Highlights Of Principles Used For Augmentative And Alternative Communication Assessment In Patients With Central Nervous System Disorders

Authors

  • Hasmik Mkrtchyan Armenian State Institute of Physical Culture and Sports, Armenia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.24234/se.2020.2.2.232

Keywords:

Augmentative and Alternative Communication, assessment, intervention, neurological conditions, training, assessment tools

Abstract

Different technologies are used, including Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC), which can improve communication competences and life participation in patients with neurological conditions and communication deficits. The assessment of patients for the AAC need is a complex procedure encompassing not only speech and language assessment but also evaluation of cognitive, motor, visual, auditory, perceptive, and a variety of other general factors that influence the process of AAC method selection. Different standardized linguistic tools are used in the assessment process. Reassessments are an indisputable part of the AAC intervention process. Training of patients, caregivers, and other primary communication partners is imperative to ensure the successful use of communication technologies. The patients must take part in assessor controlled device trials to reveal the most appropriate AAC technology. Whenever needed, the AAC training ensures the permanent use of the technologies, providing ongoing support to the families once the skilled intervention is discontinued.

Author Biography

Hasmik Mkrtchyan, Armenian State Institute of Physical Culture and Sports, Armenia

MSc, Assistant professor

Department of Kinesiology, Armenian State Institute of Physical Culture and Sports, Armenia     

University lecturer

References

Holland, A., Frattali, C., & Fromm, D., (1999). Communication Activities (Daily Living (2nd Ed.), Pro-Ed, Austin, Texas.

Rowland, C., & Schweigert, P.D. (2003). Cognitive Skills, Communicative Competence for individuals who use AAC, J. Light, D.R. Beukelman and 1. Reichle, eds, Paul H. Brooks Publishing Company, Baltimore. Maryland, pp. 241

Frattali, C., M., Thompson, C., K., Holland, A., L., Wohl, C., B., & Ferketic, M., M. (1995). Functional Assessment (Communicat kville, Maryland.

Semel, E., Wiig, H., & Secord, W. (2003ion Skills (Jr Adults (ASHA FACS), American Speech-Language Hearing Association, Roc). Clinical Evaluation of' Language Fundamentals -Fourth Edition. The Psychological Corporation, San Antonio, Texas.

Deruyter, F., & Donaghue, K.A. (1989). Communication and traumatic brain injury: A case study, Augmetltative and Alternative Communication 5, 49-54.

Light, J. (1988). Interaction involving individuals using augmentative communication systems: State of the art and future directions for research, Auwnellfative and AlTernative Communication 4. 66-82.

Lasker, J., P., Garrett, K., L, and Fox, L., E. (2007). Severe Aphasia in: Alternative Communication Strategies.for Adults with Acute or Chronic Medical conditions. D. Beukelman. K. Garrett and K. Yorkston, eds, Paul H. Brooks Publishing Company, Baltimore, Maryland, 2007, pp. 163-206.

Garrett, K., L., & Lasker, J., P. (2005) Adults with severe aphasia. in: Augmentative and Alternative Communication: Supporting Children and AdulTS with Complex CommunicaTion Needs, D. Beukelman and P. Mirenda, eds, Paul H. Brooks Publishing Company, Baltimore, Maryland, pp. 467-516.

Garrett, K., L., & Lasker, J., P. (2005). Adults with severe aphasia. in: Augmentative and Alternative Communication: Supporting Children and Adults with Complex Communication Needs, D. Beukelman and P. Mirenda, eds, Paul H. Brooks Publishing Company, Baltimore, Maryland, pp. 467-516.

Kertesz, A. (2007). Western Aphasia Battery Revised. Harcourt Assessment, San Antonio. Texas.

Brown, L., Branson-McLean, M.B., Baumgart, D., Vincent, L., Falvey, M. & Schroder, I. (1979). Using the characteristics of current and subsequent least restrictive environments in the development of curricular content for severely handicapped students, AAESPH Review 4,407-424.

Campbell, L., Baladin, S., & Togher, L. (2002). Augmentative and Alternative Communication Use by People with Traumatic Brain Injury: A Review. Advances in Speech Language Pathology, 4(2), 89-94.

Dunn, L., M., & Dunn, D., M. (2007). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, Fourth Edition, The Psychological Corporation, San Antonio. Texas.

Fager, S. (2005). Individuals with Traumatic Brain Injury, in: Alternative Communication: Supporting children and Adults wilh Complex Communication Needs. D.R. Beukelman and P. Mirenda, eds, Paul H. Brooks Publishing Company, Baltimore: Maryland, pp. 131-162.

Fager, S., Doyle, M. & Karantounis, R. (2007). Communication Needs Assessment, in: Augmentative Communicatio/l Strategies for Adults with Acute or Chrollic Medical Conditions. Beukelman, K.L. Garrett and K.M. Yorkston, eds, Paul Brookes Publishing Company, Baltimore. Maryland, pp. Worksheet 5.6.

Symbol Mate by Tobii, (2010). retrieved from http://www. tobiiati.com!corporate/ productslsymbolmate.aspx on June 25, 2010.

Published

2020-08-19

How to Cite

Mkrtchyan, H. (2020). Highlights Of Principles Used For Augmentative And Alternative Communication Assessment In Patients With Central Nervous System Disorders. Armenian Journal of Special Education, 2(2), 25-34. https://doi.org/10.24234/se.2020.2.2.232

Issue

Section

Articles