The Speech Generating Device (SGD) Mentoring Program: Supporting the Development of People Learning to Use an SGD

  • Liora Ballin
  • Susan Balandin
  • Roger J. Stancliffe


Mentoring in speech generating device (SGD) use by adults who use an SGD proficiently offers the potential to improve the device usage of people learning an SGD. The aim of the present study was to examine the impact of SGD mentoring on the mentees’ SGD usage. Three mentors, aged 23, 31, and 54 years, and 3 mentees, aged 13, 14, and 32 years, participated. A nonconcurrent multiple baseline across participants design was used to assess the outcomes. Mentee conversation samples were analyzed for the number of total words, the number of different words, and the number of bound morphemes produced in mentoring sessions. Improvements were made in these measures across the mentees following commencement of mentoring sessions with a trained SGD mentor. These results provide preliminary evidence of SGD mentoring success.


Augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) Speech generating device (SGD) Mentor Mentoring Learning Modeling intervention 



This research is supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia/Cerebral Palsy Foundation co-funded doctoral scholarship and by funds provided by Speech Pathologists, Physiotherapists, and Occupational Therapists on Developmental Disabilities (SPOT on DD) and Speech Pathology Australia. The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of these organizations. The authors would like to thank the participants who contributed their time to this research.


  1. Ballin, L., Balandin, S., & Stancliffe, R. (in press a). The speech generating device (SGD) mentoring program: Training adults who use an SGD to mentor. AAC: Augmentative & Alternative Communication.Google Scholar
  2. Ballin, L., Balandin, S., & Stancliffe, R. (in press b). The speech generating device mentoring program: An evaluation. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology.Google Scholar
  3. Ballin, L., Balandin, S., Stancliffe, R., & Togher, L. (2011). Speech-language pathologists’ views on mentoring by people who use speech generating devices. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 13(5), 446–457.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Ballin, L., Balandin, S., Stancliffe, R., & Togher, L. (2012). The views of people who use speech generating devices on mentoring new learners. Disability and Rehabilitation. Assistive Technology, 7(1), 63–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bandura, A. (1969). Principles of behavior modification. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
  6. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  7. Binger, C., Berens, J., Kent-Walsh, J., & Taylor, S. (2008). The effects of aided AAC interventions on AAC use, speech, and symbolic gestures. Seminars in Speech and Language, 2008(2), 101–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Binger, C., & Light, J. (2007). The effect of aided AAC modeling on the expression of multi-symbol messages by preschoolers who use AAC. AAC: Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 23(1), 30–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Binger, C., & Light, J. (2008). The morphology and syntax of individuals who use AAC: research review and implications for effective practice. AAC: Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 24(2), 123–138.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Binger, C., Maguire-Marshall, M., & Kent-Walsh, J. (2011). Using aided AAC models, recasts, and contrastive targets to teach grammatical morphemes to children who use AAC. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 54(1), 160–176.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Blockberger, S., & Johnston, J. R. (2003). Grammatical morphology acquisition by children with complex communication needs. AAC: Augmentative & Alternative Communication, 19(4), 207–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bruno, J., & Trembath, D. (2006). Use of aided language stimulation to improve syntactic performance during a weeklong intervention program. AAC: Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 22(4), 300–313.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Burgstahler, S., & Cronheim, D. (2001). Supporting peer-peer and mentor-protégé relationships on the internet. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(1), 59–74.Google Scholar
  14. Cohen, K. J., & Light, J. C. (2000). Use of electronic communication to develop mentor-protege relationships between adolescent and adult AAC users: pilot study. AAC: Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 16(4), 227–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ehrich, L. C., Tennent, L., & Hansford, B. (2002). A review of mentoring in education: some lessons for nursing. Contemporary Nurse: A Journal for the Australian Nursing Profession, 12(3), 253–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Erkut, S., & Mokros, J. R. (1984). Professors as models and mentors for college students. American Educational Research Journal, 21(2), 399–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fey, M. E. (1986). Language intervention with young children. San Diego, CA: College-Hill Press.Google Scholar
  18. Freeman, K. A., & Lim, M. (2010). Single subject research. In J. C. Thomas & M. Hersen (Eds.), Handbook of clinical psychology competencies (pp. 397–424). New York: Springer Reference.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hill, K. (2010). Advances in augmentative and alternative communication as quality of life technology. Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Clinics of North America, 21(1), 43–58.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Hill, K., & Romich, B. (2001). A language activity monitor for supporting AAC evidence-based clinical practice. Assistive Technology, 13, 12–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Hodge, S. (2007). Why is the potential of augmentative and alternative communication not being realized? Exploring the experiences of people who use communication aids. Disability and Society, 22(5), 457–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jacobi, M. (1991). Mentoring and undergraduate academic success: a literature review. Review of Educational Research, 61, 505–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Johnson, J. M., Inglebret, E., Jones, C., & Ray, J. (2006). Perspectives of speech language pathologists regarding success versus abandonment of AAC. AAC: Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 22(2), 85–99.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Kazdin, A. E. (1982). Single-case research designs: Methods for clinical and applied settings. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Kennedy, C. H. (2005). Single-case designs for educational research. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  26. Light, J. (1989). Toward a definition of communicative competence for individuals using augmentative and alternative communication systems. AAC: Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 5(2), 137–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Light, J. (1997). "Let's go star fishing": reflections on the contexts of language learning for children who use aided AAC. AAC: Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 13(3), 158–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Light, J., McNaughton, D., Krezman, C., Williams, M., Gulens, M., Galskoy, A., et al. (2007). The AAC Mentor Project: web-based instruction in sociorelational skills and collaborative problem solving for adults who use augmentative and alternative communication. AAC: Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 23(1), 56–75.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Lund, S. K., & Light, J. (2003). The effectiveness of grammar instruction for individuals who use augmentative and alternative communication systems: a preliminary study. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 46(5), 1110–1123.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Martin, J. E., & Epstein, L. H. (1976). Evaluating treatment effectiveness in cerebral palsy: single subject designs. Physical Therapy, 56, 285–294.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Mathisen, B., Arthur-Kelly, M., Kidd, J., & Nissen, C. (2009). Using MINSPEAK: a case study of a preschool child with complex communication needs. Disability and Rehabilitation. Assistive Technology, 4(5), 376–383.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. McCall, F., Markova, I., Murphy, J., Moodie, E., & Collins, S. (1997). Perspectives on AAC systems by the users and by their communication partners. European Journal of Disorders of Communication, 32, 235–256.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. McConachie, H., & Pennington, L. (1997). In-service training for schools on augmentative and alternative communication. European Journal of Disorders of Communication, 32, 277–288.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. McDonald, K. E., Balcazar, F. E., & Keys, C. B. (2005). Youth with disabilities. In D. L. DuBois & M. J. Karcher (Eds.), Handbook of youth mentoring (pp. 493–507). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McNaughton, D., Rackensperger, T., Benedek-Wood, E., Krezman, C., Williams, M., & Light, J. (2008). "A child needs to be given a chance to succeed": parents of individuals who use AAC describe the benefits and challenges of learning AAC technologies. AAC: Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 24(1), 43–55.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. McReynolds, L., & Kearns, K. (1983). Single-subject experimental designs in communicative disorders. Baltimore: University Park Press.Google Scholar
  37. Miller, J., Frieiberg, C., Rolland, M., & Reeves, M. J. (1992). Implementing computerized language sample analysis in the public school. Topics in Language Disorders, 12(2), 69–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ormrod, J. E. (1999). Human learning (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  39. Pennington, L., Goldbart, J., & Marshall, J. (2004). Interaction training for conversational partners of children with cerebral palsy: a systematic review. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 39(2), 151–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Prentke Romich Company (2010). PASS Demo Software. Retrieved from
  41. Rackensperger, T., Krezman, C., McNaughton, D., Williams, M. B., & D'Silva, K. (2005). "When I first got it, I wanted to throw it off a cliff": the challenges and benefits of learning AAC technologies as described by adults who use AAC. AAC: Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 21(3), 165–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rhodes, J. E. (1994). Older and wiser: Mentoring relationships in childhood and adolescence. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 14(3), 187–196.Google Scholar
  43. Rispoli, M., Franco, J. H., van der Meer, L. A. H., Lang, R., & Camargo, S. P. H. (2010). The use of speech generating devices in communication interventions for individuals with developmental disabilities: a review of the literature. Developmental Neurorehabilitation, 13(4), 276–293.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., & Casto, G. (1987). The quantitative synthesis of single subject research methodology: methodology and validation. Remedial and Special Education, 8, 24–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., Cook, S. B., & Escobar, C. (1986). Early intervention for children with conduct disorders: a quantitative synthesis of single-subject research. Behavioral Disorders, 11, 260–271.Google Scholar
  46. Smith, M. (1996). The medium or the message: A study of speaking children using communication boards. In S. von Tetzchner & M. H. Jensen (Eds.), Augmentative and alternative communication: European perspectives (pp. 119–136). London: Whurr Publishers Ltd.Google Scholar
  47. Smith, M., & Grove, N. (2003). Asymmetry in input and output for individuals who use augmentative and alternative communication. In J. Light, D. Beukelman, & J. Reichle (Eds.), Communicative competence for individuals who use AAC: From research to effective practice. Paul H. Brookes: Baltimore, MD.Google Scholar
  48. von Tetzchner, S., Brekke, K. M., Sjøthun, B., & Grindheim, E. (2005). Constructing preschool communities of learners that afford alternative language development. AAC: Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 21(2), 82–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. von Tetzchner, S., & Jensen, M. H. (1996). Augmentative and alternative communication: European perspectives. London: Whurr Publishers Ltd.Google Scholar
  50. Watkins, R. V., Kelly, D. J., Harbers, H. M., & Hollis, W. (1995). Measuring children's lexical diversity: differentiating typical and impaired language learners. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 38, 1349–1355.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Watkins, S., Pittman, P., & Walden, B. (1998). The deaf mentor experimental project for young children who are deaf and their families. American Annals of the Deaf, 143(1), 29–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Watson, P. J., & Workman, E. A. (1981). The non-current multiple baseline across-individuals design: an extension of the traditional multiple baseline design. Journal of Behavior and Experimental Psychiatry, 12(3), 257–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Liora Ballin
    • 1
  • Susan Balandin
    • 2
  • Roger J. Stancliffe
    • 3
  1. 1.Discipline of Speech Pathology, Faculty of Health SciencesThe University of SydneyLidcombeAustralia
  2. 2.Faculty of EducationVictoria University WellingtonWellingtonNew Zealand
  3. 3.Centre for Disability Research & Policy, Faculty of Health SciencesThe University of SydneyLidcombeNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations