order the recommend- ed equipment. It’s meant as a tool to help the SLPs work through the assessment step by step, without being overwhelmed by not knowing where to start or progress. It also helps SLPs to not miss components of the assessment. There are parts of the dynamic assessment process that help us make team based decisions on how to help people with com-

December, 2024 / January, 2025 | www.closingthegap.com/membership

BACK TO CONTENTS

AAC DEVICE TRIALS We start device trials by discussing how to record data. Some SLPs color code consultant modeling and student responses, some type out how the trials progress, and some do not know where to start or what they are looking for. This is when all the components of the assessment come together. We discuss the findings they noted from the observations of multimodal com- munication skills, the TASP, parent/teacher interviews, intention- al choice making tasks, and literacy protocols. We talk about the comprehensive findings about the student, and begin the trials from there using feature matching.

plex communication needs. One protocol that is included is the intentional choice making task, which emphasizes communicat- ing by using a range of modalities (i.e., eye gaze, reaching, facial expressions, vocalizations, and pointing). It provides options for motivating materials (i.e., toys like balloons, food, paper, instru- ments, keys, perfume, etc.) to inspire SLPs to find any item the potential student with complex communication needs may like. When discussing the intentional choice making protocol with SLPs we discuss motivation, discrimination between objects, purposeful selection skills, emerging symbolic communication skills, and what modalities the student with complex communi- cation needs uses which we recommend that the SLP includes in their report. The Test of Aided Language Communication Symbol Perfor- mance (TASP) (Bruno, 2010) must be attempted for students, as it can help advise some systems that could benefit an student who uses AAC. This assessment examines the symbol size and number of icons on a page (i.e., grid size), grammatical encoding skills, categorization abilities, and syntactic performance. This can help with selecting appropriate devices to trial, and how to customize device selection. For example, if a student demon- strates strong motor planning skills during the TASP administra- tion I would likely trial LAMP Words for Life, and TD Snap with the Motor Planning page sets. If they demonstrate strong cat- egorization skills, I would want to include Proloquo2Go, Touch- Chat, and TD Snap with Core First page sets. Additionally, we have an informal literacy assessment proto- col to identify number, letter,and word recognition, as well as written description comprehension. Understanding a student’s abilities to use and understand written words can help imple- ment components of text to speech, or use of word prediction technology into the assessment. Using systems that integrate these literate components are important when students have mastered the cognitive skills to use them. Even the most robust device does not have every word that exists on it, so providing a person who uses AAC access to this technology can help them express their needs using THEIR words regardless on if it is al- ready programmed in the device. Although an attempt of administering the TASP is required in our AAC assessments, it is in no way a requirement to gain ac- cess to a high tech AAC system. Students frequently throw the assessment and shut down during the administration attempts. In these cases we document what happened during the assess- ment attempt, and discontinue the administration of the TASP. These student still can benefit from high tech AAC! One student that was assessed licked the TASP booklet before it was discon- tinued, and they now have access to LAMP Words for Life fol- lowing their AAC assessment. We emphasize in every case that there is no prerequisite to AAC (especially when including more structured assessment procedures).

Image 6 - AAC device trial data collection tool.

BACK TO CONTENTS

Feature matching, which is noted as the systematic process in which an students who use AACs strengths and needs are matched to available AAC tools and strategies (Shane & Costello, 1994; Threlkeld, 2022). We integrate into our various trials: a lite tech support, a mid tech device, and two to three high tech de- vice trials. The selection of devices ties in the previous findings

