Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability
ISSN: 1366-8250 (Print) 1469-9532 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjid20
Vocabulary selection for Australian children who use augmentative and alternative communication David Trembath, Susan Balandin & Leanne Togher To cite this article: David Trembath, Susan Balandin & Leanne Togher (2007) Vocabulary selection for Australian children who use augmentative and alternative communication, Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 32:4, 291-301 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13668250701689298
Published online: 10 Jul 2009.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 391
View related articles
Citing articles: 8 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cjid20 Download by: [University of Sydney Library]
Date: 02 January 2017, At: 19:24
Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, December 2007; 32(4): 291–301
Vocabulary selection for Australian children who use augmentative and alternative communication
DAVID TREMBATH, SUSAN BALANDIN & LEANNE TOGHER Faculty of Health Sciences, The University of Sydney, Australia
Abstract Background Augmentative and alternative communication (AAC)1 systems are commonly used to support children with complex communication needs in Australian preschools. However, such systems will only be effective if they contain words and messages that adequately meet these children’s communication needs. The aim of this study was to identify the words most frequently and commonly used by typically developing Australian preschool-aged children, in order to inform the selection of vocabulary for their classmates who use AAC. Method Communication samples were collected from 6 typically developing children during regular preschool activities. The samples were analysed to determine the number of different words used by the children, the frequency with which each word was used, and the commonality of use across children. Results The children used a small core vocabulary comprising frequently and commonly used words, together with large and highly individualised fringe vocabularies. Conclusions The results are consistent with the findings of previous studies, and highlight the importance of providing both core and fringe vocabulary to preschool-aged children who use AAC.
Keywords: Augmentative and alternative communication, AAC, vocabulary selection, preschool
Introduction Children who use augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) have the same vocabulary needs as their typically developing peers (Beukelman, McGinnis, & Morrow, 1991). They require vocabulary that is (i) meaningful and functional (Fallon, Light, & Paige, 2001; FriedOken & More, 1992); (ii) flexible and capable of serving a range of communicative functions (Fallon et al., 2001; Lahey & Bloom, 1977; Musselwhite & St Louis, 1988); (iii) interesting and motivating (Fallon et al., 2001; Fried-Oken & More, 1992; Musselwhite & St Louis, 1988); (iv) effective in establishing social closeness (Light, 1988; Morrow, Mirenda, Beukelman, & Yorkston, 1993); (v) likely to be used frequently (Musselwhite & St Louis, 1988); (vi) reflective of their personalities, interests, groups, and memberships (Stuart, Vanderhoof, & Beukelman, 1993); and (vii) appropriate to their age, gender, background, and environment (Fallon et al., 2001; Musselwhite & St Louis, 1988). In other words, the vocabulary selection process must cater for the individual communication needs of each child (Beukelman & Mirenda, 1998). In addition,
the selected words and messages must be revised regularly to ensure that they effectively address the child’s current and future communication needs (Beukelman & Mirenda, 1998; Fried-Oken & More, 1992; Yorkston, Honsinger, Dowden, & Marriner, 1989). Selecting a vocabulary for a child who uses AAC involves choosing a small set of words from hundreds of thousands of possibilities (Yorkston, Dowden, Honsinger, Marriner, & Smith, 1988). Thus the process is often difficult and timeconsuming (Beukelman et al., 1991; Fallon et al., 2001; Fried-Oken & More, 1992). Choosing an appropriate vocabulary for preschool-aged children who need AAC presents additional challenges, as these young children may be unable to participate actively in the selection process (Banajee, Dicarlo, & Stricklin, 2003; Fallon et al., 2001; Fried-Oken & More, 1992). Therefore, the task is often left to parents, therapists, and educators who may have little or no experience in selecting vocabulary (Banajee et al., 2003; Carlson, 1981; Fried-Oken & More, 1992; Von Tetzchner, 1990). Consequently, they may be ill-equipped to select
Correspondence: David Trembath, Faculty of Health Sciences, The University of Sydney, PO Box 170, Lidcombe, NSW 1825, Australia. E-mail:
[email protected] ISSN 1366-8250 print/ISSN 1469-9532 online # 2007 Australasian Society for the Study of Intellectual Disability Inc. DOI: 10.1080/13668250701689298
