Proposal Synthesis Matrix Analysis of Literature

Last Name: __Patel__________________________ First Name: ___Maya_________________ Period: ___1_

Overarching question:​​ How does the implementation of augmentative technology in the educational development plan for a child
with speech Apraxia benefit their speech development?

Key Terms (list and define in the space below)

1. Apraxia:
Children might not be able to move their lips or tongue correctly to say sounds, though their muscles are not necessarily
weak. They know what they want to say, but cannot relay the message from their brains to their muscles. Professional
treatment is necessary for progress​.
2. Dysarthria:
Brain damage causes muscles weakness, primarily in the mouth, tongue, face, and throat which inhibit speech. Can
sometimes be coupled with apraxia.
3. Orofacial Myofunctional Disorders:
The tongue moves forward too much. It sometimes rests on the lips or sticks out too far when talking and eating. Affects
speech and can follow children through to adulthood.
4. Speech Sound Disorders:
Children will say some sounds the wrong way as they learn to talk. They learn some sounds earlier, like p, m, or w, while
other sounds take longer to learn, like z, v, or th. If they are not able to speak fully by the age of 8 it is usually classified as
speech sound disorder.
5. Stuttering:
Getting stuck while delivering certain words. Makes people tense and uncomfortable. Caused by minute differences in brain
function during speech processes, and is often hereditary.
6. Voice:
respiratory, laryngeal, or vocal tract damage that prevent normal vocal projection.
7. Occupational Therapy:
Performing day-to-day tasks as a form of rehabilitation.
8. Psychoeducation:
Education aimed towards individuals who have been diagnosed with a mental illness, or their families/support systems.
9. Speech Therapy:
 Training and education aimed towards helping speech and language development.
10. Special Needs Teacher:
Individuals who work with disabled children in hopes to help them adapt to life with their respective disabilities.

Synthesis Matrix Analysis of Literature

Foundational Sub Problem 1: ​What factors are considered when determining the plan for educational development in children with
speech Aprax​ia?

APA Purpose Framework Sample Design Variables/ Results Controversies, Assumptions, Implications
format instruments disagreements Limitations for practice,
reference Overarching Hypothesis/ with other and research,
Question Objective How the Validity How the authors Delimitations theory
data was and hypothesis was
collected? Reliability supported/rejecteYou will add a
d list of authors
referenced in
Conclusion and this section on
further studies a separate
page
Brahm, I explore in The aim of Two Participan The Identification whether Of the four Reasons
N. this paper this study groups ts were following Dilemma children with sets of and ways of
(1993). the idea that was to of reminded four pairs Perceived degree disabilities dilemma resolving
key policy investigate profess what was of of dilemma and and statements, identificatio
Ideologic
issues in what sense ionals meant by statements resolution. This difficulties the n dilemma.
al special professiona from a were dilemma was seen would have identification Table IV
dilemma needs l educators rural dilemma, designed to be a dilemma the same , common shows that
s in education made of and using following to a greater extent learning curriculum three of the
special take the issues in urban examples the ideas in the US sample. content or and most
needs form of special areas if discussed The most frequent some different integration common
ideological education. of necessary above: rating in the US content as ones were kinds of
educatio
dilemmas. Specificall Pennsy . They sample was other seen most resolutions
n: These y this lvania, were then Identificati considerable children. often in both are the same
Practitio dilemmas involved USA presented on compared to whether and countries as in both
ners' arise in the exploring (n = with a dilemma, significant in the how to at least countries.
views. context of to what 38) sheet Common English sample. identify significant These
Oxford historical extent and containin curriculum There were no children with dilemmas. resolutions
Review and individual Northa g four dilemma, significant disabilities For the refer to the
continuing educators mptons pairs of Parent-prof differences in the and identification need to
Of moves to recognised hire, statement essional distribution of the difficulties dilemma the identify to
Educatio organise a the Englan s and two dilemma, resolution ratings individually most ensure
n, (4), society presence or d (n = formal and in the two or not. common US services.
527. consisting not of 43) questions Integration samples. In both whether and perception This
Retrieve of groups dilemmas took to be dilemma” cases the most how parents was of a position is
d from with in these part.” answered “The common rating and considerable usually part
different four areas, (7) for each dilemmas was for a professionals dilemma. of a
JSTOR
degrees of whether dilemma. could have significant can share Though the resolution
Journals socio-econo they felt been dilemma. The power or not most which also
database mic power they could 2. They presented missing data in relating to frequent refers to
in resolve the were in terms of frequencies decisions perception of avoiding or
accordance dilemmas given multiple reflect cases in about children the common reducing
with basic and how enough outcomes which no with curriculum devaluation
value they would time to for each dilemma was seen disabilities dilemma in and stigma,
principles resolve read each side of the and there were and both such as,
which have them. The dilemma dilemma. some actual difficulties. countries was providing
potentially focus was and were However, missing data. whether and of a resources in
contrary therefore asked: this would overall there were to what extent significant the
implications on what `To what have very few not at all children with one, many mainstream
. These sense extent do complicate or cannot decide disabilities more class so that
basic values individual you see d an ratings in both and participants other
can be educators the already samples.” difficulties saw it as a children are
thought of made of the statement potentially (Brahm, 1993, would learn in significant also helped,
as contrary s as complex p.10) regular dilemma in treating
ideological consequenc representi issue, so it “Common classes or not the US children
in the sense es ng a was curriculum (6). group. only with
of being associated dilemma? decided to dilemma: for the parent sensitivity
fundamental with Choose present the Perceived degree professional so that they
to how a alternatives one of the issues in of dilemma and relationships feel valued,
society to each answers': the resolution. More dilemma did not making
functions” dilemma following of the US group most children
(Brahm, and how Cannot form: if x saw this as a educators see with special
1993, p.1) they Not at then a: if dilemma. The no dilemma educational
“I have deliberated Marginal not x then most common at all ​(14). needs feel
followed a about the Significan b; where a rating in both conspicuous
different nature of t and b had samples was , helping
position in the Considera seemingly significant, teachers and
this study, difficulties ble decide negative though there was other pupils
one that and ways all extent outcomes a higher through
assumes that of extent (9). percentage of training to
ideologies resolving extent these judgements overcome
involve them in the US sample. ignorance
contrary and (7). If the About a quarter of and accept
conflicting person the English diversity.”
elements saw no sample did not (Brahm,
and that dilemma see this as a 1993, p.10)
studies of they were dilemma.
ideology asked to
need to explain There was no “Reasons
include the the reason significant and ways of
thinking for not difference resolving
nature of seeing a between the two dilemma.
ideology dilemma. groups in the Three of the
(Billig et al., If they degree to which most
1988). This did see a the common frequent
approach dilemma curriculum resolutions
focuses on then they dilemma could be were
how were resolved. The common to
individuals asked the most common both
think about second resolution rating samples.