of the students fine and gross motor skills, categorization abili- ties, gestalt processing, literacy skills, and more. After the trials we ask reflective questions to help guide their note taking and decisions. What did the SLP think about the device trials? Did the student appear more interested in a specific device? How did they express their interest? Did they appear to communicate intentionally? AAC Device/Support Options This last question is always the one that looms over a dis- cussion with a provider. Sometimes we get the responses of “Yes! The student selected stop and appeared happy after the consultant stopped.” But other times we get responses like “I’m not sure, they just seemed to be hitting random buttons,” or “They pressed ‘go’ twice but it didn’t seem intentional.” While presuming competence to all communicative attempts can be told repetitively to unfamiliar clinicians or multidisciplinary team members, these examples are when we get to apply these concepts directly to clinical practice. Explaining how and why to presume that each communication attempt is intentional is critical to empower person with complex communication needs. For example, there was a device trial where a student had selected ‘up’ when exploring the device, and the clinician attributed meaning by placing a manipulative ‘up’ on their head and provided modeling on the AAC device they were trialing. The student thought this was silly, and began selecting ‘up’ throughout the assessment, which built upon their communi- cation skills. Without presuming competence, this word would not have been modeled, losing potential learning opportunities for people who use AACs. • Some other conversations we navigate during device trials can include: • Do you think a core board would be just as helpful? • Why is this assessment so long? • How can I get the teacher or parent on board with the de- vice? • I am overwhelmed and do not know how to treat someone using an AAC device. During the trials we also think about a variety of motivating communication contexts,, these can include sensory toys like Monkey noodles, pop tubes, light up or wind up toys; manipula- tives like puzzles, Mr. Potato Head, or toy animals/food; or a list of topics to talk about, like music, art, and hobbies. Sometimes it’s hard to tell what people with complex communication needs are interested in. We’ve had a student who liked the sound of screams and horror movies over the sounds of puppies barking or lawn mowers. We’ve also had students who love to play with laminated strips of paper. Whatever manipulative they are inter- ested in or conversational topic they want to talk about should be emphasized to provide the most motivation for them to

Image 7 - Core boards from AAC assessment kit

Image 8 - Mid Tech (Go Talk 9) and high tech tablet with AAC applications for the assessment kit.

Image 9 - Mid tech devices (BIGmack) and switches for AAC assessments.

December, 2024 / January, 2025 | www.closingthegap.com/membership

BACK TO CONTENTS

communicate. This helps make the device trial data collection process proceed smoothly, and generates powerful evidence to support recommendations for students with complex commu- nication needs.

dents with complex communication needs. Empowering the SLP to feel confident within the area of AAC could result in great- er commitment to the device and increased confidence with the support team.

Image 10 - AAC assessment motivators and manipulatives.

AFTER THE ASSESSMENT: During the device trials and assessment we are there to em- power the SLP not make the recommendation. They are the case carriers and have to present at the IEP. We want to prepare them and empower them so they feel comfortable making and defending their recommendations. Studies have shown that dynamic assessment procedures, including standardized assess- ment, criterion assessment, case history, professional collabora- tions, and observations were useful in AAC assessments(Sand- ers et al., 2021; Lund et al., 2017; Binger et al., 2017). At the end of the day we are there to consult. Sanders, Page, and Lesher (2021) found that SLPs had lower levels of confidence incor- porating cultural and linguistic diversity, assessing those with severe physical impairments, aspects of feature matching with AAC, and finding funding for AAC devices when evaluating stu-

Image 11 - AAC assessment reminders document.

AAC REPORT REVIEW: Now that the assessment is completed, the assessor is ex- pected to write the report with support given from the AAC Consultant. This is THEIR report, they are the assessor and the report writer. We are just guiding and supporting them to help build confidence and navigate key points needed for the report. During the device trial meeting, a sample of the report template is reviewed with the SLP. Here they are able to ask any questions, go over wording of results and establish expectations. During this activity, those therapists newer with AAC report writing tend to feel more comfortable and better prepared to tackle the report. At the end we will review the report and make sure all the aspects for a successful order are included.

SLPs Responsibility: o Write report o Send to consultant for review o Present at IEP o Notify consultant when signed o Develop goals.

