Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14279/19389
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorPampoulou, Eliada-
dc.contributor.authorFuller, Donald R.-
dc.date.accessioned2020-11-13T06:37:15Z-
dc.date.available2020-11-13T06:37:15Z-
dc.date.issued2020-
dc.identifier.citationJournal of Enabling Technologies, 2020, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 171-185en_US
dc.identifier.issn23986263-
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14279/19389-
dc.description.abstractPurpose: Graphic symbols have been used widely in the field of augmentative and alternative communication (AAC). The advancement of technology in recent years has stimulated their development even further, thereby providing speech-language pathologists (SLPs) a wide range of options to choose for the individuals they support. However, existing literature on graphic symbols is scant and clinicians must base their decisions almost solely on clinical judgment. This paper aims to investigate the factors SLPs consider when choosing corpuses of graphic symbols for their clients. Design/methodology/approach: An online survey was used that allowed multiple-choice responses. Data were analyzed and presented primarily as percentages. Findings: Most respondents used graphic symbols with people having developmental disorders, and the corpuses of symbols they drew upon were based predominantly on availability, characteristics of the individual’s impairment or disability and intelligibility to the user and his or her communication partners. Existing policies related to graphic symbols also influence clinicians’ choices. SLPs search for support mainly from professional associations and training providers. In terms of use with technology, ready-made symbol packages for clinicians to use were found to be attractive. Practical implications: Professional associations and institutions that focus on AAC need to provide adequate support to clinicians with a foundation based on evidence-based practice. Originality/value: To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first research that focuses on current practices concerning the factors SLPs take into consideration when choosing the optimum graphic symbol corpus(es) for their clients.en_US
dc.formatpdfen_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Enabling Technologiesen_US
dc.rights© Emeralden_US
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/*
dc.subjectAACen_US
dc.subjectAided symbolsen_US
dc.subjectAugmentative and alternative communicationen_US
dc.subjectGraphic symbolsen_US
dc.subjectSpeech-language pathologyen_US
dc.titleExploring AAC graphic symbol choices: a preliminary studyen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.collaborationCyprus University of Technologyen_US
dc.collaborationThe University of Texas Rio Grande Valleyen_US
dc.subject.categoryClinical Medicineen_US
dc.journalsSubscriptionen_US
dc.countryCyprusen_US
dc.countryUnited Statesen_US
dc.subject.fieldMedical and Health Sciencesen_US
dc.publicationPeer Revieweden_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1108/JET-03-2020-0013en_US
dc.relation.issue3en_US
dc.relation.volume14en_US
cut.common.academicyear2019-2020en_US
dc.identifier.spage171en_US
dc.identifier.epage185en_US
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501-
item.grantfulltextnone-
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
item.fulltextNo Fulltext-
item.languageiso639-1en-
item.openairetypearticle-
crisitem.author.deptDepartment of Rehabilitation Sciences-
crisitem.author.facultyFaculty of Health Sciences-
crisitem.author.orcid0000-0001-6904-195X-
crisitem.author.parentorgFaculty of Health Sciences-
crisitem.journal.journalissn1754-9450-
crisitem.journal.publisherEmerald-
Appears in Collections:Άρθρα/Articles
CORE Recommender
Show simple item record

SCOPUSTM   
Citations

4
checked on Nov 6, 2023

WEB OF SCIENCETM
Citations

4
Last Week
0
Last month
1
checked on Oct 29, 2023

Page view(s)

324
Last Week
1
Last month
18
checked on May 21, 2024

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons