Determining Effective Assessment Tools for AAC Users Within the MD Population
Lindsay Kaffl
Co-Presenters: Individual Presentation
College: The College of Health Professions and Human Services
Major: Doctor of SLP
Faculty Research Mentor: Iyad Ghanim
Abstract:
Individuals with multiple disabilities (MD) present with varying levels of language functioning. Motor, cognitive, and neurologic deficits from their disabilities may contribute to the remainder of their language skills at the prelinguistic level throughout the lifespan (Maes et al., 2007; Sanders et al., 2020). Augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) is often necessary to help advance communication for these individuals (Holyfield & Lorah, 2022). The complex nature of language development and AAC use in individuals with MD may make gathering an accurate image of language skills difficult, resulting in the need for a thorough language assessment to help determine what should be targeted in therapy. Therefore, the purpose of this research is to determine the consistency of different language assessment tools when administered to an AAC user with MD by comparing speech-language pathologists (SLP) perspectives related to the efficacy assessment tools inspected post delivery. Participants were broken up into three groups, with each group examining video recordings of an AAC user with MD completing one of three language assessments (the Functional Communication Profile-Revised (FCP-R), the Comprehensive Receptive and Expressive Vocabulary Test-Third Edition (CREVT-3), and the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Fifth Edition (PPVT-5)). Participants also completed a score report for the assessment observed. A mixed within/between-subjects design and survey methods were utilized to measure participant survey responses and compare completed score reports. Quantitative analyses were utilized to determine reliability and consistency of survey responses between groups, while qualitative analyses were utilized to determine trends in survey responses expressing opinions within assessment groups. Results indicated all three assessments demonstrated consistency via inter-rater reliability. However, consistency via scores does not predict SLP preference of tool use, which may indicate SLPs need more information to understand language functioning. Further research should examine the above assessments in combination with additional assessment measures.