YouTube Video - Example of collaborative discussion between AAC assessor and SLP. https://youtu.be/ss_alICaGgo

BACK TO CONTENTS

TREATMENT SUPPORT: After the device is at the school site, our role is now to sup- port the SLP as needed. How do we do this? We help with any questions that pop up during treatment, but ultimately the sup- port is up to the SLP. With more complex cases we consult more frequently, especially with alternate access. Most of our support is relaying resources, therapy ideas, and assisting any customiza- tion needs that they need. Systems are established to help ben- efit this need and empower the confidence including monthly emails with therapy ideas and resources. WHAT ELSE DO AAC CONSULTANTS WE DO? WE ANSWER QUESTIONS LIKE: • “I think he needs a new app, what do you think?” • “It’s not working, help!” • “They get angry when I take it out, what should I do?” • “It’s not being accessed by the classroom, can you talk to them?” • “The iPad is missing, can they get another one?” REFLECTIONS: When we polled a small sampling of SLPs from other districts, we found that 33% of those who participated felt moderately or expertly confident with AAC.

AAC Consultant’s Role: • 5 day policy: SLP sends full report at least 5 days before the IEP for review • Correct Report Template • Consultant’s name is under “Tests and Validity”, but not as a report writer • What we look at? The WHOLE thing • Review what goes into the IEP (FAPE 1, FAPE 2, Goals, PLP) • Process device paperwork once IEP • AAC Device order outline • SLPA role in device delivery: SLPAs typically arrange a de- vice pick up appointment, delivery date, and program the device prior to drop off. They also offer SLPs to arrange device trainings with AAC consultants. AAC TRAININGS: One of the best ways to learn a new skill is to be hands on. The Train the Trainer model is a framework intended for seasoned trainers/SLPs in coaching new trainers/SLPs who are less expe- rienced with the skill. Instead of having one individual who is mastered in the subjects and would need to teach multiple IEP teams throughout the year, this system establishes multiple in- dividuals who understand the skill. In time, this strengthens the team as a whole. (Side Note: AAC SLPAs should not be providing training.) The way the framework looks is an umbrella system. In that the district SLPs are divided among multiple consultants. Rather than every consultant attending every AAC IEP Team training, the consultant trains the SLP (either groups or individuals) and they then go out and train all their student’s teams. The consul- tant is available for the first few trainings as a support system and then that support is faded. In addition to less trainings be- ing attended, the SLP is establishing confidence in the device and this is reflected towards the teachers and parents. Train. Model. Observe. Empower. Support. Train the Trainer Model Goals: o Faded SLP support from consultant o SLP is the party planner - they schedule the meeting be- tween them, teacher, and consultant (if needed). o Everyone welcome to attend. We encourage all the stu- dents supports to join. o The SLPs are able to lead once confident AAC Consultants Role: o Scheduling multiple trainings with SLP o Provide SLP with documentation – AKA websites and vid- eo tutorials o Preparing an agenda beforehand with SLP o Having SLP run specific portions o Follow up email from SLP to Teacher and Parent

Further feedback from SLPs in other California districts with a variety of different support styles:

• “In my last 2 districts it is all on me or the lead SLP. I trial 3 options and we would outsource if we needed a Tobii. We have higher ups that may do it for me. I’m not afraid of it, but I feel I have more to learn.” - SLP, Tenn. PS formerly California PS • “Someone comes out, but it gets pushed back and no one ever comes. I end up just putting the free versions on the classroom iPad and then no one uses it” - SLP, Northern California Public School • “In my last district there was a team (O.T.; SLP) from the Selpa [Local District Resource] who came out to the school at our request. The providing therapist could trial core boards, communication books, and Go Talk's and use them with students without the SELPA team assessment. We would email them and fill out a form similar to the Communicative Intent form. Then they would put us on the schedule (which often was backed up) and come out together to do the assessment. The assessment was done at the school with the providing SLP. The assessment was done and the report was written by the team. They would also train the teacher, therapist, and parent on the recom- mended device. “- SLP, Southern California Public School • “I do them if it is only looking at apps. If we need more, I’d have to have someone come out. The other SLP’s I work

December, 2024 / January, 2025 | www.closingthegap.com/membership

BACK TO CONTENTS

with don’t feel comfortable doing it, so I do them. But there are only like 5-10 a year.” - SLP, Hybrid Charter • “I feel my workplace could benefit from some differ- ent AAC assessment and screening practices in order to streamline the process and have students using devices faster. If there were trained and dedicated SLPs for AAC I think students could be better supported” • “We have a train the trainer model and it works well. Our biggest issue is turn over and needing to train new staff. The communication partner is always the biggest asset/ detriment to the success of an AAC system.” • “I feel like I know what the research says to do, what ex- perts say to do, and in general what are the best practices for AAC, but I often feel like a complete failure, because I get very little buy in from parents and teacher When SLPs were polled from our district, 74% of the SLPs felt moderately confident within AAC as a whole. AAC assessments, treatment, and screenings appears to instill more confidence when there is a dedicated AAC consultant for the district Further feedback from SLP’s in our district using the AAC consult- ing method: o “No. The district does not allow nearly enough time to plan meaningful therapy sessions for AAC users. These students are heavy on my workload and my student count does not reflect this.” o “Yes, I have been learning more and more on how to con- duct AAC treatment sessions. I have been provided sup- port when needed on how to add pages and icons, how to change the vocabulary level, how to make the vocabu- lary more robust and personalized.” o “I feel very supported when conducting AAC sessions. Other providers often observe my therapy for examples in how to do a AAC treatment. If I have questions on a specific case I know I can ask my AAC consultant for ideas.” o “I love my AAC consultant!!!! Big help. I've learned so much from them and my reports have improved a lot.” o “I have consistently found our AAC consultants to be pro- fessional, accessible, friendly, and realistic about what is likely to help our students access the curriculum. I feel confident that our consultants are there for me and the students I work with when we need them.” o “The AAC team does a wonderful job in advocating for students that need AAC to communicate effectively. Fur- thermore, the team educates the parents, teachers and SLPs about AAC and its potential scope to improve stu- dents' communication.”

However, when our district SLPs were surveyed in the area of AAC Training, data found that approximately 50% of therapists who participated felt like a novice/beginner. This was a notice- able contrast to a majority of the data which reflected that the AAC Consulting method was building significant confidence within the SLP in all other areas polled. In order to help better support the SLP. New strategies were put in place. AAC Training Support Strategies: • Monthly themed office hours. A survey is sent out to the SLP at the beginning of the year to know what specific topics should be targeted. • The AAC District Support Website. This is a public website available to anyone. It includes items such as manuals and training resources for multiple apps, modeling infor- mation and therapy activity ideas/resources. • App specific training slides to use during AAC team train- ing. This area frequently updated. • More one on one training with the SLP prior to them training their team. Image 12 - Overall survey pie chart addressing level of expertise with AAC outside of school district.

Image 13 - Image of targeted goals to improve AAC support.

BACK TO CONTENTS

REFERENCES: American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (1970, Jan- uary 1). Scope of practice in speech-language pathology. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. Re- trieved October 30, 2022, from https://www.asha.org/pol- icy/sp2016-00343/ Andzik, N. R., Chung, Y.-C., Doneski-Nicol, J., & Dollarhide, C. T. (2017). AAC services in schools: A special educator’s per- spective. International Journal of Developmental Disabili- ties , 65(2), 89–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/20473869.2017. 1368909 Andzik, N. R., Chung, Y.-C., Doneski-Nicol, J., & Dollarhide, C. T. (2017). AAC services in schools: A special educator’s per- spective. International Journal of Developmental Disabili- ties , 65(2), 89–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/20473869.2017. 1368909 Binger, C., Ball, L., Dietz, A., Kent-Walsh, J., Lasker, J., Lund, S., McKelvey, M., & Quach, W. (2012). Personnel roles in the AAC assessment process. Augmentative and Alternative Communication , 28(4), 278–288. https://doi.org/10.3109/0 7434618.2012.716079 Binger, C., Kent-Walsh, J., & King, M. (2017_. Dynamic assessment for 3- and 4-year-old children who use augmentative and alternative communication: Evaluating expressive syntax. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research , 60(7), 1946–1958. https://doi.org/10.1044/2017_jslhr-l-15-0269 Brown, V. L., Bzoch, K. R., & League, R. (2020). REEL-4: Receptive - Expressive Emergent Language Test - Fourth Edition. Pro- Ed Incorporated. Bruno J. (2010). TASP: Test of Aided-Communication Symbol Per- formance. DynaVox Mayer-Johnson . Pittsburgh, PA: May- er-Johnson, LLC.

Final thought: “Thinking that suggestions for technology need to come from someone with the words ‘assistive technology’ in his or her job title is like thinking that only jockeys can ride horses and only race-car drivers can operate automobiles” (Bugaj, 2018, p. 147). Overall the emphasis on empowering the SLP is helpful to support AAC use and access in school sites. By making other communication partners AAC leaders at their schools, we are growing environments that focus on affirming multimodal com- munication. PRODUCT INFORMATION

Name of Product

Producer

Price

Receptive One Word Picture Vocabulary Test - Fourth Edition Expressive One Word Picture Vocabulary Test - Fourth Edition Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test - Fifth Edition Rosetti Infant Toddler Language Scale Receptive Expressive Emergent Language Test - Fourth Edition Preschool Language Scales - 5th Edition

Pro-Ed

$220.00

Pro-Ed

$220.00

Pearson Assessments

$274.80

Pro-Ed

$138.00

Pro-Ed

$208.00

Pearson Assessments

$415.30

Communication Matrix

The Communication Matrix Foundation

$5.00 per credit

Dynamic AAC Goals Grid - Edition 3 Tobii Dynavox

$0.00

Functional Communication Profile - Revised

Pro-Ed

$88.00

Early Functional Communication Profile

Pro-Ed

$88.00

Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals - Fifth Edition

Pearson Assessment

$845.75

Test of Aided Language Communi- cation Symbol Performance

Tobii Dynavox

$299.00

LAMP Words For Life

PRC-Saltillo

$299.99

Bugaj, C. R. (2018). The New Assistive Tech: Make learning awesome for all! International Society for Technology in Education.

TD Snap

Tobii Dynavox

$10.00 per month (subscrip- tion based)

TouchChat

PRC-Saltillo

$299.99

Clarke, V. & Tobii Dynavox (2022). DAGG3: Dynamic AAC Goals Grid Instructions 3rd Edition.

Proloquo2Go

Assistiveware Inc.

$249.00

BIGmack

Ablenet Inc.

$155.00

Clarke, V. & Tobii Dynavox (2014). DAGG2: Dynamic AAC Goals Grid and Planning Guide 2nd edition.

Jelly Bean Switch

Ablenet inc.

$75.00

BIG Candy Corn Switch

Ablenet Inc.

$255.00

LITTLE Candy Corn Switch

Ablenet Inc.

$255.00

Dowden, P.A. & Cook, A. M. (2002). Selection Techniques for Indi- viduals with Motor Impairments. In J.

Blue 2 FT

Ablenet Inc.

