Abstract
Purpose: This study compared college students’ attitudes toward a peer who used a nonelectronic augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) system with and without a partner reauditorization strategy and also examined the effect of reauditorization on reported (a) ease of understanding the peer who used AAC, (b) willingness to engage in interactions with the peer who used AAC, and (c) preferences regarding AAC systems. Method: Sixty-four participants completed surveys after viewing each of 2 counterbalanced conditions involving a video of a peer who communicated using AAC. Mean survey ratings were compared between conditions. Results: Participants reported (a) more positive attitudes toward, (b) a greater ease in understanding, and (c) an increased willingness to interact with the peer who used nonelectronic AAC with partner reauditorization. Participants indicated that reauditorization contributed positively to the observed conversation. Reported preferences for nonelectronic AAC systems did not vary as a function of reauditorization, and most participants reported a preference for an electronic speech-generating device when compared with a nonelectronic system. Conclusion: Partner reauditorization may play a role in improving attitudes that individuals hold about peers who use nonelectronic AAC and may contribute to ease of understanding the aided message and increased likelihood of peer interactions.
| Original language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 657-671 |
| Number of pages | 15 |
| Journal | American journal of speech-language pathology |
| Volume | 27 |
| Issue number | 2 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - May 2018 |
Bibliographical note
Funding Information:Funding support was provided by The University of Minnesota Leadership Education in Neurodevelopmental and Related Disabilities, U.S. Bureau of Maternal and Child Health Grant 5 T73MC12835-09-00 to the University of Minnesota Board of Regents, Joe Reichle, PI, the University of Minnesota’s Institute on Community Integration at The College of Education and Human Development, UMN Medical School, UMN College of Liberal Arts, and by the UMN Department of Speech-Language-Hearing Sciences. The authors extend their appreciation to Edward Carney, Lindsey Dietz, Ainsley Reibow, Zhuoran Shang, and Kate Wyman for assistance with procedural fidelity, design, and analysis. The research reported here was conducted in partial fulfillment of the first author’s doctor of philosophy degree at the University of Minnesota Twin Cities.
Funding Information:
Funding support was provided by The University of Minnesota Leadership Education in Neurodevelopmental and Related Disabilities, U.S. Bureau of Maternal and Child Health Grant 5 T73MC12835-09-00 to the University of Minnesota Board of Regents, Joe Reichle, PI, the University of Minnesota’s Institute on Community Integration at The College of Education and Human Development, UMN Medical School, UMN College of Liberal Arts, and by the UMN Department of Speech-Language-Hearing Sciences. The authors extend their appreciation to Edward Carney,
Publisher Copyright:
© 2018 American Speech-Language-Hearing Association.