ideological question: was significant. The most
matters and `To what There were very frequent
involves extent do few not at all or one in both
considering you feel cannot decide countries
the contrary that you ratings. The was to keep
and can missing data a balance
conflicting resolve frequencies between
aspects of this reflect cases when giving the
such dilemma? no dilemma was same
thinking. Choose seen or there were learning
Billig refers one of the some missing experiences
to this as the answers': data (11). and taking
dilemmatic account of
nature of Cannot individual
social Not at Parent-profession needs (6).
thinking. Marginal al dilemma The other
Using this Significan Perceived degree resolution
social t of dilemma and in both
psychologic Considera resolution. In both samples
al approach, ble decide groups most of was
I will all extent the samples saw adapting the
explore extent no dilemma. The ways of
whether extent next most teaching a
policy common rating broadly
issues in They was that it was a defined
special were also marginal common
needs asked to dilemma. In both curriculum
education say how groups only about (8). This
are seen as they one in four saw it differed
dilemmas would as a significant or from the
and how resolve considerable previous
they are the dilemma. resolution
resolved by dilemma. in not
a group of There were no referring to
educators in 3. If significant having to
the USA participan differences make a
and England ts could between the two balance
(1). not groups for degree which was
answer of resolution seen as hard
these when a dilemma to do. The
questions was seen; the third
before most common common
discussin degree of resolution
g the resolution was was that it
proposed significant in both is not a
dilemma groups. The high denial of
then they proportion of opportunity
would be missing data to offer only
given refers to those what can be
another who did not see handled
chance this as a dilemma (11).
after the (12).
discussio “Reasons
n. and ways of
Participan Integration resolving
ts were dilemma dilemma.
also Perceived degree There were
offered of dilemma and three
the resolution. There resolutions
chance to were no common to
alter their differences both groups.
initial between the A reason for
ratings. groups in the not seeing a
4. degree to which dilemma,
Participan they saw a which was
ts were dilemma and the common to
engaged most common both groups,
in arguing rating was for a was that
for their significant professional
position dilemma. s do not see
and However, though parental
against a the most common contribution
contrary resolution rating as
one. As was to a interfering
such the significant (3). The
interview degree, there were most
style was more significant frequent
designed and considerable resolutions
to reflect resolution ratings common to
the in the English both
argument than the US samples
ative samples, 75% were that
model compared to 39% professional
(Billig et respectively s welcome
al., 1989). (13). parental
5. The contribution
interview s (1),
s were encourage
tape greater
recorded parental
and involvement
transcribe at all levels
d in full. (7) and to
The text find ways to
was work
analyzed together (8).
for A US
common specific
themes of resolution
how to was that
resolve professional
the s do not
dilemmas assume that
and if they knew
appropriat best (2).
e for This
reasons corresponde
why no d with
dilemma resolution
was seen 16 which
(8). was specific
to the
English
group, but
differed in
the added
view that
parents
contribute
information
which
professional
s might be
unaware of.
Another
frequent
and
specifically
English
reason was
that
professional
s and
parents are
usually
jointly
involved
and that
there is
partnership
and trust
(12).
Reasons
and ways of
resolving
dilemma.
Table XII
shows that
two of the
resolutions
are common
to both
groups;
spending
more
money to
get access
to scarce
services in
regular
classes (8)
and
bringing
resources
into regular
classes but
with the use
of special
classes.
However,
both are
used more
in the
English
group. A
third
resolution
specific to
the English
sample
refers to
partial
mainstreami
ng in
 regular
classes (13).

Bayat, Within that Given the I Findings Perspective A model of A dominant In the
M. overarching vulnerabilit establis from s on disability helps proportion of current
(2014). goal, y of hed a these Central explain how the modern disability
educators children researc studies Concepts in concept of Western literature,
Global
and with h have the Special disability is education the medical
educatio advocates special project included Needs defined, and professionals model is
n around the needs in Cote analyses Education therefore in what operate from mentioned
diplomac world are around the d'Ivoir of how Any kind ways the society a social in a
y and world, e in African of devises laws and model of dismissive
working to
inclusion global 2008 religions advocacy policies for disability. light, and
ensure education to and local work is not treatment of The social there is a
in children diplomacy underst culture possible individuals who model general
developi with special on behalf and the influence without are affected by focuses on assumption
ng needs of inclusion educati the collaboratio disabilities. There the child, the that this
countries receive a should be on and education n among are many such environment, model is no
: Lessons quality of treatme of various models, including and the longer
from particular nt of children stakeholder medical, social, interactions accurate or
education. importance childre with s in the rehabilitation, and between the relevant to
West For many, for n with disabilitie field (e.g., cultural models two, which modern
Africa. this means internation develo s, ethical early (6). may education
Childhoo pursuing al pmenta considerat childhood accordingly (see
d programs of educators. l and ions in education render that detailed
Educatio inclusion. However, intellec advocatin and special child as discussions
n, 90(4), advocacy tual g for needs "disabled" or on this topic
The author
272+. and disabili inclusion education). "enabled" by
of this education ties, of In (7). Anastasiou
Retrieve article uses efforts for and to children establishing &
d from the tools of children advoca with a Kauffman,
http://lin education with te for special collaborativ 2013; Grue,
k.galegro diplomacy special their needs, e team, the 2009, 2011;
needs human and parties McKenzie,
up.com/a being
continue to and models of begin with 2013). Most
pps/doc shaped by lag behind educati disability some special
the compared onal in Cote fundamenta needs
Association to other rights. d'Ivoire l education
for internation (5). (5). understandi advocates
Childhood al ng of the from
Education educational central economicall
efforts in concepts y developed
International most involved in countries
to discuss developing their work hold
the countries. (e.g., severely
influence of In this special negative
local article, I needs attitudes
religious draw on interventio about a
my n and early medical
and cultural
experience education), approach to
practices on with which are disability.
the education mostly In an
education of diplomacy based on internationa
children in Cote their own l context,
d'Ivoire assumption however,
with (also s, attitudes, this type of
disabilities, known as and attitude is
the the Ivory experiences problematic
dominant Coast), to . This is the , because it
models of discuss first step does not
some of the before align with
disability,
challenges setting realities of
 and the and goals and special
differences implication the means needs
in s for of education in
practice. achieving most
conceptualiz
(3). them. In the regions of
ing instance of the world,
inclusive differences
special nor does it
education in the needs allow for a
across the dominant education compromise
world. The models of in an among
article disability in internationa collaborator
developing l context, it s for
highlights is important creating a
the need to nations vs.
that all feasible
take an economical stakeholder approach to
approach ly s (e.g., advocacy
informed by developed education and system
education nations, advocates change
and and within each
diplomacy
differences teachers, context
when government (9).
advocates of in the al
inclusive conceptual representati
education meaning of ves, NGO
seek to inclusion workers,
around the parents,
collaborate
world (4). and
with various children)
stakeholders begin from
in the fields a common
understandi
of early
ng of the
 education central
and special concepts.
needs These
concepts
education
include, but
(1). are not
limited to,
disability,
special
education,
and
inclusion
(5-6).

