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.
27
December, 2024 / January, 2025 | www.closingthegap.com/membership
BACK TO CONTENTS
Closing The Gap © 2024 Closing The Gap, Inc. All rights reserved.
Made with FlippingBook Ebook Creator