MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130817386 · doi:10.1044/aac10.2.24

Update From the National Joint Committee for the Communication Needs of Persons With Severe Disabilities

2001· article· en· W2130817386 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lee McLean, Beth A. Mineo, Pat Mirenda, Diane Paul‐Brown, Mary Ann Romski, Rose A. Sevcik, Martha E. Snell

Bibliographic record

VenuePerspectives on Augmentative and Alternative Communication · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLanguage Development and Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAtlantaAshaChapelMillerLibrary scienceGerontologyPsychologySociologyMedicineTheologyArt historyMetropolitan areaHistoryComputer sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

No AccessPerspectives on Augmentative and Alternative CommunicationSIG News1 Jun 2001Update From the National Joint Committee for the Communication Needs of Persons With Severe Disabilities Lee K. McLean, Beth Mineo, Pat Mirenda, Diane Paul-Brown, Mary Ann Romski, Rose Sevcik and Martha E. Snell Lee K. McLean University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill Google Scholar More articles by this author , Beth Mineo University of Delaware, Wilmington Google Scholar More articles by this author , Pat Mirenda University of British Columbia Vancouver, BC Google Scholar More articles by this author , Diane Paul-Brown ASHA Rockville, MD Google Scholar More articles by this author , Mary Ann Romski Georgia State University Atlanta, GA Google Scholar More articles by this author , Rose Sevcik Georgia State University Atlanta, GA Google Scholar More articles by this author and Martha E. Snell University of Virginia, Charlottesville Google Scholar More articles by this author https://doi.org/10.1044/aac10.2.24 SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationTrack Citations ShareFacebookTwitterLinked In References ASHA. (2000). Special Interest Division 1, Language Learning and Education Newsletter, 7 (1). Google Scholar Bondy, A., & Frost, L. (1995). Educational approaches in preschool: Behavior techniques in a public school setting.In E. Schopler & G. Mesibov (Eds.), Learning and cognition in autism (pp. 331–333). New York: Plenum. Google Scholar Chapman, R., & Miller, J. (1980). Analyzing language and communication in the child.In R. Schiefelbusch (Ed.), Nonspeech language and communication: Acquisition and intervention (pp. 159–196). Baltimore: University Park Press. Google Scholar Cole, K. N., Dale, P. S. & Mills, P. E. (1990). Defining language delay in young children by cognitive referencing: Are we saying more than we know?.Applied Psycholinguistics, 21, 291–302. Google Scholar Cole, K. N., Dale, P. S., & Mills, P. E. (1992). Stability of the intelligence quotient-language quotient relation: Is discrepancy modeling based on myth?.American Journal on Mental Retardation, 97 (2), 131–145. Google Scholar Cole, K. N., & Fey, M. E. (1996). Cognitive referencing in language assessment.In K. N. Cole, P. S. Dale, & D. J. Thal (Eds.), Assessment of communication and language (pp. 143–159). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. Google Scholar Cress, C. J. (In press). Expanding children’s early augmented behaviors to support symbolic development.In J. Reichle, D. Beukelman, & J. Light (Eds), Exemplary practices for beginning communicators: Implications for AAC (Vol. 2). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. Google Scholar Kangas, K., & Lloyd, L. (1988). Early cognitive skills prerequisites to augmentative and alternative communication use: What are we waiting for?.Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 4, 211–221. Google Scholar King, J. (1998). Preliminary survey of speech-language pathologists providing AAC services in health care settings in Nebraska.Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 14, 222–227. Google Scholar McCarthy, C., McLean, L., Miller, J., Paul-Brown, D., Romski, M., Rourke, J., & Yoder, D. (1998). Communication supports checklist for programs serving individuals with severe disabilities. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. Google Scholar McCathren, R. B. (2000). Teacher-implemented prelinguistic communication intervention.Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 15 (1), 21–29. Google Scholar Mineo Mollica, B. (1999). Accessing AT devices and services: A follow-up with Division of Mental Retardation clients. Wilmington, DE: University of Delaware. Google Scholar National Joint Committee for the Communicative Needs of Persons With Severe Disabilities. (1992). Guidelines for meeting the communication needs of persons with severe disabilities.Asha, 34 (March, Suppl. 7), 1–8. Google Scholar Notari, A. R., Cole, K. N. & Mills, P. W. (1992). Cognitive referencing: The (non)relationship between theory and application.Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 11(4), 22–38. CrossrefGoogle Scholar Ogletree, B. T., Sportsman, J. S., VanGiesen, T., & Siegel, E. (2000). Communication-based services for persons with severe disabilities: A survey of speech-language pathologists working in North Carolina residential centers.Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 35, 336–346. Google Scholar Rice, M., & Kemper, S. (1984). Child language and cognition. Baltimore: University Park Press. Google Scholar Romski, M. A., & Sevcik, R. A. (1996). Breaking the speech barrier: Language development through augmented means. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. Google Scholar Romski, M. A., Sevcik, R. A., & Forrest, S. (2001). Assistive technology and augmentative communication in early childhood inclusion.In M. J. Guralnick (Ed), Early childhood inclusion: Focus on change. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. Google Scholar Rowland, C., & Schweigert, P. (2000). Tangible symbols, tangible outcomes.Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 16, 61–78. CrossrefGoogle Scholar Secord, W. (1992). The use and abuse of standardized tests with children with special needs.The Clinical Connection, Fall, 19–23. Google Scholar Shane, H. & Bashir, A. (1980). Election criteria for the adoption of an augmentative communication system: Preliminary considerations.Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 45, 408–414. LinkGoogle Scholar Simpson, K., Beukelman, D., & Bird, A. (1998). Survey of school speech and language service provision to students with severe communication impairments in Nebraska.Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 14, 212–221. Google Scholar Additional Resources FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited ByPerspectives on Augmentative and Alternative Communication11:1 (20-25)1 Apr 2002Augmentative and Alternative Communication Considerations for Adults With Significant Cognitive DisabilitiesParis DePaepe, Kathleen Feeley and Lisa A. Wood Volume 10Issue 2June 2001Pages: 24-27 Get Permissions Add to your Mendeley library History Published in issue: Jun 1, 2001 Metrics Topicsasha-topicsasha-sigsasha-article-typesCopyright & Permissions© 2001 American Speech-Language-Hearing AssociationPDF DownloadLoading ...

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.108
Threshold uncertainty score0.215

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0060.008
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0050.004
Research integrity0.0080.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0310.027

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.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.291 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePerspectives on Augmentative and Alternative CommunicationSame topicLanguage Development and DisordersFrench-language works237,207