292
D. Trembath et al.
all the words needed by children participating in a variety of different contexts, including home, preschool, and the community. Those involved in vocabulary selection for AAC require information that can help them to decide which words to select, especially if the AAC system can only store a limited number of messages (Morrow et al., 1993; Yorkston et al., 1989). A number of methods have been proposed to guide the selection of vocabulary for people who use AAC. These include asking informants (e.g., parents, therapists, and educators) to select the words that they consider to be important to the person using AAC (Carlson, 1981; Fallon et al., 2001; Morrow et al., 1993); assessing the communication opportunities and demands of particular environments (Beukelman & Mirenda, 1998); and referring to published vocabulary lists (Banajee et al., 2003; Beukelman, Jones, & Rowan, 1989; Burroughs, 1957). Several authors (e.g., Beukelman et al.,, 1989; Fallon et al., 2001; Fried-Oken & More, 1992; Marvin, Beukelman, & Bilyeu, 1994; Morrow et al., 1993) have suggested that multiple methods or sources of information should be used in order to ensure that a comprehensive vocabulary is selected. Vocabulary studies involving typically developing children provide a rich source of information when selecting vocabulary for preschool-aged children who use AAC. For example, Burroughs (1957) studied language samples of 330 children taken during semistructured interviews with research assistants. Analysis revealed that the children used a small set of frequently and commonly used words that Burroughs defined as core vocabulary, together with a larger individualised vocabulary that Burroughs termed fringe vocabulary. Beukelman et al. (1989) reported similar results following their study of six typically developing children in a preschool setting. The children used a core vocabulary comprising 250 words, which accounted for 85% of their total communication sample. They also used large individualised fringe vocabularies that reflected their ages, interests, and personal communication styles. Beukelman and colleagues emphasised the importance of tailoring the selected vocabulary to meet each child’s individual communication needs, and noted that the children’s use of fringe vocabulary illustrated the influence that context and environment had on the words they used. Marvin, Beukelman, and Bilyeu (1994) explored the effects of context and time on the core and fringe vocabulary used by 10 typically developing preschool children (aged 4–5 years) at home and in preschool. The researchers recorded communication samples in
each setting over several days. Their results indicated that although the children used a relatively small and stable core vocabulary across both home and preschool settings, approximately two-thirds of the different words produced by the children were only used in one of the two settings. In addition, the differences in word use were more pronounced when the time between the recordings increased. The results of these studies indicate that both context and time must be taken into account when selecting vocabulary for a child who uses AAC (Marvin, Beukelman, & Bilyeu, 1994). Additionally, care must be taken to ensure that vocabulary selected from lists is relevant to the individual child. It is not known, for example, whether the word-lists generated over the past five decades in the United States (e.g., Beukelman et al., 1989; Burroughs, 1957; Fallon et al., 2001; Marvin, Beukelman, & Bilyeu, 1994) are useful when selecting vocabulary for contemporary Australian preschool-aged children who use AAC. Marvin, Beukelman, and Bilyeu recommended that vocabulary items selected for preschool children should contain both core and fringe vocabulary that is relevant across different contexts. However if parents, therapists, and educators are to select these effectively, they must have access to up-to-date and context-relevant information. The aim of the present study, therefore, was to identify the words most frequently and commonly used by typically developing Australian preschoolaged children in order to inform the selection of vocabulary for their classmates who use AAC. The research questions were: (1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
How many different words do Australian preschool-aged children typically use in preschool settings? Which words are most frequently and commonly used by Australian preschool-aged children? How do findings of core and fringe vocabulary use among Australian preschool-aged children compare with the findings of previous studies of other populations? What recommendations can be made in relation to selecting vocabulary for preschool-aged children who use AAC?
Method Ethical approval and informed consent This study was approved by the University of Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee.
Vocabulary selection for Australian children who use AAC
293
Informed consent was provided by parents of the children who participated in the study.
during which the children were seated while eating and drinking.
Recruitment
Materials
The first author asked teachers in three inclusive preschools to identify two children in each preschool who appeared to have age-appropriate speech and language skills for possible inclusion in the study. No formal assessment of these skills was conducted. The children’s parents were provided with information sheets about the study. They met with the researcher, who answered their questions, and then they signed consent forms to allow their child to participate.
