Exploring augmentative & alternative communication assessment practices for children with limited functional speech & motor skills: a scoping review utilizing the Participation Model of AAC
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Children with limited speech and motor function, frequently subsequent to neurodevelopmental conditions, often require augmentative and alternative communication (AAC). Assessment practices to inform effective AAC interventions for these children can be challenging because of the considerable heterogeneity and range of factors that require consideration. An improved understanding of current assessment practices is imperative to optimize the provision of AAC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a scoping review to identify the assessment practices used with children with limited speech and motor function subsequent to neurodevelopmental conditions (birth to 18 years) within the Participation Model of AAC. RESULTS: In total, 171 assessment practices were identified. Almost all were related to access supports and barriers, of which the majority focused on children's capabilities. Relatively few methods were identified to support the assessment of children's participation patterns and communication needs or opportunity supports and barriers. Twenty-three percent of identified formal assessment practices required modifications to established procedures, and 10% could not be completed by all child participants. CONCLUSION: Identified assessment practices focused primarily on children and their abilities, whereas very few focused on external factors (e.g., environmental and opportunity supports and barriers). Additionally, identified assessment practices may inaccurately measure the abilities of children with limited speech and motor function, as the procedures often required modification. IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONWithout adequate practices to assess all areas of the Participation Model, clinicians may have difficulty providing comprehensive AAC servicesFuture research should focus on developing practices to assess children's opportunity and environmental supports and barriersThere is a need for practices that are more accessible to children with limited speech and motor function.
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 | 0.022 | 0.074 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".