Selecting Symbol Sets: Implications for AAC Users, Clinicians, and

advertisement
Selecting Symbol Sets: Implications for AAC Users, Clinicians, and Researchers
Mary Joan McClure, MS, CCC-SLP, & Libby Rush, MA, CCC-SLP, CPM
2007 ASHA Convention – Boston, MA
References
Banajee, M, Dicarlo, C., & Stricklin, S.B. (2003). Core vocabulary determination for toddlers.
Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 19(2), 67-73.
Beukelman, D & Mirenda P. (2005). Augmentative and Alternative Communication: Supporting
Children and Adults with Complex Communication Needs (3rd Ed.). Baltimore: Brookes
Publishing.
Blackstone, S. (2005). What are visual scene displays? Augmentative Communication News,
16(2).
Bloomberg, K., Karlan, G., & Lloyd, L. (1990). The comparitive translucency of initial lexical
items represented in five graphic symbol systems and sets. Journal of Speech and Hearing
Disorders, 33, 717-725.
Brown, R. (1977, May-June). Why are signed languages easier to learn than spoken languages?
Keynote address at the National Association of the deaf Symposium on Sign Language
Research and Teaching, Chicago.
Dixon, L. (1981). A functional analysis of photo-object matching skills of severely retarded
adolescents. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 14, 465-478.
Fuller, D., & Lloyd, L. (1991). Toward a common usage of iconicity terminology. Augmentative
and Alternative Communication, 7, 215-220.
Huer, M. (2000). Examining perceptions of graphic symbols across cultures: Preliminary study
of the impact of culture/ethnicity. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, (16), 180185.
Koul, R. & Harding, R. (1998). Identification and production of graphic symbols by individuals
with aphasia: Efficacy of a software application. Augmentative and Alternative
Communication, 14, 11-24.
Levie, W. (1987). Research on pictures: A guide to the literature. In D. Willows & H. Houghton
(Eds.). The psychology of illustration: Vol. 1 Basic Research (pp. 1-50). New York: Springer.
Lloyd, L., & Fuller, D. (1986). Toward an augmentative and alternative communication symbol
taxonomy: A proposed superordinate classification. Augmentative and Alternative
Communication, 2, 165-171.
Mirenda, P. (2003). Toward functional augmentative communication for students with autism:
Manual signs, graphic symbols, and voice output communication aids. Language, Speech,
and Hearing Services in Schools, 34, 203-216
Mirenda, P., & Locke, P. (1989). A comparison of symbol transparency in nonspeaking persons
with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Speech and Heairng Disorders, 54, 131-140.
Murray-Branch, J., Udavari-Solner, A., & Bailey, B. (1991). Textured communication systems
for individuals with severe intellectual and dual sensory impairments. Language, Speech and
Hearing Services in Schools, 22, 260-268.
Reichle, J., Beukelman, D., & Light, J. (2002). Exemplary practices for beginning
communicators. Baltimore: Brookes Publishing.
Romski, M., & Sevcik, R. (1996). Breaking the speech barrier. Baltimore: Brookes Publishing.
Romski, M., & Sevcik, R. (2005). Augmentative communication and early intervention: Myths
and realities. Infants and Young Children, 18, 174-185.
Rowland, C., & Schweigert, P. (2000). Tangible symbols systems: Making the right to
communication a reality for individuals with severe disabilities. Portland, OR: Design to
Learn.
Selecting Symbol Sets
McClure & Rush
Rowland, C., & Schweigert, P. (2000). Tangible symbols, tangible outcomes. Augmentative and
Alternative Communication, 16, 61-78.
Rowland, C., & Stremel-Campbell, K. (1987). Share and share alike: Conventional gestures to
emergent langauge for learners with sensory impairment. In Goetz, L., Guess, D., & StremelCampbell, K. (Eds.), Innovative program design for individuals with dual sensory
impairment (pp. 49-75). Baltimore: Brookes Publishing.
Scherz, J., Tsai, M., & Bronston, S. (2006, November). Adult preferences between two symbol
sets: Comparing Boardmaker with Overboard. Presentation to the American Speech and
Hearing Association Convention, Miami, FL.
Schlosser, R. (2003). Selecting graphic symbols for an initial request lexicon. In R. Schlosser
(Ed.), The efficacy of augmentative and alternative communication: Toward Evidece-Based
Practice (pp. 347-401). San Diego: Academic Press.
Schlosser, R., & Sigafoos, J. (2002). Selecting graphic symbols for an initial request lexicon:
Integrative review. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 18, 102-123.
Schlosser, R., & Raghavendra, P. (2003). Toward evidence-based practice in AAC. In R.
Schlosser (Ed.), The efficacy of augmentative and alternative communication: Toward
Evidece-Based Practice (pp. 259-297). San Diego: Academic Press.
Sevcik, R. & Romski, M. (1986). Representational matching skills of persons with severe
retardation. Augmentative and alternative communication, 2, 160-164.
Sutton, A., Soto, G., & Blockberger, S. (2002). Grammatical issues in graphic symbol
communication. Augmentative and alternative communication, 18(3), 192-204.
Vanderheiden, G. & Yoder, D. (1986). Overview. In S. Blackstone (Ed.), Augmentative
communication: An introduction (pp. 1-28). Rockville, MD: American Speech-LanguageHearing Association.
Wilkinson, K., Carlin, M., & Jagaroo, V. (2006). Preschoolers’ speed of locating a target symbol
under different color conditions. Augmentative & alternative communication, 22(2), 123133.
Resources
Cole, C., Kussner, B. & Nelson, J. (1999). The Maryland school for the blind: Texture
communication list. Baltimore: Maryland School for the Blind.
Hagood, L. A standard tactile symbol system: Graphic language for individuals who are blind
and unable to learn braille. Retrieved 11/10/07 from the Texas School for the Blind and
Visually Impaired’s website: http://www.tsbvi.edu/Outreach/seehear/archive/tactile.html
Huebner, K. M., Prickett, J. G., Welch, T. R., & Joffee, E. (1995). Hand in hand. New York:
American Foundation for the Blind Press.
Korsten, J., Dunn, D., Foss, T., & Francke, M. (1993). Every move counts: Sensory-based
communication techniques. San Antonio: Therapy Skill Builders.
McClure, M.J., & Rush, L. (2005). Developing a meaningful age-appropriate process for
adolescent and adult communicators with severe to profound disabilities: A MAP for AACs.
Closing the Gap, 24(3).
Rush, L., & Williams, G. (2005). Back to the basics, using tangible symbols to support beginning
communicators. Closing the Gap, 6, 6-11.
Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired (1994/1995). How to use calendars to teach
infused skills. Basic Skills for Community Living, July 21, 1994.
[email protected]
[email protected]
Download