Szecsi, Inclusion is While this The In In addition Many call for Existing The Agency's Such
T., & a term used Internation first addition, to this surrounding arrangements ultimate aim barriers
Giambo, to describe al Focus editor's and focus on a appropriate within is to Schanin include
the ideology Issue is not profess classroom specific assessment in a organizations and Reiter, in inconsistent
D. A.
that each intended to ional practices, geographic multilingual may need a "From match
(2007). child, to the debate dedicat family issues, international review to Integration to appropriate
Inclusive maximum theoretical ion to roles, including collaboration to provide Inclusion: technology,
educatio extent and the teacher education promote more opportunities improve and 4)
nal appropriate, philosophic topic prepa- the for children effective country, for school educational advocacy in
practices should be al questions authors authors with special which is staff to attend policy and government
around educated in of all identify area, they enhanced by assistive practice for al policies
the school inclusion, advoca current each note marked technology learners The and
the and as teacher te for challenge the differences assessments Tirat Carmel funding,
world: classroom educators inclusi s and importance inclusive and set-up in Center for negative
An he or she and ve possible of education. Paying the classroom. Learning public
introduct would members of educati ration, internationa close attention to Providing Disabilities support and
ion. otherwise the on, and l needs. the work in allied health as a with encouragem
attend. It Association with a governme The children's professionals special needs ent of
Childhoo involves for of nt interviews socioeconomic and school across student use
d bringing Childhood inclusi policies explored a status; 2) social staff with Europe of assistive
Educatio support Education on of influence wide range stigma presented mentoring and through attitudes,
services to Internation childre inclusive of here has the training to debates on and limited
n, 83(6),
the child al, we are n with solutions collaboratio potential to be implement Lever for infrastructur
338+. (rather than aware of special for n on instructive for of strategies Beneficial e​(6).
Retrieve moving the the needs effective inclusive disabilities as around Integration of
d from child to the potential began inclusion educational well as teachers' assistive Children
http://lin services) for commo (2). practices. lack of technology as With Spe-
k.galegro and requires effective n goal “​discusse views, from preparation those well as how to inclusive
up.com/a only that the inclusive of s her on support of who are working enhance the education
child will education, explori current inclusive toward promoting collaboration and equal
pps/doc/ benefit from when ng the inclusive education inclusive in between team opportunities
being in the implemente ways education to com- special education; members and , accescial
class (rather d properly. for in This and 3) the lack of the family can Needs
than having By that, we imple Australia Internation government- further (4).
to keep up education mentin n schools al Focus education enhance
with the in the g when investigat Issue is an worldwide” assistive
other preparation she ions into attempt to: (6). technology
students) of future was the 1) plete service
(1). teachers for conduc connectio rejection. provision. As
mean, for ting n between However, family-centre
example, researc the values even those dness is
considerati h in and who related to
on of Hungar classroom theoreti- improved
stakeholder y s, with a provide a outcomes for
s' inclusive (2-3). focus on sample of children, an
classrooms. the efforts inclusive ongoing
interests of schools educational commitment
and needs, of programs to
sociocultur Swedish cally family-centre
al factors, society supported d service
and teacher and the concept across
The classroom of inclusive agencies will
co-editor practices education facilitate
came to by way to and increased
inclusive become practices benefits for
education inclusive. that are both the
through She also designed to children and
preparation examines meet their parents
. This issue changing individual (13).
initiates a of the raised
professiona early several
l ex- a childhood concerns
different special about
path ​(2). education poorly
system. implemente
The d needs in
education an inclusive
al setting; 2)
practices, focus on
including curriculum
differenti practices,
ated lack of
instrucaut preparation
hor for general
describes education
Swedish and
education classroom
al policies practices,
and tion the role of
(i.e., use families,
of and the
accommo teachers,
dations and scarce
and resources.
modificati In addition,
ons the a teacher
challenge political
s and
surroundi sociocultur
ng al
moving influences
from that
policy to determine
to lessons educator
to make and mother
informati of a child
on with Down
accessible syndrome
to the features
students of inclusive
practice, programs;
and also 3) review
uncovers national
themes made the
regarding following
class- heartbreaki
with ng
disabilitie statement:
s) and "I and
Universal internationa
Design l policies,
(i.e., collaboratio
careful ns, and
room and trends don't
school think that
practices healthy and
(6). children
with special
that have
had an
impact on
the
education
of children
needs
should be
integrated.
People in
this society
with special
needs in
school
settings,
and 4) offer
[in
Hungary]
are not
willing to
welcome
people with
discussions
of barriers
to inclusive
education
and special
needs. You
 cannot take
these
children to
a
recommend
ations for
overcoming
them.
beach or
any public
place
because
people stare
at them and
make rude
comments.
Since this
view will
change
very
slowly,
these
children
Acknowled
gment ​(3).
Nijland, However, We Two Neuropsy Ten The results Before Furthermore
L., little has hypothesiz groups chologica subtests supported our conducting , studies
Terband, been ed that partici l data were hypothesis. First, parametric indicated
H., & published complex pated were selected in the results analyses, the that
Maassen, about sensorimot in this collected three areas: showed that assumption production
B. neuropsycho or and study: twice in a (a) complex children with of normality symptoms
(2015). logical sequential a period of sensorimot CAS at Occasion was tested and
Cognitiv behavioral memory group about or and 2 performed using perceptual
e research functions of 1–1.5 sequential poorer with Kolmogorov acuity are
functions concerning are related childre years memory respect to the –Smirnov associated
in children to CAS and n with (mean tasks, (b) complex (K-S) tests in children
childhoo with CAS. would CAS interval = simple sensorimotor and for each with CAS.
d apraxia For show a and a 15 sensorimot sequential variable on More
of example, deviance, group months) or tasks, memory functions the specifically,
speech. attention, whereas the of for 17 of and (c) even when nonnormalize Raaymakers
Journal which other typicall these control compared with d (for age) and Crul
Of is a simple y children tasks. Five younger typically scores. The (1988)
Speech, commonly sensorimot develo with of the 10 developing results of this found that
Languag studied or ping CAS3 subtests children. Second, test showed the children
e, And function in functions childre and 17 were the chil- dren with that the with poorer
Hearing developmen and those n. To typically derived CAS performed scores of all articulation
Research tal unrelated to come developin from equal to younger variables proficiency
, 58(3), disorders, speech, to a g children standardize controls on the were on the /-ts/
550-565. has not been such as thorou (see d simple normally cluster
DOI: studied attention gh Appendix assessment sensorimotor and distributed showed
10.1044/ directly in and spatial selecti A for batteries: control tasks. (all K-S Z more
2015_JS children memory, on of descriptiv the These findings scores < variability
LHR-S-1 with CAS. would only the e data of Kaufman indi- cate that 1.33; in the
4-0084. The show a childre both Assessment children with nonsignifican perception
few studies delay in n with groups of Battery for CAS show a t), except for of the
that do not developme CAS, children). Children delay but can three /-s/−/-ts/
deal with nt(20). the It was (K-ABC; catch up with variables that contrast.
