Advertisement

Augmentative and Alternative Communication for Cerebral Palsy

  • Mary Jo Cooley Hidecker
Living reference work entry

Abstract

Augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) should be used to augment or replace communication for individuals with cerebral palsy when the individuals are not able to communicate with all of their familiar and unfamiliar communication partners in all situations. Unaided AAC includes the individual using facial gestures, pointing, and manual signs. Aided AAC includes the individual using photos, drawings, written words, and speech-generating devices (SGD) to supplement or replace his speech. Within the WHO ICF framework, aided AAC can be considered an environmental factor, typically external to the AAC user. However, the AAC system interacts with the individual’s body structure/function, the desired communication activities, and the participation requirements at home and in the community.

AAC can be used with all individuals regardless of their ages or current cognitive skills and should encompass a life span perspective. AAC can support communication understanding as well as expressive communication. To determine the necessary AAC symbols, aids, techniques, and strategies, the speech-language pathologist along with an interdisciplinary AAC team will conduct an AAC evaluation. AAC intervention is necessary and will help the AAC users and their communication partners learn how to use AAC to communicate in daily life. The ultimate goal of AAC and all communication interventions is to ensure that individuals with cerebral palsy (CP) can participate in all life situations.

Keywords

Cerebral palsy Augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) Communication competencies 

References

  1. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (2004) Roles and responsibilities of speech language pathologists with respect to augmentative and alternative communication: Technical report. Available at www.asha.org
  2. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (2005) Roles and responsibilities of speech language pathologists with respect to augmentative and alternative communication: Position statement. Available at www.asha.org
  3. Andersen G, Mjoen TR, Vik T (2010) Prevalence of speech problems and the use of augmentative and alternative communication in children with cerebral palsy: a registry-based study in Norway. Perspect Augment Altern Commun 19(1):12–20.  https://doi.org/10.1044/aac19.1.12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beukelman DR, Mirenda P (2013) Augmentative and alternative communication: supporting children and adults with complex communication needs. Paul H. Brookes Pub. Co, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  5. Binger C, Light J (2008) The morphology and syntax of individuals who use AAC: research review and implications for effective practice. Augment Altern Commun 24(2):123–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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. J Speech, Lang Hear Res 54(1):160–176.  https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2010/09-0163)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brady NC, Bruce S, Goldman A, Erickson K, Mineo B, Ogletree BT et al (2016) Communication services and supports for individuals with severe disabilities: guidance for assessment and intervention. Am J Intellect Dev Disabil 121(2):121–138.  https://doi.org/10.1352/1944-7558-121.2.121CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Cockerill H, Elbourne D, Allen E, Scrutton D, Will E, McNee A et al (2014) Speech, communication and use of augmentative communication in young people with cerebral palsy: the SH& PE population study. Child Care Health Dev 40(2):149–157.  https://doi.org/10.1111/cch.12066CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Costigan FA, Light J (2011) Functional seating for school-age children with cerebral palsy: an evidence-based tutorial. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch 42(2):223–236.  https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2010/10-0001)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Drager K, Light J, McNaughton D (2010) Effects of AAC interventions on communication and language for young children with complex communication needs. J Pediatr Rehabil Med 3(4):303–310.  https://doi.org/10.3233/PRM-2010-0141CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. DynaVox, & Dynamic Therapy Associates of Kennesaw GA (2014) The dynamic AAC goals Grid-2 (DAGG-2). DynaVox, PittsburghGoogle Scholar
  12. Elder PS, Goosens’ C (1994) Engineering training environments for interactive augmentative communication: strategies for adolescents and adults who are moderately/severely developmentally delayed. Southeast Augmentative Communication Conference Publications, BirminghamGoogle Scholar
  13. Gillette Y (2012) Achieving communication competence: three steps to effective intervention. Attainment Company, VeronaGoogle Scholar
  14. Goosens’ C, Crain S, Elder P (1992) Engineering the preschool environment for interactive, symbolic communication. Southeast Augmentative Communication Conference Publications, BirminghamGoogle Scholar
  15. Griffiths T, Addison A (2017) Access to communication technology for children with cerebral palsy. Paediatr Child Health 27(10):470–475.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paed.2017.06.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hidecker et al. (2011) The Communication Function Classification System (CFCS) http://www.cfcs.us
  17. Hustad KC, Miles LK (2010) Alignment between augmentative and alternative communication needs and school-based speech-language services provided to young children with cerebral palsy. Early Child Serv 4(3):129–140Google Scholar
  18. Johnston SS, Reichle J, Feeley KM, Jones EA (2012) AAC strategies for individuals with moderate to severe disabilities. Paul H. Brookes Pub. Co, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  19. Korsten JE, Foss TV, Berry LM (2007) Every move counts, clicks, and chats. Sensory-based approach: communication and assistive technology. EMC Inc, Kansas CityGoogle Scholar
  20. Kovach TM (2009) Augmentative and alternative communication profile: a continuum of learning. LinguiSystems, MolineGoogle Scholar
  21. Light J (1989) Toward a definition of communicative competence for individuals using augmentative and alternative communication systems. Augment Altern Commun 5(2):137–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Light J, McNaughton D (2012) Supporting the communication, language, and literacy development of children with complex communication needs: state of the science and future research priorities. Assist Technol 24(1):34–44.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10400435.2011.648717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lund SK, Light J (2006) Long-term outcomes for individuals who use augmentative and alternative communication: part I – what is a “good” outcome? Augment Altern Commun 22(4):284–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lund SK, Light J (2007a) Long-term outcomes for individuals who use augmentative and alternative communication: part II – communicative interaction. Augment Altern Commun 23(1):1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lund SK, Light J (2007b) Long-term outcomes for individuals who use augmentative and alternative communication: part III – contributing factors. Augment Altern Commun 23(4):323–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Millar DC, Light JC, Schlosser RW (2006) The impact of augmentative and alternative communication intervention on the speech production of individuals with developmental disabilities: a research review. J Speech Lang Hear Res 49(2):248–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. National Joint Committee for the Communication Needs of Persons With Severe Disabilities (2002) Access to communication services and supports: concerns regarding the application of restrictive “eligibility” policies [Electronic version]. Commun Disord Q 23(3):145–153. Also on http://www.asha.org/docs/html/TR2002-00233.htmlGoogle Scholar
  28. Pousada García T, Pereira Loureiro J, Groba González B, Nieto Riveiro L, Pazos Sierra A (2011) The use of computers and augmentative and alternative communication devices by children and young with cerebral palsy. Assist Technol 23(3):135–149.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10400435.2011.588988CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Raghavendra P, Bornman J, Granlund M, Björck-Åkesson E (2007) The World Health Organization’s international classification of functioning, disability and health: implications for clinical and research practice in the field of augmentative and alternative communication. Augment Altern Commun 23(4):349–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Reed P, Bowser G, Korsten J (2004) How do you know it? How can you show it?: Making assistive technology decisions. Wisconsin Asistive Technology Initiative, OshkoshGoogle Scholar
  31. Romski M, Sevcik RA, Adamson LB, Cheslock M, Smith A, Barker RM et al (2010) Randomized comparison of augmented and nonaugmented language interventions for toddlers with developmental delays and their parents. J Speech Lang Hear Res 53(2):350–364.  https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2009/08-0156)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Rowland C, Fried-Oken M, Bowser G, Granlund M, Lollar D, Phelps R et al (2016) The Communication Supports Inventory-Children & Youth (CSI-CY), a new instrument based on the ICF-CY. Disabil Rehabil 38(19):1909–1917.  https://doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2015.1107778CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. World Health Organization (2001) International classification of functioning, disability and health: ICF. World Health Organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  34. World Health Organization (2002) Towards a common language for functioning, disability and health: ICF. World Health Organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  35. World Health Organization (2007) International classification of functioning, disability, and health: children & youth version: ICF-CY. World Health Organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Communication DisordersUniversity of WyomingLaramieUSA

Section editors and affiliations

  • Nancy Lennon
    • 1
  • Margaret O'Neil
    • 2
  1. 1.Nemours/Alfred I. duPont Hospital for ChildrenWilmingtonUSA
  2. 2.Drexel UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations