A-Speak: Augmentative and alternative communication application for Thai individuals with complex communication needs
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Background: Augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) is the approach that enhances communication competence in individuals with complex communication needs. With the advancement of technology, there are varieties of AAC applications with colored-graphic symbols and speech output, improving communication’s intelligibility compared to low-tech AAC systems. However, those AAC applications had some features that were not entirely suitable for Thai users, such as symbol appearance, speech intonation, etc.
Objective: This study aimed to develop the first version of the Thai AAC application, A-Speak, based on Thai culture, lexicon, and intonation and remove other constraints that other AAC applications had, such as variation in voice-output age and gender. The proficiency of A-Speak regarding communication functions was also examined.
Materials and methods: The participants comprised 15 individuals with cerebral palsy and complex communication needs. The participants were trained to use the A-Speak application, installed on a tablet, to communicate. The training procedures consisted of 3 phases: Phase 1: Train to select icons; Phase 2: Shift to different categories; and Phase 3: Use A-Speak to communicate. The researchers trained the participants to achieve adequate operational skills (i.e., Phases 1 and 2) before beginning Phase 3. In Phases 1 and 2, switches were employed to facilitate participants with limited mobility to operate A-Speak by finger. The researchers also taught the participants’ caregivers to continue training them at home. The researchers collected the participants’ communication abilities regarding communication functions in the recorded form. The data was reported into code numbers according to communication proficiency.
Results: After receiving A-Speak training, all participants showed improvement in their communication abilities across a variety of communication functions. Participants showed significant progress in 10 out of 12 communication functions. The communication function in which participants exhibited the most improvement was explaining skills, whereas the communication function that showed the least development was storytelling skills.
Conclusion: A-Speak AAC application reduced the constraints that possibly influenced communication intelligibility in the Thai language. Nevertheless, A-Speak still had a few drawbacks that required to be corrected to increase the productivity of this program. The findings indicated that participants gained communication skills through A-Speak as a means of communication.
Keywords: A-Speak, augmentative and alternative communication, application, High-tech AAC
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Personal views expressed by the contributors in their articles are not necessarily those of the Journal of Associated Medical Sciences, Faculty of Associated Medical Sciences, Chiang Mai University.
References
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association [Internet]. Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) [cited 2024 March 18]. Available from: https://www.asha. org/practice-portal/professional-issues/augmentativeand-alternative-communication/#collapse_1.
Law J, Parkinson A, Tamhne R. Communication difficulties in childhood: A practical guide. 1stEd. Oxon: CRC Press; 2000.
Park CJ, Yelland GW, Taffe JR, Kylie MG. Brief report: The relationship between language skills, adaptive behavior, and emotional and behavior problems in pre-schoolers with autism. J Autism Dev Disord. 2012; 42: 2761-6. doi: 10.1007/s10803-012-1534-8.
Walker VL, Snell ME. Effects of augmentative and alternative communication on challenging behavior: a meta-analysis. Augment Altern Commun. 2013; 29(2): 117-31. doi: 10.3109/07434618.2013.785020.
Prizant BM, Wetherby AM, Rubin E, Laurent AC. The SCERTS model: A transactional, family-centered approach to enhancing communication and socioemotional abilities of children with autism spectrum disorder. Inf Young Child. 2003; 16(4): 296-316.
Romski M, Sevcik RA, Barton-Hulsey A, WhitmoreAS. Early Intervention and AAC: What a Difference 30 Years Makes. Augment Altern Commun. 2015; 31(3): 181-202. doi: 10.3109/07434618.2015.1064163.
Sevcik RA, Barton-Hulsey A, Romski M. Early intervention, AAC, and transition to school for young children with significant spoken communication disorders and their families. Semin Speech Lang. 2008; 29(2): 92-100. doi: 10.1055/s-2008-1079123.
Charlop-Christy MH, Carpenter M, Le L, LeBlanc LA, Kellet K. Using the picture exchange communication system (PECS) with children with autism: Assessment of PECS acquisition, speech, social-communicative behavior, and problem behavior. J Appl Behav Anal. 2002; 35(3): 213-31. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2002.35-213.
Leech ER, Cress CJ. Indirect facilitation of speech in a late talking child by prompted production of picture symbols or signs. Augment Altern Commun. 2011; 27(1): 40-52. doi: org/10.3109/07434618.2010.5500 62.
Stahmer A, Ingersoll B. Inclusive programming for toddlers with autism spectrum disorders: Outcomes from the children’s toddler school. J Posit Behav Interv. 2004; 6: 67-82. doi: 10.1177/109830070400600202.