speech and followi assumed Kaufman & respect to the had a strong Groenen et
language ng that this Kaufman, simple ceiling or al. (1996)
characteristi proced period of 1983) and sensorimotor and bottom found a
cs ure 15 the Revised control tasks. effect. A similar
have mainly was months Amsterdam However, with bottom effect specific
focused on conduc was long Children’s respect to more was found in relation
motor ted. enough to Intelligence complex motor auditory between the
behavior, First, show a Test and sequential rhythm–both perception
memory speech significan (RAKIT; functions, their hands at and
capacity (in therapi t effect of Bleichrodt, development is Occasion 1 production
particular, sts at developm Drenth, deviant, and they of children of
sequential special ent in the Zaal, & persistently with CAS place-of-arti
memory), schools typically Resing, performed more (K-S Z = culation
and sensory for developin 1984), for poorly.” 1.63, p < .01) errors
processing childre g children which age “​In conclusion, and attention: children
(an n with and to norms are the results of the omissions at with CAS.
overview of speech show a available. present study Occasion 2 These
each is and possible The other indi- they studied of typically results are
provided in langua difference five that the developing in line with
the next ge in subtests did generation of children (K-S the general
three disorde developm not have sequences from Z = 1.43, p < finding that
subsections) rs ent normalized memory .05); a the
. The results selecte between scores (for ceiling effect articulatory
of these d the two detailed ated a deviant was found proficiency
studies and childre groups. description development in for finger of speakers
their n in the The age of each localization: producing a
complex
interpretatio age of the subtest, see one finger contrast is
ns range children Appendix sensorimotor and with looking related to
diverge(3). of 4 to with CAS B). was performed at both their
7 at Because a equally poorly as occasions of perceptual
years; Occasion comparison producing typically ability to
criteria 1 was group of spontaneous se- developing discriminate
were between age-matche children the contrast
specifi ages 4;11 d typically (Occasion 1: (Perkell,
c [years;mo developing equential memory K-S Z = Guenther, et
speech nths] and children functioning in the 1.38, p < .05; al., 2004;
difficul 6;10 (M = was group of children Occasion 2: Perkell,
ties 5;8); the available in quences, thereby K-S Z = Matthies, et
and a typically this study, 1.52, p < al., 2004),
questioning the
clinical developin we only role of memory in .05). and similar
judgme g children report poor Therefore, relationship
nt of were nonnormali the effects of s between
suspect slightly zed scores with CAS that Occasion and speech
ed younger: in the was significantly Group were perception
CAS. between analyses. correlated with tested on and
The 4;7 and Furthermor severity of speech composite production
speech 6;6 (M = e, hand involvement. In scores measures
therapi 5;6). The preference (totals) of have been
addition, the
sts also age of the of each auditory found for
filled children child was children with rhythm children
in a with CAS determined CAS showed a (preference diagnosed
form at on the basis delay in the hand, with
concer Occasion of the hand development of nonpreferenc phonologica
ning 2 (about that was other cognitive e hand, both l
speech 15 used for func- tions. These hands) and disorders(23
charact months writing/dra finger -24)
eristics later) was wing. The results suggest localization:
of between tests are that CAS involves one finger
these 6;1 and summarize a symp- tom (“with
childre 8;3 (M = d in Table 2 complex that not looking” was
n. 6;11); the and fully only comprises added to
Sevent typically described errors of “without
y developin in looking”).
sequencing
childre g children Appendix These
n were were B(9). speech composite
referre between movements but scores were
d for the age of implicates normal(12).
further 6;3 and comorbidity in
assess 8;0 (M = nonverbal
ment. 7;1).(9).
sequential
Subseq
uently, functioning in
recordi most children
ngs with CAS.(24).
were
made
of
these
childre
n, and
these
were
judged
by the
authors
and
assista
nts
who
were
speech
-langua
ge
patholo
gists
(conse
nsus
judgme
nt) on
intellig
ibility
of
speech
 and the
possibl
e
involve
ment
of
dysarth
ria(25).
Kwok, E. Using these We Twent Nineteen To address To explore the Our decision Our study
L., AEP hypothesiz y-one of the our first difference to compare does not
Joanisse, maturity ed that 7- to children research between AEP–age maximum allow for
M. F., estimates, AEP 10-yea with DLD questions, and chronological ICC was explicit
Archibal we then maturity r-old were we age at an based on two conclusions
d, L. D., examined would childre recruited compared individual level, consideration about what
& Oram four predict n with and our group paired t tests were s: (a) Past neural
Cardy, J. research receptive DLD complete of children conducted. research underpinnin
(2018). questions: but not partici d with DLD Participants in the suggested gs might be
Immatur (a) Do expressive pated. standardiz to our mild DLD group that the ICC reflected by
e children language All ed testing previously had an AEP–age resulting auditory
auditory with DLD ability(5). childre as a part reported similar to their from cortical
evoked differ from n were of a sample of own comparisons immaturity
potential children primar large-scal children chronological to in children
s in with TD in y e, with TD on age, t(8) = 0.457, age-matched with
children their AEP Englis epidemiol demographi p = .66, whereas normative moderate–s
with maturity h ogical c variables participants with waveforms evere DLD.
moderate overall? (b) speake investigat and moderate–severe would be Moreover,
--severe Can we rs with ion of the AEP–age DLD had an lower in the we are
develop predict no language, using AEP–age group with unable to
mental language neurol reading, independen significantly DLD, and (b) address the
language ability in ogical, and t-samples t younger than their maximum important
disorder. children hearing arithmetic tests. To chronological ICC question of
Journal with DLD , or skills of examine age, t(11) = represented whether this
Of using AEP visual 4- to our second 3.515, p = .005. the immaturity
Speech, maturity? impair 10-year-o research Our lack of comparison is isolated
Languag (c) Are AEP ment ld question, normative that yielded to the
e& waveforms by children we waveforms for the highest auditory
Hearing more parenta in a local explored children aged 6 resemblance system,
Research immature or l school the relation years and younger between two rather than
, 61(7), only report. board between and 11 years and AEP part of a
1718-17 immature in All (Archibal chronologic older does limit waveforms. broader
30. children partici d, Oram al age, the precision of Hence, immaturity
doi:10.10 with pants Cardy, AEP–age, the AEP– age analyzing that extends
44/2018_ moderate–se comple Joanisse, and estimates for maximum beyond the
JSLHR- vere DLD ted the & Ansari, language individual ICC is auditory
L-17-042 compared Wechsl 2013). ability by children. similar to cortex.