The children wore small nylon waist-bags containing Sony M-800V tape-recorders fitted with Sony Electret Condenser Tie Clip Microphones. The recorders were concealed in the bags, and the microphones were attached to the children’s shirt collars during recordings. Recordings were made on TDK MC60 blank cassette tapes.
Participants The participants were three male and three female children, aged 3–5 years (mean 5 4 years, 3 months). All six children were from the dominant culture and spoke only English. No data in relation to socioeconomic status, parent education levels, or ethnicity were collected. Teachers noted that the children were active participants in preschool activities, were able to follow instructions and routines, and were generally enthusiastic during interactions with other children. These comments were supported by caregiver reports and by observations made by the researcher during preliminary visits to the preschools. All participants had attended their preschool for a minimum of 2 days per week for at least 6 months prior to the study. Pseudonyms were allocated to all children to protect their privacy. Settings The study was conducted in three inclusive preschools in the metropolitan area of Sydney, Australia. Each preschool catered for children aged 2–6 years, and had a policy of including children with and without disability in regular preschool activities. In two of the preschools, one child with complex communication needs attended on the days the study was conducted, together with approximately 20 children without disability. In the third preschool, two children with complex communication needs attended on the days the study was conducted, together with approximately 15 children without disability. Neither of these latter two children used aided AAC systems such as communication books or speech-generating devices. Each preschool had an established routine that included indoor and outdoor play activities, group activity time, and designated morning tea and lunch times
Procedure (i) Meeting the participants. The first author attended the preschools to meet the participants and commence data collection. He explained to the children that their teachers had said that they were ‘‘beautiful talkers’’ and asked each child if he or she was willing to help him ‘‘learn what children talk about’’. He showed the bags to the children and then explained that they would not be allowed to ‘‘open or play with the bags’’ while they were wearing them. He also explained to the children that they could ask him or a teacher for help ‘‘if the bags [became] annoying’’. (ii) Collection of communication samples. The collection of communication samples was staggered across days and times at each preschool in an attempt to gather a broad sample of each child’s language across a range of preschool activities. These included teacher-directed activities (e.g., group story and music time) and child-directed activities (e.g., construction and dress-ups indoors, or swings and playing in the sandpit outdoors). However, no attempt was made to ensure that all children were engaged in the same activities for the same amount of time. The first hour of recording for each child was discarded in an effort to reduce the influence of novelty effects on the communication samples (related to wearing the bags and participating in the study). Data collection for each participant concluded when a sample of 3000 intelligible words was obtained. (iii) Transcription of communication samples. The first author transcribed the samples according to a predetermined set of orthographic transcription rules (see Appendix A). Only intelligible words were retained for analysis. References to the research process (e.g., children talking about the recording bags) were omitted. Similarly, words that occurred during songs, rhymes, and routine games
294
D. Trembath et al.
(e.g., ‘Hide-and-seek’), rather than during a conversation, were noted but omitted from the analysis, due to their repetitive nature and the likelihood that they would have skewed the conversational sample. Contractions were coded as single words in an effort to make any word-list generated from the study more user-friendly to parents, therapists, and educators who might use it to select vocabulary. Coding contractions as single words also provided information about how the children combined words. Different forms of a word (e.g., ‘‘jump’’/ ‘‘jumped’’/ ‘‘jumps’’) were coded as different words. Filler words (e.g. ‘‘er,’’ ‘‘oh,’’ ‘‘ah,’’ ‘‘mm’’) were typed orthographically and counted as words. All children’s names were assigned a single code (CN) and all teacher names were also assigned the one code (TN). This protected the privacy of these individuals, yet at the same time acknowledged the participants’ use of these labels. (iv) Analysis of communication samples. The first 100 intelligible utterances produced by each child were analysed using the Systematic Analysis of Language Transcripts (SALT: Miller & Chapman, 1990) in order to calculate the Number of Different Words (NDW: Watkins, Kelly, Harbers, & Hollis, 1995). Each child’s complete sample of 3,000 words was then analysed using ‘Word Counter’# (Grace, 2002) in order to identify the total NDW. The six individual samples were then combined and analysed using ‘Word Counter’# in order to calculate: (a) the number of different words in the composite sample, (b) the frequency of use for each word in the composite sample, and (c) the number of participants who used each word in the composite sample. The number of participants who used each word was expressed as a commonality score ranging between 1 and 6. For example, a word that was used by three participants received a commonality score of 3. Finally, each word in the composite sample was categorised as either ‘‘core’’ or ‘‘fringe’’ vocabulary. Core vocabulary was defined as words contained in the composite sample that occurred with a frequency of at least 0.5 per 1,000 words and were used by at least three (50%) of the participants. Both of these criteria have been reported as features that must be considered when selecting vocabulary from a standard word-list for a child who uses AAC (Vanderheiden & Kelso, 1987). All other words in the composite sample were categorised as fringe vocabulary. (v) Inter-rater reliability. In order to assess reliability of transcription, a research assistant who was experienced in transcribing audio-tapes randomly
selected and transcribed a total of 3,000 words from the audio-tapes of all six children. The research assistant’s transcription was compared with the researcher’s original transcription on a word-byword basis. Inter-rater reliability was calculated using the formula: agreement divided by agreement plus disagreement multiplied by 100% (Kazdin, 1982), which yielded a reliability score of 97.8%.
