17 / 40
ACQ
uiring knowledge
in
speech
,
language and hearing
, Volume 10, Number 3 2008
91
INTERVENTION: WHY DOES IT WORK AND HOW DO WE KNOW?
complex communication needs
(3rd ed.). Baltimore: Paul H.
Brookes.
Blackstone, S., & Hunt Berg, M. (2003).
Social networks: A
communication inventory for individuals with complex
communication needs and their communication partners: Manual
.
Monterey, CA: Augmentative Communication Inc.
Blackstone, S., Hunt Berg, M., Thunstand, L. I., & Wilkins,
D. (2004).
Measuring the impact of augmentative and alternative
communication across disability types and ages using social
networks as a component of measurement
. International Society
for Augmentative and Alternative Communication: Research
Seminar, Brazil.
Iacono, T., Carter, M., & Hook, J. (1998). Identification of
intentional communication in students with severe and
multiple disabilities.
Augmentative & Alternative Communi
cation
,
14
, 102–114.
Light, J., Binger, C., Agate, T. L., & Ramsay, K. N. (1999).
Teaching partner-focused questions to individuals who use
augmentative and alternative communication to enhance
their communicative competence.
Journal of Speech, Language
& Hearing Research
,
42
, 241–255.
Mirenda, P., Iacono, T., & Williams, R. (1990). Augmentative
and alternative communication for individuals with severe
intellectual handicaps: State-of-the-art.
Journal of the
Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps
,
15
, 3–21.
Murphy, J., Markova, I., Collins, S., & Moodie, E. (1996).
AAC systems: Obstacles to effective use.
European Journal of
Disorders of Communication
,
31
, 31–44.
Appendix. Sections of the Social Networks
inventory
I
Identifying information
II
Skills and abilities of the individual (e.g., receptive/
expressive language, reading)
III Circles of communication partners
1 Close family
2 Close friends
3 Neighbours, acquaintances
4 Paid to interact
5 Unfamiliar partners
IV Modes of expression (e.g., facial expression, signs)
V Representational strategies (e.g., objects, written words)
VI Selection techniques
VII Strategies that support interaction (e.g., gesture
dictionaries, prompting)
VIII Topics of conversation
IX Type of communicator (e.g., emergent, independent)
X
Summary
aware of his use of request cards in the community. People
with complex communication needs may use informal
communication modes with people with whom they are
closest, and who know them well, but more formal modes,
such as a communication book, with people who are less
familiar with their informal modes (e.g., Light et al., 1999). In
terms of the effectiveness and efficiency of communication
modes, different reports across informants are likely to be
indicative of using different criteria: James’ mother, for
example, unlike the staff, judged his signs and communication
board use to be ineffective and inefficient because he had not
mastered them.
Given the descriptive nature of the information provided,
we chose to use consensus in speech pathologists’ judgements
to determine changes over time. Craig and Mark were noted
to have demonstrated improvements in aspects of their com
munication, such as using more formal modes of communi
cation. Also, over time, it was evident that the support workers
used more strategies to support their own communication,
possibly reflecting the communication input received. It was
evident that although formal AAC systems were being used
more frequently within fourth and fifth CCPs, the informants
reported that their use was somewhat limited because of their
own failure to develop and use them. Increasing use of AAC
systems in everyday environments presents an ongoing
challenge (e.g., Murphy, Markova, Collins, & Moodie, 1996).
Informants in the present study did not directly question the
value of AAC, but further probing may have revealed less
overt forms of resistance.
In contrast to the limited use of formal communication
(AAC), it was evident that both parent and support worker
informants recognised non-symbolic modes of communication
at both Times 1 and 2. They also felt that for each adult with
ID, two or more non-symbolic modes were effective and
efficient across different CCPs. Hence, it was apparent that
the support workers, as well as parents, had become more
aware of and familiar with each person’s behaviours that had
communicative potential (Mirenda et al., 1990).
Implications
The Social Networks inventory was found to be a useful tool
for exploring the communication of three adults with complex
communication needs. Informants with different relationships
with the adults with ID contributed to an understanding of
their communication modes and strategies used across
communication partners. Such differences are indicative of
the potential benefit of locating interventions within the
contexts that include people who are in positions to support
the person’s communication through frequent and meaningful
interactions.
Furthermore, the consensus judgements provided a means
of quantifying changes across a number of dimensions. The
findings suggest that the tool may be useful for documenting
changes in communication. However, given the small scale
and descriptive nature of this study and the lack of a control
group, any observed changes cannot be attributable to the
communication supports provided, nor was a direct evaluation
of such supports a focus of the study. Further larger scale
research examining the use of this tool for documenting
change is warranted.
Note
Ethics approval for this study was obtained from the Scope
Ethics Committee.
References
Beukelman, D., & Mirenda, P. (2005).
Augmentative and
alternative communication: Supporting children and adults with
Associate Professor
Teresa Iacono
is Director of Research
at the Centre for Developmental Disability Health
Victoria, and has a seconded position as Senior Researcher
to the Communication Resource Centre, Scope.
Sheridan Forster
is currently completing her PhD at
the Centre for Developmental Disability Health, Monash
University. Her work aims to describe interactions
between adults with profound intellectual and multiple
disabilities.
Karen Bloomberg
is a speech pathologist with over 25
years experience. She co-ordinates the Education and
Training Portfolio and is a speech pathology consultant at
the Communication Resource Centre.
Ruth Bryce
is currently in Cambodia working with
children with disabilities. She will be returning to Aus
tralia in the not too distant future.