0 with er We conducting Nonetheless, we comparing However, it
children Abbrev contacted a did explore the children with is worth
with mild iated families hierarchical proportion of DLD to considering
DLD? (d) Is Intellig of regression individual typical how our
AEP ence children analysis to children in each controls who findings
maturity in Scale from this predict group who had are most might relate
children (WASI study variance in young AEP closely to other
with DLD ; who CELF-4 values for their matched in neural
related to Wechl scored 1 Core age by subtracting auditory correlates of
receptive er, SD below Language their AEP–age processing DLD, both
language 1999) the mean scores. In from their maturity. If for
ability, and on the Step 1 of chronological we found no speculating
expressive Clinica CELF-4 the age. Most difference in on how
language l Core hierarchical children with the AEP
ability, or Evalua Language regression moderate–severe distribution immaturity
both?(5). tion of score and analysis, DLD had of maximum might
Langua who only negative values ICC between connect
ge consented chronologic (11/12), that is, the two with
Funda to be al age was their AEP–age groups, it previously
mental contacted entered as a was younger than would reported
s–Four regarding predictor of their suggest that structural
th future language chronological most of our and
Edition research ability. age, compared participants functional
(CELF opportuni Both with children with with DLD differences
-4; ties. The chronologic mild DLD (4/9). have AEPs in the DLD
Semel, remaining al age and The children with that resemble population
Wiig, three AEP–age the largest one of our and for
& participan were differences (i.e., available highlighting
Secord ts were included in 2- to 3-year normative how this
, recruited Step 2 in delay) were 10 waveforms. immaturity
2003). from order to years old, which However, if a might
To be personal explore may not be difference indeed be
include contacts whether surprising was found, it predominan
d in the and additional considering that would tly in the
study, complete variance in this is the one suggest that auditory
partici d the language group for which our available system.(16).
pants standardiz ability there were three normative
must ed tests at could be younger AEP
have the explained normative waveforms
receive university above and waveforms are not
da lab. To beyond the available for sufficient for
CELF- rule out effect of comparison. estimating
4 Core the developme Some of the the
Langua possibilit ntal younger children development
ge y of maturation. might also have of AEPs in
below autism We elected gaps of this our group of
85 spectrum not to magnitude, but participants
(i.e., disorder, include PIQ this cannot be with DLD. In
more all as an evaluated without that case, we
than 1 participan additional having younger would have
SD ts scored predictor in (4- to 6-year) to expand our
below below the our normative recruitment
the cutoff on regression waveforms of children
mean) the Social analysis available.” with TD to
and Communi because, (a) “One possible establish the
WASI cation in our extension of our normative
Perfor Questionn previous differential waveforms in
mance aire article on findings for our a broader age
IQ Lifetime children mild versus range(9).
(PIQ) Form with TD moderate–severe
standar (Rutter, (Kwok et groups with DLD
d score Bailey, & al., 2018), is that our neural
at or Lord, PIQ was data may be
above 2003), a not a informative in the
85 caregiver- significant consideration of
(i.e., complete predictor of ideal test score
no d AEP–age; cutoffs for
more screening (b) in our language
than 1 tool(5-6). current impairment
SD dataset, classification in
below PIQ was clinical and
the not research samples.
mean). correlated That is, the
WASI with the distinction
PIQ age between children
rather equivalents with mild versus
than at any of moderate– severe
Full-Sc the three DLD in their
ale IQ frontal cortical responses
was channels; to sound could be
used to and (c) our taken as neurally
estimat sample of based support for
e 21 children the use of the
intellig with DLD 10th percentile
ence in did not (roughly 1.25 SD
this provide below the mean)
group adequate rather than a more
of power for a liberal cutoff of 1
childre third SD below the
n in predictor in mean(11).
order our
to analysis.
avoid To address
confou our third
nding research
langua question,
ge we
impair compared
ment our group
with of children
IQ with mild
estimat DLD to
ion (5). those with
moderate–s
evere DLD
on
demographi
c variables
and
AEP–age
using
independen
t-samples t
tests.
Lastly, to
address our
fourth
research
question,
we
examined
the ability
of
AEP–age to
predict
receptive
and
expressive
language
abilities.
Regression
analysis
was
conducted
on all
participants
with DLD
using
AEP–age
as a
predictor of
receptive
and
expressive
language
scores. We
used the
CELF-4
Concept
and
Following
Directions
subtest as
an estimate
of receptive
language
ability and
the
Recalling
Sentences
subtest as
an estimate
of
expressive
language
ability. For
receptive
language,
the Concept
and
Following
Directions
subtest was
the only
subtest
completed
by all
participants
. For
expressive
language,
we elected
to use
Recalling
Sentences
rather than
the
Formulated
Sentences
subtest (the
only two
expressive
language
subtests
completed
by all
participants
) as this
subtest has
been shown
to be most
sensitive in
differentiati
ng children
with
language
impairment
s from
those
without
(8-9).
 Synthesis Matrix Analysis of Literature

Foundational Sub Problem 2: ___​How effective is the implementation of electronic speaking programs for children with speech Apraxia?