Results Samples A 3,000-word sample was collected from each child. The time taken to collect the sample from each child ranged from 2–7 hours over a period of 2–6 days. The total NDW produced by each child in their 3,000-word sample ranged from 486 to 568. The NDW produced by each child in their first 100 utterances ranged from 116 to 151, thus falling within two standard deviations of the mean for their respective ages (Leadholm & Miller, 1992). The composite sample of 18,000 words contained a total of 1,411 different words. The composite NDW is slightly underrepresented because the names of teachers and peers produced during sampling were coded as either TN or CN across all the samples. A summary of the characteristics of each sample is provided in Table 1. Core and fringe vocabulary The core vocabulary consisted of 263 words. These words were used frequently by the children, and so accounted for 79.8% of the composite sample. The core vocabulary predominantly comprised structure words such as pronouns, conjunctions, prepositions, articles, auxiliary verbs, modals, indefinites, and adverbs. It contained only 30 nouns. As illustrated in Figure 1, the core vocabulary was used by nearly all participants. All six participants produced the 61 most frequently occurring words in the core vocabulary. The average commonality score for the 100 most frequently occurring words in the core vocabulary was 5.94, and the average commonality score for all 263 words in the core vocabulary was 5.14. A list of the core vocabulary words, plus their composite frequency of occurrence and commonality score, is provided in Appendix B. The fringe vocabulary (i.e., those words not included in the core vocabulary) consisted of the remaining 1,148 different words in the composite sample. Although four times larger than the core vocabulary, the words in the fringe vocabulary were
Vocabulary selection for Australian children who use AAC
295
Table 1. Characteristics of the six language samples including Number of Different Words (NDW)
Child
Total NDW in 3,000-word sample
Recording hours
Recording days
NDW in first 100 utterances (SALT analysis)
Damien Kimberley Charlotte Luke Brandon Kathryn
486 488 497 568 511 521
3 3 7 5 2 4
3 4 6 4 2 3
151 151 116 158 149 136
Composite
1,411
24
22
-
Note. NDW 5 Number of Different Words; SALT 5 Systematic Analysis of Language Transcripts (Miller & Chapman, 1990).
not frequently used by the children, and so accounted for only 20.2% of the composite sample. The fringe vocabulary comprised information-carrying content words (i.e., nouns, verbs, and adjectives). These words were highly individualised and related to each child’s interests (e.g., names of cartoon characters), the people in their lives (e.g., names of family members, peers, and teachers), and their preschool environments (e.g., labels of play equipment). Many words in the fringe vocabulary were unique to a particular child or preschool. In fact, 770 (55%) of the 1,411 different words in the composite sample were recorded only once. Discussion The children in the present study used a small core vocabulary of 263 words that accounted for 79.8% of the composite sample. This finding is consistent with that of Beukelman et al. (1989), who identified a core vocabulary of 250 words accounting for approximately 85% of the conversation samples of six preschool-aged children studied. Banajee et al. (2003) have suggested that core vocabulary is particularly useful to children who
use AAC because it is relatively small in size and shows little variation across people and locations. In fact, 34 (68%) of the 50 most frequently used words in the present study also featured in the list of the 50 most commonly used words reported by Beukelman et al. Ten of the remaining 16 words were contractions (e.g., ‘‘don’t’’), and 2 were fillers (i.e., ‘‘oh’’ and ‘‘um’’), which were coded differently or not at all by Beukelman et al. Children who use AAC may be able to communicate effectively with teachers and peers across a range of activities with a relatively small number of frequently and commonly used words. However, although these words provide a flexible framework for communication, they may not convey any meaning when used in isolation. In the present study, the children used fringe vocabulary to express their individual personalities and interests, and to communicate effectively about people, in their unique preschool environments. Unlike the core vocabulary, the large fringe vocabulary was highly individualised. The low frequency and commonality of fringe word use across children reflected their individual personalities and interests as well as the contexts in which
Figure 1. Average commonality scores for words in the core vocabulary.
