Post-school quality of life for individuals with developmental disabilities who use AAC
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Even when augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) interventions enhance the communication skills and educational achievements of students with complex communication needs while they are in school, there is no guarantee that these gains will be maintained following students' transition to adult life. Unfortunately, information on the post-school quality of life and related outcomes of individuals with complex communication needs is scarce. This study addressed this issue by examining the post-school outcomes of eight Canadian individuals with developmental disabilities who used AAC technology while they were in school. Two surveys were used to compile the data: the Quality of Life Profile: People with Physical and Sensory Disabilities (Renwick, Rudman, Raphael, & Brown, 1998) and a Communication Survey designed specifically for this study. Four of the participants and the people who knew them best also participated in brief interviews in which they discussed the positive and negative aspects of their school and post-school experiences. Results indicated that participant outcomes in important life domains were generally discouraging. A high positive correlation was found between quality of life and quality of communication scores, and participants who achieved relatively better outcomes showed evidence of higher communicative competence. However, the majority of participants and their supporters were very dissatisfied with the lack of AAC and other services that were available to them as young adults. The results are discussed in relation to outcomes for adults with development disabilities who use AAC and their implications for future research, practice, and advocacy efforts related to transition planning.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".