______________________________________________________________

APA Purpose Framework Sample Design Variables/ Results Controversies, Assumptions, Implications
format instruments disagreements Limitations for practice,
reference Overarching Hypothesis/ How the with other and research,
Question Objective How the Validity hypothesis was authors Delimitations theory
data was and supported/rejected
collected Reliability You will add a
? Conclusion and list of authors
further studies referenced in
this section on
a separate
page
Karlsson, As a Specificall A Special The parent Ninety-four Although a To facilitate
P., consequence y, the study cross-s educators survey was parents returned strength of the
Johnston, , assistive objectives ectiona , developed the survey; of this study implementat
C., & technology were to l classroom to identify these, 18 were was that it ion of a
Barker, is often determine survey teachers perceptions excluded because focused on family-centr
K. sought to (1) which was and of care of missing data on key ed
(2017). compensate stakeholder used to teaching delivered the type of stakeholders approach, it
Stakehol and provide s are collect assistants, by their assistive from all is
ders' an present data. here child’s technology used states and recommend
views of alternative during the Ethics referred team. by their child. territories in ed that
the means of assessment approv to as School One-hundred and Australia family-centr
introduct performing and set-up al was school staff and forty-two across the ed
ion of activities in of obtaine staff, and allied school staff and three behaviour
assistive specific technology d from assistive health allied health different be taught
technolo environment in the technolog professiona professionals school and
gy in the s such as the the Human y ls were returned the systems encouraged
classroo classroom classroom; Resear consultan asked to surveys; of these, (public, in
m: How (Nicolson et (2) which ch ts, complete a 42 were excluded Catholic pre-service
family-c al. 2013). stakeholder Ethics occupatio survey in because of failing systemic and training and
entred is Assistive s are Commi nal relation to to Independent in modules
Australia technology perceived ttee, therapists a specific identify the type and the offered for
n is an to be Wester , speech student of technology or disability post-graduat
practice umbrella helpful in n pathologi (unidentifie leaving most of sector), the e
for term for any the Sydney sts, here d) they the sample size professional
students device or provision Univer referred personally questionnaire and its developmen
with system that of assistive sity to as had blank. Survey data distribution t. The aim
cerebral enables a technology and allied supported were analysed for mean that the would be to
palsy?. person to to the from a health in relation 100 school findings influence
Child: perform a student; further professio to assistive staff and allied cannot be the culture
Care, task that (3) how 24 nals, technology health generalized and best
Health & would parents, Human around in the professionals; to the practice in
Develop otherwise be school staff Resear Australia classroom special educators Australian schools and
ment, too hard to and allied ch received in the last (n = 20), population. disability
43(4), execute or health Ethics study 12 months. classroom The study organization
598-607. that professiona Commi informati The online teachers (n = 4), would also s. Previous
doi:10.11 facilitates ls ttees, on and survey for teaching assistants have been studies have
11/cch.1 how a task assess the Educati survey allied (n = 5), strengthened pointed to
2468. can be level of on and packages health occupational had there the
performed family-cent Catholi across professiona therapists (n = been the immediate
(World redness of c 628 sites; ls and 33), speech opportunity and
Health the Educati public paper pathologists (n = to match the long-term
Organizatio assistive on schools self-admini 32), students, benefits in
n 2004). technology Offices (n = 454), stered assistive their attitudinal
Assistive provision across Catholic surveys for technology families, change and
technology they Austral systemic school staff consultants (n = 4) school staff skills
includes experience ia. schools and parents (e.g. Head of and allied among
both d; and (4) Respon (n = 166), were School or health pre-service
low-tech what dents disability divided a role supporting professionals professional
and relationship were organizati into three school staff) and . As s who were
high-tech s exist parents ons (n = parts. The others not previously introduced
devices. between of 2), first part specified (n = 2). noted, this to
Examples of the roles childre paediatric collected The school staff was not family-centr
low-tech and work n who and demograph and allied health deemed ed
devices are experience use assistive ic details. respondents were feasible principles in
adapted of school assistiv technolog In the drawn because of their
equipment staff and e y specific second from seven states both the coursework
such as allied technol on-line part, and territories in anonymity of (Murray
picture health ogy in list serves stakeholder Australia. the survey and
boards, sign professiona the (n = 6). s were Sixty-seven and the ways Mandell
language ls and their classro These asked percent of the in which it 2004,
and walkers. perceptions om, stakehold whether or respondents was 2006).
Electronic of here ers were not they worked in a distributed. Furthermore
communicat familycentr referre invited to had been metropolitan area; Indeed, , the use of
ion devices, edness d to as participat involved in 17% matching the a clearly
using in the primar e if they the in a regional area sample structured
synthetic or assistive y had assessment and 15% in a rural would have process in a
digitalized technology caregiv supported and set-up area. resulted in a client-centre
speech for provision ers students stage of the Respondents’ lower d and
Augmentati they and, aged 7 to assistive state/territory and response rate. familycentr
ve and provide special 18 years technology location are Finally, ed
Alternative (3-4). educat to use implement presented in Table whilst the framework
Communica ors, high-tech ation. The 1. School questionnaire for assistive
tion, micro classro assistive second part staff and allied s that were technology
switches to om technolog also listed health developed assessment
control teacher y in the personnel professionals’ for this study and
computers, s, classroom who may years of provided implementat
powered teachin in the last be experience in their valuable ion will
wheelchairs g 12 involved in current roles and information guide the
and assista months. implement working with about the developmen
environment nts, Allied ation of students with respondents’ t of
al control occupa health assistive cerebral palsy assistive educational
(Bailey et tional staff were technology ranged from less technology goals using
al. 2006) are therapi contacted in the than a year to experience, assistive
examples of sts, via email classroom more than 10 some technology
high-tech speech and were (e.g. years. Most had limitations and may
devices and patholo invited to parents, worked for longer arise from increase
are the focus gists complete teacher, than a year (Table their use. For school staff
of this who, in an online occupation 2). example, the attendance
study. the last survey. al therapist The parents lived use of a in the
Effective 12 School and speech across four states single item to assessment
use of months staff were pathologist and territories measure the stage and
assistive , had notified ). Using a (Table 1). assessment increase
technology been about the 6-point Eighty-seven and set-up their
will assist part study scale (1 = percent of mothers stage did not confidence
children of a through not very and 76% of permit and skills
with team their helpful, 2 = fathers were born detailed when
cerebral support school not helpful, in Australia. In examination setting up
palsy to ing the principal 3= addition to of these the
maximize use of and somewhat English, 14.5% of processes. technology
their assistiv received unhelpful, parents spoke The in the
learning and e study 4= another language development classroom.
interaction technol informati somewhat at home. of more A further
in the ogy for on, a helpful, 5 = The majority of sensitive, positive
a survey helpful, 6 = parents (93%), validated outcome
classroom student package very school staff and measures is would be
(3). with and a helpful), allied health needed(13). the increase
cerebra reply paid the professionals in use of the
l palsy. envelope. participatin (88%) responded assistive
Potenti Consent g parents, for children technology
al was school staff attending public by the
particip inferred and allied schools. Students’ student(12).
ating by return health ages ranged from
parents of the professiona 7 to 18 years,
were survey. ls were most (68%)
identifi The asked to were boys. School
ed by recruitme rate their grade ranged from
Cerebr nt process experience 1 to 13, the
al ensured s of the majority in
Palsy that allied helpfulness grade 3, 53%
Registe health of the attended primary
rs in professio stakeholder school, and 41%
New nals and s involved high school.
South school in the Most parents
Wales, staff were assessment (70%) reported
Austral anonymo and set-up that their child
ian us but using two received
Capital also items: (1) classroom support
Territo meant Think back from a teaching
ry, that their to the assistant. Of these
South responses assessment parents,
Austral could not and 56% reported that
ia and be planning a teaching
Victori matched stage of the assistant was
a. with assistive employed
Cerebr students technology throughout the full
al and their . How school day.