296
D. Trembath et al.
they communicated. The names of teachers and peers, for example, accounted for 4.1% of the total words used by the children. This high incidence of names highlights the influence of context on vocabulary and the importance of ensuring that children who use AAC have access to names of peers and teachers on their devices. Another example is the frequent use of the words ‘‘aeroplane’’ and ‘‘swing’’ by two children in a preschool that was located near an airport and had a swingset in the playground. The children in other preschools in different locations and with different playground equipment did not use these words. This illustrates the need for parents, therapists, and educators to consider the specific needs and interests of each child who uses AAC when selecting vocabulary, so that it is individualised, interesting, motivating, and reflective of the contexts in which the child interacts. The influence of contemporary usage on vocabulary is apparent when the results of the present study are compared with those of Burroughs (1957). The word-list generated by Burroughs contains a number of words that are unlikely to be found in the vocabulary of a contemporary Australian preschoolaged child, such as ‘‘bullock’’, ‘‘cart’’, ‘‘aerodrome’’, ‘‘gramophone’’, ‘‘milkman’’, and ‘‘threepenny’’. Similarly, Australian children today use words that may have had a different meaning or may not have been used at all by children at the time of Burroughs’ study. For example, words related to modern toys such as PlayStation2 did not exist at that time, while the meaning of the word ‘‘cool’’ has evolved over time to take on the additional meaning of expressing a liking or agreement. These differences point to the need for word-lists to be current and relevant to the individual child for whom vocabulary is being selected. Perhaps the most salient example in the present study of the influence of contemporary context on vocabulary, and the best illustration of the need to tailor vocabulary to meet the individual needs of each child who uses AAC, was the presence of the word ‘‘Spiderman’’ in the core vocabulary. The commencement of our study coincided with the Australian release of the feature film Spiderman, which was received with great interest and enthusiasm by the children in the preschools in which we were conducting the study. The word ‘‘Spiderman’’ was used by the children to initiate pretend play with their peers, to act out scenes from the film, to describe and label the Spiderman branded clothing that many children wore to preschool, and to recount their experiences of seeing the film to teachers and peers. However, the children with
complex communication needs did not have access to AAC systems which included symbols representing the word ‘‘Spiderman’’ or other related vocabulary. This represented an obvious barrier to communicative interactions between the children with complex communication needs and their teachers and peers, and further illustrates the importance of ensuring that the vocabulary selected for children using AAC is up-to-date, context-relevant, and tailored to the individual communication needs of each child. Clinical implications This study contributes to the growing body of research on vocabulary selection for young children who use AAC. More specifically, it provides parents, therapists, and teachers of Australian preschool-aged children who use AAC with a pool of vocabulary that is both relevant and current, highlighting also the importance of providing both core and fringe vocabulary to these children. This is an important consideration when developing AAC systems that will be flexible and relevant across the range of interactions and environments in which preschoolaged children participate each day (Fallon et al., 2001; Fried-Oken & More, 1992; Light, 1988; Morrow et al., 1993; Stuart et al., 1993). The results also reinforce the need for parents, therapists, and educators to exercise caution when selecting vocabulary from core vocabulary lists. Although the core vocabulary identified in the present study was similar to that identified by Beukelman et al. (1989), contextually bound differences were also apparent. These differences must be addressed during the vocabulary selection process through the use of multiple informants including parents and teachers, as well as multiple methods such as the use of environmental and ecological inventories (Beukelman et al., 1989; Fallon et al., 2001; Fried-Oken & More, 1992). In addition, differences between the fringe vocabulary identified by Burroughs (1957) and the fringe vocabulary identified in the present study illustrate the need for parents, therapists, and educators to exercise caution when using vocabulary lists, given that the words children use change over time. Limitations Only six children were involved in the study, all of whom were from the dominant culture and spoke English as their first language. Consequently, the sampling may not have reflected the communication patterns of the wider preschool population. Also,