$260.00

Go Talk - 9

Attainment Company $239.00

Dunn, D. (2018). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test - Fifth Editio n

December, 2024 / January, 2025 | www.closingthegap.com/membership

BACK TO CONTENTS

(PPVT - 5). Pearson.

mentative Communication System: Exemplary Strategies for Beginning Communicators. Baltimore, MD. Brookes P. 395-432 Romski, M. A., & Sevcik, R. A. (2005). Augmentative Communica- tion and early intervention. Infants & Young Children, 18(3), 174–185. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001163-200507000- 00002 Rossetti, L. (1990). The Rossetti infant-toddler language scale: A measure of communication and interaction. East Moline, IL: LinguiSystems. Google Scholar. Rowland, C. & Fried-Oken, M. (2010) Communication Matrix: A clinical and research assessment tool targeting children with severe communication disorders. Journal of Pediatric Rehabilitation Medicine, 3, 319-329. Sanders, E. J., Page, T. A., & Lesher, D. (2021). School-based speech-language pathologists: Confidence in augmen- tative and alternative communication assessment. L an- guage, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 52 (2), 512– 528. https://doi.org/10.1044/2020_lshss-20-00067 Schneider, H., & Clarke, V. (2009). The original DAGG. Dynamic AAC Goals Grid and Planning Guide: Addressing Compe- tence across Ability Levels. Wiig E. H., Semel E., & Secord W. A. (2013). Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals–Fifth Edition (CELF-5). Blooming- ton, MN: NCS Pearson. Shane, H., & Costello, J. (1994, November). Augmentative com- munication assessment and the feature matching process. Mini-seminar presented at the annual convention of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. New Or- leans, LA. Sievers, S. B., Trembath, D., & Westerveld, M. F. (2019). Speech-lan- guage pathologists’ knowledge and consideration of factors that may predict, moderate, and mediate AAC outcomes. J ournal of Autism and Developmental Disor- ders, 50 (1), 238–249. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-019- 04217-4 Threlkeld, K. (2022, July 26). F eature-Matching in AAC Assessment: Access Features . Forbesaac. https://www.forbesaac.com/ post/feature-matching-in-aac-assessment-access-features

Jensen, S. L. (2012). EFCP: Early Functional Communication Pro- file. Austin: Lingui Systems.

Kleiman, L. I. (2003). Functional Communication Profile Revised. Austin: Lingui Systems.

Kovacs, T. (2021). A survey of American speech-language pa- thologists' perspectives on augmentative and Alternative Communication Assessment and intervention across lan- guage domains. American Journal of Speech-Language Pa- thology , 30(3), 1038–1048. https://doi.org/10.1044/2020_ ajslp-20-00224 Light, J. (1989). Toward a Definition of Communicative Compe- tence for Individuals Using Augmentative and Alternative Communication Systems. Augmentative and Alternative Communication. 5, (2):137-144 Light, J., & McNaughton, D. (2014). Communicative competence for individuals who require augmentative and alternative communication: A new definition for a new era of commu- nication? AAC: Augmentative and Alternative Communica- tion, 30(1) Lund, S. K., Quach, W., Weissling, K., McKelvey, M., & Dietz, A. (2017). Assessment with children who need augmentative and alternative communication (AAC): Clinical decisions of AAC specialists. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 48 (1), 56–68. https://doi.org/10.1044/2016_ lshss-15-0086

Martin, N., & Brownell, R. (2011a). Expressive One-Word Picture Vo- cabulary Test - 4 (EOWPVT-4) . Plural Pub Incorporated.

Martin, N., & Brownell, R. (2011b). Receptive One-Word Picture Vo- cabulary Test . Plural Pub Incorporated.

McCoy, A., & McNaughton, D. (2020). Effects of online training on educators’ knowledge and use of system of least prompts to support augmentative and alternative communication. Journal of Behavioral Education , 30(3), 319–349. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10864-020-09374-6 McNaughton, D., & Light, J. (2015). What we write about when we write about AAC: The past 30 years of research and Fu- ture Directions. Augmentative and Alternative Communica- tion , 31(4), 261–270. https://doi.org/10.3109/07434618.20 15.1099736

Zimmerman, I. L., Steiner, V. G., & Evatt Pond, R. (2011). Preschool Language Scales: Fifth Edition. Pearson Education.

Reichle, D. Beukelman & J. Light (Eds.). Implementing an Aug-

BACK TO CONTENTS

Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10

www.closingthegap.com

Made with FlippingBook Ebook Creator