Palsy parents. would you The majority of
Registe Lack of rate the parents, school
rs do funding involveme staff and allied
not precluded nt of the health
hold follow-up professiona professionals
inform surveys ls? and (2) reported that the
ation and Think back students for whom
on reminders to the they
assistiv being set-up of responded were
e sent. The the not able to walk
technol data assistive independently,
ogy, so collection technology had difficulty
all took . How communicating
parents place would you effectively, had
(n = between rate the limited hand
969) of March involveme function and
school- 2009 and nt of the needed alternative
aged March professiona ways to access
childre 2010 (5). ls? The activities.
n, 7–18 third part Children’s levels
years of the on
old, survey the Gross Motor
regardl measured Function
ess of stakeholder Classification
type s’ System Expanded
and perceptions and
topogra of Revised (Palisano
phy of family-cent et al. 2008),
cerebra red Manual Ability
l palsy, assistive Classification
commu technology System (Eliasson
nicatio care. et al. 2006) and
n and Parents Communication
functio completed Function
nal the Classification
abilitie Measure of System (Cooley
s were Processes Hidecker et al.
sent of Care-20 2011) are
study (MPOC-20 summarized in
inform ) that Fig. 1.
ation consists of Surprisingly,
and 20 items given the
survey spread over challenge of the
packag five scales: students’ physical
es (1) functioning, only
(includ Enabling 12% used a
ing a and combination
reply-p Partnership of
aid ; (2) speech-generating
envelo Providing devices,
pe). General specialized
Parents Informatio software and
were n; (3) alternative access.
invited Providing The majority of
to Specific students
comple Informatio exclusively used a
te the n about the speech-generating
survey child; (4) device (29%) as
packag Coordinate their only form of
es if d and assistive
their Comprehen technology for
child sive Care school work, with
was for the 25% reporting that
using child and they used
high-te family; and specialized
ch (5) software. An
assistiv Respectful additional 5%
e and reported using
technol Supportive low-tech systems.
ogy in Care (King Unexpectedly,
the et al. 1997; given the
classro King et al. students’ level of
om. 2004a). hand functioning,
Consen School not more than
t was staff and 24% used
inferre allied alternative access
d from health and 5% reported
return professiona using mounting
of the ls solutions to allow
surveys completed for
(4-5). the accessibility(7-9).
Measure of
Processes Both measures
of Care for have good
Service test–retest
Providers reliability and
(MPOC-SP good internal
). Four consistency(5)
scales (27
items) are “Findings from
included in the MPOC-20 and
the MPOC-SP
MPOC-SP: suggest that
(1) further attention
Showing needs to be given
Interperson to strategies
al across all
Sensitivity; domains. Five
(2) strategies that
Providing could contribute
General to improved
Informatio Providing General
n; (3) Information are
Communic (1) providing
ating information on
Specific types of services
Informatio available in the
n about the school or
child; and disability
(4) organization; (2)
Treating modelling
People strategies to
Respectfull implement
y technology; (3)
(Woodside providing a
et al. written resource
2001). of examples of
Each item how assistive
on the technology can be
MPOC-20 used at school and
and the at home; (4)
MPOC-SP providing
is rated on opportunities to
a 7-point network with
Likert-type parents; and (5)
scale to providing parents
examine with information
the extent on the particular
to which piece of
respondent technology
s agree. prescribed for
The their child.
average The findings point
score is to the need to
calculated facilitate
for each opportunities for
scale classroom
resulting in teachers and
a score teaching assistants
ranging to be involved
from 7 across all stages
(agrees to a of the technology
very great process, not only
extent) to 1 in setting up the
(does not technology in the
agree at classroom.
all). The Creating
MPOC-20 opportunities to
and the ensure school
MPOC-SP staff’s
take 5 to involvement in the
10 min to technology
complete. assessments
Both where goals and
measures plans for the
have good assistive
test–retest technology are
reliability collected may
and good facilitate the
internal school staff’s
consistency work during the
(5). implementation of
the technology in
the classroom.
Further research is
required into
effective service
delivery models
for assistive
technology in
schools to
increase the
collaboration and
shared
decision-making
between all
stakeholders
working to
support the
student using
technology
equipment.
Inclusion of
school staff, with
knowledge of
classroom
activities, in the
assessment
sessions, has the
potential to
increase the
success of
 implementing the
assistive
technology 13).

Mâţă, L., Developmen The To There  The studies  Analysis of the Surely in the  The benefits 
Pânişoar t of new  systematic identif was  focused on  studies on coming years  of applying 
ă, G., technologies  analysis y applied a  the use of  psychoeducational there will be  these 
Făt, S., to correct  highlights studies comprehe interactive  interventions developed  technologie
Malurea language  how in the nsive  psychoedu using different advanced  s are 
nu, C., & deficiencies  interactive field, search of  cational  technologies to technologies  multiple 
Lazăr, I. becomes a  technologie there studies  interventio correct speech for speech  and 
(2018). priority if  s support was published  n  disorders reveals disorder  efficiency is 
Systemat we consider  psychoeduc conduc in  technologie the following therapy.  even more 
ic review the current  ational ted a journals  s for  results depending Regarding  increased if 
of statistics.  interventio compre indexed  language  on the main mode the spectrum  we rely on 
technolo There are  n strategies hensive in  disorders  of delivery and of speech  an 
gy-based 2.5 million  in search internatio have been  communication disorders, it  interdiscipli
psychoed people in  correcting of nal  analyzed in  tools. In relation is clear that  nary 
ucational the United  speech studies databases relation to  to the main mode of all studies,  approach. If 
intervent Kingdom  disorders. focuse , such as  the  of delivery, it was 11 are aimed  we consider 
ions for (UK) and  Baxter et d on Scopus,  following  found that most at children or  the types of 
language 7.5 million  al. (2012) the use Taylor  variables:  studies (25) people with  technologie
disorders people in  have of and  the main  are focused on Autism  s used to 
. the United  analyzed interact Francis,  mode of  web-based Spectrum  improve 
BRAIN: States that  studies ive Web of  delivery;  technologies, Disorders.  and correct 
Broad have a  conducted psycho Science,  communica while other There are  deficiencies 
Research speech or  between educati ERIC.  tion tools.  studies (3) focus also a  of language, 
In language  2000 and onal The used  According  on mobile number of  there may 
Artificial disorder  2010 interve keywords  to the main  technologies, studies that  be observed 
Intellige (Frost and  focused on ntion included  mode of  some relate more  a 
nce & McCrindle,  the use of technol various  delivery,  to impaired  prevalence 
Neurosci 2016). Also  high
ence, in Russia,  augmentati
9(1), 10-25% of  ve and
151. children  alternative
Retrieve have  communica
d from difficulty in  tion (AAC)
Complim reading in  technology
entary the early  to correct
Index school years  speech
database. (Vasilyeva,  disorders.