Vocabulary selection for Australian children who use AAC due to their repetitive nature, words that were used in songs, rhymes, or repetitive games, as opposed to conversational speech, were not analysed so as to not skew the analysis. However, it is important that children have access to the kind of vocabulary required to participate in these activities. Therefore, parents, therapists, and educators will need to gather more specific information in order to be aware of the most appropriate words to select for each child who uses AAC. In addition, no attempt was made to sample the children’s vocabulary in other environments. Consequently, the fringe vocabulary, in particular, might be of limited use in other settings. Finally, caution must always be used in applying the results of studies involving typically developing children to those who use AAC (Banajee et al., 2003; Bedrosian, 1992, 1995). The current findings may be helpful in guiding the vocabulary selection process for children who use AAC, particularly those who cannot actively contribute to the selection process themselves (Banajee et al.). Nevertheless, it is of paramount importance to consider the individual needs, interests, and personal communication style of the child who will use the system, and to ensure that any vocabulary selected is in fact useful and appropriate for that particular child. Future research directions The present study provides the first account of vocabulary use amongst Australian preschool-aged children. The scope of this research could be extended to evaluate how and for what purposes the children use these words. Although a small number of studies to this effect have been conducted in the United States (e.g., Marvin, 1994; Marvin, Beukelman, Brockhaus, & Kast, 1994), it is not known whether the findings of these studies are relevant to Australian populations. Finally, further research is needed to validate the vocabulary selected for preschool-aged children who use AAC. This is particularly important given that many of these children are not able to actively contribute to the vocabulary selection process, and the fact that the words they use and need are likely to change during early childhood as they acquire new vocabulary and their language develops. Conclusion Selecting appropriate vocabulary for preschoolaged children who use AAC is critically important when the goal is to maximise their learning and
297
participation alongside typically developing peers. Although a relatively small core vocabulary of frequently and commonly used words may enable them to communicate effectively across a range of interactions with teachers and peers, they also require individualised fringe vocabulary that is reflective of their personalities, interests, and the contexts in which they interact. When used in conjunction with other vocabulary sources, core vocabulary lists such as the one presented in this article, provide a useful resource for selecting appropriate vocabulary for preschool-aged children who use AAC. Author note This research was supported in part by a postgraduate research grant from Speech Pathology Australia. No restrictions have been placed on publication of the research data, and the authors have no financial or non-financial conflicts of interest with either the participants or the funding organisation. Note 1 Augmentative and alternative communication: ‘‘An area of clinical practice that attempts to compensate either temporarily or permanently for the impairment and disability patterns of individuals with severe receptive and expressive communication disorders’’ (International Society for Augmentative and Alternative Communication (ISAAC), 2005).
References Banajee, M., Dicarlo, C., & Stricklin, S. B. (2003). Core vocabulary determination for toddlers. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 19(2), 67–73. Bedrosian, J. L. (1992). Use of non-disabled subjects in AAC research: Are we really saving a dime? Paper presented at the Second ISAAC Research Symposium, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Bedrosian, J. L. (1995). Limitations in the use of nondisabled subjects in AAC research. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 11(1), 6–10. Beukelman, D. R., Jones, R., & Rowan, M. (1989). Frequency of word usage by nondisabled peers in integrated preschool classrooms. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 5(4), 243–248. Beukelman, D. R., McGinnis, J., & Morrow, D. (1991). Vocabulary selection in augmentative and alternative communication. Augmentative & Alternative Communication, 7(3), 171–185. Beukelman, D. R., & Mirenda, P. (1998). Augmentative and alternative communication: Management of severe communication disorders in children and adults. Baltimore: Paul. H. Brookes. Burroughs, G. E. R. (1957). A study of the vocabulary of young children. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd. Carlson, F. (1981). A format for selecting vocabulary for the nonspeaking child. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 12, 240–245.