Branson D, Demchak M. The use of augmentative and alternative communication methods with infants and toddlers with disabilities: a research review. Augment Altern Commun. 2009; 25(4): 274-86. doi: 10.3109/07434610903384529.
Ganz JB, Earles-Vollrath TL, Heath AK, Parker RI, Rispoli MJ, Duran JB. A meta-analysis of single case research studies on aided augmentative and alternative communication systems with individuals with autism spectrum disorders. J Autism Dev Disord. 2012; 42(1): 60-74. doi: 10.1007/s10803-011-1212-2
Caron J, Light J, Davidoff BE, Drager KDR. Comparison of the effects of mobile technology AAC apps on programming visual scene displays. Augment Altern Commun. 2017; 33(4):2 39-48. doi: 10.1080/0743461 8.2017.1388836.
Mirenda P. Toward Functional Augmentative and alternative communication for students with autism manual signs, graphic symbols, and voice output communication aids. Lang, Speech, and Hear Serv School. 2003; 34: 203-16. doi: 10.1044/0161-1461 (2003/017).
Drager KD, Light JC, Speltz JC, Fallon KA, Jeffries LZ. The performance of typically developing 2 1/2-yearolds on dynamic display AAC technologies with different system layouts and language organizations. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2003; 46(2): 298-312. doi: 10.1044/1092- 4388(2003/024)
Boesch MC, Wendt O, Subramanian A, Hsu N. Comparative efficacy of the picture exchange communication system (PECS) versus a speechgenerating device: effects on social-communicative skills and speech development. Augment Altern Commun. 2013; 29(3): 197-209. doi: 10.3109/0743 4618.2013.818059.
Choi H, O’Reilly M, Sigafoos J, Lancioni G. Teaching requesting and rejecting sequences to four children with developmental disabilities using augmentative and alternative communication. Res Dev Disabil. 2010; 31(2): 560-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ridd.2009.12.006.
Schäfer MCM, Sutherland D, McLay L, Achmadi D, van der Meer L, Sigafoos J, et al. Research note: attitudes of teachers and undergraduate students regarding three augmentative and alternative communication modalities. Augment Altern Commun. 2016; 32(4): 312-9. doi: 10.1080/07434618.2016.1244561.
van der Meer L, Rispoli M. Communication interventions involving speech-generating devices for children with autism: a review of the literature. Dev Neurorehabil. 2010; 13(4): 294-306. doi: 10.3109/ 17518421003671494.
Kamonsitichai W, Goldstein H. Speech-language pathologists’ perceptions of augmentative and alternative communication in Thailand. Augment Altern Commun. 2023; 39(4): 230-40. doi: 10.1080/0 7434618.2023.2208222.
Wickenden M. Whose voice is that?: Issues of identity, voice and representation arising in an ethnographic study of the lives of disabled teenagers who use augmentative and alternative communication (AAC). Disab Stud Quart. 2011; 31(4). doi: 10.18061/dsq. v31i4.1724.
Pullin G, Hennig S. 17 Ways to say yes: toward nuanced tone of voice in AAC and speech technology. Augment Altern Commun. 2015; 31(2): 170-80. doi: 10.3109/ 07434618.2015.1037930.
Burkhart JL. Total augmentative communication in the early childhood classroom. Illinois, Don Johnston, Inc., 1993.
de Groot JY. Thai for Beginners. Phuket: Prince of Songkhla University; 2010.
Dodd JL. Augmentative and alternative communication intervention: an intensive, immersive, socially based service delivery model. 1st Ed. San Diego: Plural Publishing; 2017.
Beukelman D, Light J. Augmentative and alternative communication: Supporting children and adults with complex communication needs. 5th Ed. Pennsylvania: Paul H. Brookes Publishing; 2020.
Beukelman DR, Fager S, Eds. Selecting visual scene displays: Personal relevance for age and gender. The State of the Science Conference of the Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center on Augmentative and Alternative Communication; 2018 July 11; Arlington, USA.
Angsupakorn N. Comparison of the reliability of parental reporting and the direct test of the Thai speech and language test. J Med Assoc Thai. 2012; 95(11): S67-S72. PMID: 23961623.
Chapman RS. Children’s language learning: an interactionist perspective. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2000; 41(1): 33-54. PMID: 10763675.
Shipley KG, McAfee JG. Assessment in speechlanguage pathology: A resource manual. 6th Ed. San Diego: Plural Publishing; 2023.
Piaget J. Part I: Cognitive development in children: Piaget development and learning. J Res Sci Teach. 1964; 2(3): 176-86. doi: 10.1002/tea.3660020306.