Toward greater involvement of youth with complex communication needs in the selection of augmentative and alternative communication devices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The study aim was to examine the measurement properties of the Youth Evaluation of Products Scale for Augmentative and Alternative Communication (YEP-AAC) as a means to understand the product attitudes of youth toward their AAC devices.Methods: In study 1, four males and two females between the ages of 8 and 17 years (median age = 14 years) participated in face-to-face interviews. A researcher administered the YEP-AAC and then asked youths to explain the rationale for their item ratings. Two researchers analyzed masked transcripts of the interviews to predict the valence of item ratings assigned by youths. In study 2, 18 families participated in a mailed survey to examine the reliability and validity of the scale domains. Seventeen mothers/one father and their children (9 male/9 female) between the ages of 10 and 20 years participated (median age = 16 years).Results: The level of chance-corrected agreement between valences converted from youth ratings on the YEP-AAC and those assigned by researchers was fair (weighted kappa = 0.38). Internal consistencies of the scale domains were acceptable. Youths who rated their AAC devices more favourably had higher functional communication as hypothesized.Conclusion: The two studies provide support for the face validity, internal consistency and convergent validity of the YEP-AAC as a measure of the product attitudes of youth with complex communication needs.Implications for rehabilitationDeveloping reliable ways to understand the product needs, preferences and values of youth with complex communication needs will help to support the selection, acquisition and use of augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) devices.Consumer socialization helps to explain how youth may acquire the skills, knowledge and experience relevant to their role as AAC consumers.Reliable youth-report questionnaires that are grounded in consumer socialization provide an expedient way to understand the product attitudes of young consumers with complex communication needs.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".