298
D. Trembath et al.
Fallon, K. A., Light, J. C., & Paige, T. K. (2001). Enhancing vocabulary selection for preschoolers who require augmentative and alternative communication (AAC). American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 10(1), 81–94. Fried-Oken, M., & More, L. (1992). An initial vocabulary for nonspeaking preschool children based on developmental and environmental language sources. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 8(1), 41–56. Grace, E. (2002). Word Counter [Computer software]. Not commercially available. International Society for Augmentative and Alternative Communication (ISAAC). (2005). AAC terminology. Retrieved 15 October 2005 from http://aac.unl.edu/ academic/AACGBM1.html. Kazdin, A. E. (1982). Single-case research designs. New York: Oxford University Press. Lahey, M., & Bloom, L. (1977). Planning a first lexicon: Which words to teach first. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 42, 340–349. Leadholm, B., & Miller, J. F. (1992). Language sample analysis: The Wisconsin guide. Madison, WI: Department of Public Instruction. Light, J. (1988). Interaction involving individuals using augmentative and alternative communication systems: State of the art and future directions. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 4, 66–82. Marvin, C. A. (1994). Cartalk! Conversational topics of preschool children en route home from preschool. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 25, 146–155. Marvin, C. A., Beukelman, D. R., & Bilyeu, D. (1994). Vocabulary-use patterns in preschool children: Effects of context and time sampling. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 10(4), 224–236. Marvin, C. A., Beukelman, D. R., Brockhaus, J., & Kast, L. (1994). ‘‘What are you talking about?’’: Semantic analysis of preschool children’s conversational topics in home and preschool settings. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 10(2), 75–86. Miller, J. F., & Chapman, R. S. (1990). Systematic Analysis of Language Transcripts. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin. Morrow, D., Mirenda, P., Beukelman, D. R., & Yorkston, K. (1993). Vocabulary selection for communication systems: A comparison of three techniques. American Journal of SpeechLanguage Pathology, 2(2), 19–30. Musselwhite, C., & St Louis, K. (1988). Communication programming for persons with severe handicaps. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. Stuart, S., Vanderhoof, D., & Beukelman, D. R. (1993). Topic and vocabulary use patterns of elderly women. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 9(2), 95–110. Vanderheiden, G. C., & Kelso, D. P. (1987). Comparative analysis of fixed-vocabulary communication acceleration techniques. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 3(4), 196–206. Von Tetzchner, S. (1990). First words. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 6(2), 118. Watkins, R. V., Kelly, D. J., Harbers, H. M., & Hollis, W. (1995). Measuring children’s lexical diversity: Differentiating typical and impaired language learners. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 38, 1349–1355. Yorkston, K., Dowden, P., Honsinger, M., Marriner, N., & Smith, K. (1988). A comparison of standard and user vocabulary lists. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 4(4), 189–210. Yorkston, K., Honsinger, M., Dowden, P., & Marriner, N. (1989). Vocabulary selection: A case report. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 5(2), 101–108.
Appendix A. Orthographic transcription rules 1.
2.
3. 4.
5. 6.
7. 8. 9. 10.
11.
12. 13. 14.
15.
16.
17.
Each utterance will be transcribed separately. Utterance boundaries will be defined by intonation or a pause of greater than 2 seconds. When sound repetitions (e.g., ‘‘t-take’’) and syllable repetitions (e.g., ‘‘go-going’’) occur, only one whole word will be transcribed. Contractions used by a participant will be typed as a single word (e.g., ‘‘can’t’’, ‘‘won’t’’). Fillers (e.g., ‘‘ah’’, ‘‘um’’, ‘‘mm’’, ‘‘er’’, ‘‘oh’’) will be typed orthographically in a consistent form and counted as words. Prolongations of these or any other vocalisations will not be represented in any way. Colloquial substitutions (e.g., ‘‘gonna’’, ‘‘g’day’’) will be typed as such. Different forms of a word (e.g., ‘‘jump’’/ ‘‘jumped’’/ ‘‘jumps’’) will be coded as different words. Numbers will be typed as nouns. Swear words will be fully transcribed. Imitated noises (e.g., engine sounds, animal sounds) will not be included. Words used in songs and repetitive games (e.g., ‘What’s the time, Mr Wolf?’) will not be included. However, other words spoken by participants during these games will be included (e.g., ‘‘my turn’’, ‘‘let’s play again’’). Character names and film, book, and production titles consisting of multiple words (e.g., ‘Beauty and the Beast’) will be transcribed as one word. All children’s names spoken will be represented by a single code (CN). All adult’s names spoken will be represented by a single code (TN). If part of an utterance is unintelligible, no attempt will be made to transcribe that utterance and the whole segment will be omitted from the transcription. All comments by the children relating to the recording equipment or the investigation process will be omitted from transcription and final analysis. The final transcription will be checked with the word processing program’s ‘spell check’ application. Reliability will be conducted on a randomly chosen 10% of the recordings.
Vocabulary selection for Australian children who use AAC
299
Appendix B. A list of the composite frequency of occurrence score and commonality score for each word in the core vocabulary (n 5 283) Word
Composite frequency
Commonality score
you I the it a no and can that my I’m in this me to one do go on have get what look yeah there we is your don’t let’s here he gonna not hey it’s got are oh put up just can’t well I’ll that’s c’mon um now out big did down of were like where ah be
37.84 37.67 22.39 21.95 20.78 17.50 15.39 15.11 13.17 13.00 11.83 11.67 11.28 11.11 10.78 10.50 10.28 10.17 10.17 10.11 9.83 9.72 9.50 8.78 8.72 8.56 7.89 7.56 7.44 6.72 6.39 6.28 6.17 5.94 5.78 5.67 5.61 5.50 5.50 5.44 4.94 4.89 4.67 4.56 4.50 4.50 4.22 4.17 4.11 4.11 3.83 3.83 3.83 3.83 3.83 3.72 3.72 3.67 3.61
6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
Word see wanna because know okay them at for yes I’ve over all play there’s off want with come mine need some Spiderman but two him turn you’re little he’s make they let his spider too mum where’s back tell they’re didn’t then dwanna hello our watch how away sit found friend these was yep baby doesn’t doing only she
Composite frequency
Commonality score
3.56 3.56 3.44 3.44 3.44 3.44 3.39 3.28 3.17 3.00 3.00 2.94 2.94 2.94 2.89 2.89 2.89 2.83 2.78 2.78 2.78 2.78 2.56 2.44 2.39 2.33 2.33 2.22 2.11 2.11 2.11 2.06 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.94 1.94 1.83 1.83 1.83 1.78 1.72 1.61 1.61 1.61 1.61 1.56 1.50 1.50 1.44 1.44 1.44 1.44 1.44 1.39 1.39 1.39 1.39 1.39
6 6 5 6 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 6 6 6 6 6 5 6 6 6 6 5 6 6 5 6
300
D. Trembath et al.
Word so time more remember what’s who why she’s does hat woh than yours has ones saw four move run throw coming drink five gotta if leave making yummy goes going mummy other please said stay thing those when will give hah kick push sand say show something wait again bit brother dad done good help her name quick went bigger car eat hole
Composite frequency
Commonality score
1.39 1.39 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.28 1.22 1.22 1.22 1.17 1.17 1.17 1.17 1.17 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83
6 6 6 3 5 6 6 5 6 4 5 6 6 5 4 5 5 6 5 5 4 5 5 5 6 5 5 3 3 5 5 6 5 5 5 5 6 5 6 5 4 5 3 5 5 5 6 6 6 4 4 5 4 6 5 5 3 5 4 5 3 5 4
Word keep nah naughty right way won’t apple ball better comes dig isn’t shhh take yum cool could house oow seat today very wash around been bottom boys into next open people telling bin book boy else find green home lunch new pick playing roll seven sorry step still teacher’s three us who’s about aren’t broke bye catch fell first had man shoe stuck
Composite frequency
Commonality score
0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56
6 5 5 6 6 5 6 5 6 5 3 5 5 5 4 4 5 5 4 3 6 5 3 4 3 5 3 4 4 3 3 4 3 4 3 5 5 5 4 4 5 6 5 3 3 4 4 5 3 5 6 4 4 4 3 4 3 5 3 3 5 3 4
Vocabulary selection for Australian children who use AAC Word think am as beautiful bring bum everybody finished funny guys hand head higher jump looks should stop which you’ll
Composite frequency
Commonality score
0.56 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
4 5 4 4 4 3 3 4 3 4 4 4 3 3 4 5 3 4 4
Note. Words in bold also featured in the core vocabulary list reported by Beukelman, Jones, and Rowan (1989).
301