2016). It is  A
important  systematic
that new  analysis
technologies  based on
for speech  the frame
disorders  PRISMA
therapy be  has been
developed  conducted
and applied  by Chen et
correctly, so  al. (2016)
they may  regarding
provide  virtual
support to  therapies
therapists  for
and benefits  correcting
to patients  speech
(Schrӧder et  disorders.
al., 2007).  Some tests
With their  are very
help, there  specific,
will be  focusing on
applied the  the
ogies combinati there are  studies (3) on language,  of the web 
for ons of  three  combined indicating the  technologie
langua terms  categories  technologies and vagueness  s focused on 
ge frequentl (Zhao et  only one study and lack of  creating 
disorde y used in  al., 2017):  involves the use long-term  specific 
rs. speech  web-based,  of robots effects of  educational 
There disorders  mobile-bas Depending on the psychoeducat software, 
were therapy:  ed and  communication ional  virtual 
analyze language  combinatio tools, centralized interventions.  platforms, 
d only disorders,  n. The  data show that Regarding  augmentativ
studies speech  communica most studies (28) the age of the  e and 
in therapy,  tion tools  exploit participants  alternative 
English speech  are diverse,  the display user in these  communicat
that disorders,  for  interface, unlike studies, it  ion systems, 
were language  example,  others (4) that appears that  computer 
publish therapy,  playback  made use of most studies  training 
ed in language  video,  playback are designed  programs, 
peer-re technolog display  video(15-16). for children  internet-bas
viewed ies(5). user  from  ed-speech-l
journal interface.  “In this study kindergarten  anguage 
s In Table 1  there were and  therapy, 
betwee there are  systematically elementary  books or 
n shown the  analyzed 32 or secondary  electronic 
2007-2 results of  specialized school,  guides, 
017. the  articles from the except for the  virtual 
The descriptive  last 10 years in the studies in the  communicat
study analysis of  domain of field of  ion 
relies the studies,  psychoeducational aphasia that  environmen
on the organized  interventions are  ts, 
Cochra according  based on conducted on  interactive 
ne to the main  information and adults(17). multimedia 
Handb language  communication learning 
most  exploration ook for disorders  technologies to object, 
appropriate  of studies System (Aphasia,  correct speech computer 
methods  based on atic Apraxia,  disorders. reading 
that would  the use of Review articulation  According to the strategies, 
allow for  information s of disorder,  results, most video 
exercises  and Interve Autism  studies report on games, 
adapted to  communica ntions Spectrum  psychoeducational computer 
the patients’  tion Versio Disorders,  interventions that assisted 
individual  technologie n 5.1.0. Dysartria,  used web-based speech 
therapy  s to correct and a Dyslexia/R technologies therapy(17).
needs.  speech current eading  depending on the
Stahmer et  disorders. study difficulties,  main mode of
al. (2011)  Ramdoss et on the Hearing  delivery and the
propose the  al. (2011) system disability,  display user
validation of  conducted atic Velo-phary interface and
various  a analysi ngeal  communication
technologies  systematic s of Insufficien tools. The results
for  review on inform cy, voice  of this systematic
individualiz the use of ation disorders).  review provide
ed treatment  computer-b and For each  support for further
of language  ased commu category of  studies in this area
disorders  educational nicatio disorder  to assess the use
depending  interventio n there are  of
on the  ns to technol mentioned  technology-based
characteristi improve ogies the author  psychoeducational
cs of the  literacy used in or authors  interventions for
patient,  skills psycho of the  people with
family and  (reading, educati research,  speech
practitioner  writing and onal the target  disorders(19).
(3). vocabulary interve group, the 
) for ntions type of 
students for interactive 
with autism depress technologie
spectrum ion s, research 
disorders. (Zhao methods 
Grynszpan et al., and key 
et al. 2017). results(5).
(2014) These
have two
started a marker
meta-analy s
sis of provide
studies update
based on d
innovative guidan
technology ce on
-based the
interventio standar
ns for ds and
children method
with s for
autism. carryin
Wainer and g out a
Ingersoll comple
(2011) x
have system
examined atic
items based review
on (4).
computeriz
ed
interventio
ns for
building
communica
tion and
social skills
in autistic
people with
the help of
the
PsychINFI
and
PubMed
databases.
Another
specific
analysis of
the studies
conducted
between
1990 and
2013 in
terms of
the
technologie
s used for
correcting
autism at
teenagers
has been
undertaken
by Odom et
al. (2015)
and
highlighted
their
impact on
academic
achieveme
nt, adaptive
behavior,
communica
tion,
independen
ce, social
skills and
vocational
skills.
Worthingto
n (2016)
has
proposed a
revision of
specialized
studies on
the
treatment
and
technologie
s used in
the
rehabilitati
on of
apraxia.
Unlike
previous
analyses
 that
focused on
presenting
analytical
studies
(Boucenna
et al.,
2014), the
present
study
provides a
systematic,
detailed
analysis on
the types of
technologie
s used in
correcting
speech
disorders
(3-4).
Saturno, There are The Experi Before The study Even so the In fact, this is The
C. E., other research ments starting was carried student was able a diffi- cult software
Ramirez, associated sought to began the at FCEE, to build an and delicate registered
A. G., problems, analyse the by dialogue located in intelligible task, where the spent
Conte, because students’ conduc with the the city of sentence the results time and the
M. J., cognitive performanc ting a AAC São José, composed of three take some number of
Farhat, developmen e through a dialogu tool, the Santa symbols. For this, time to be communicat
M., & t is directly dialogue e with system Catarina, he spent 57 reached and ion errors
Piucco, related to with and the was Brazil. seconds. It is strongly on each
E. C. language. without student presented Students A noteworthy that depend on speech
(2015). So the lack using the s, using to the and B the total time for therapy
An of designed their students participate construction of human session.
augment communicat AAC tool. physica for a d in phrases takes into factors.” Besides the
ative and ion with The l board. period of different account the scan student
alternativ other people efficiency Typical 30 stages of time (the time it “Another making
e in earlier and ly minutes, this takes for the shortcoming progress
communi stages of life satisfaction student enabling research. system to switch noticed was during the
cation can in using the s them to However, between symbols) the lack of sessions, it
tool for irreversibly AAC attempt understan one of and the time functionality was
children impair their software an d how to them left between to ‘erase’ the remarked
and intellectual were averag use the the commands (the last symbol that more
adolesce capacity in observed” e rate tool. This institution interval that the inserted on uses are
nts with the future. of 15 test was prematurel system waits the board. At required to
cerebral This “In this symbol started by y during before recognising this stage, if adapt the
palsy. problem is scenario, s students the another symbol). the student system to
Behavio even more augmentati selectio A and B, experiment The sum of these selects a the
ur & critical ve and ns per but only s. Thus, the time intervals wrong student’s
Informati when alternative minute. student A system was greatly symbol, he preferences.
on language is communica It is conclude completely undermines the would have It is also
Technolo affected by tion (AAC) import d the evaluated communication to restart the necessary to
gy, brain systems ant to experime by only speed. However, it whole develop
34(6), injury(1). emerge as remark nt. For one student was necessary to sentence. alternative
632-645. solutions to that this (student adapt these rate This resulted input
doi.org/1 complemen speech reason, A). A times so that the in a devices
0.1080/0 t speech or, therapi this speech student could considerable adapted to
144929X in extreme st section therapist build the loss of time, their skills.
.2015.10 cases, to encour only and an sentences not to Particularly,
19567. replace it ages describes occupation properly, feeling mention the the use of
completely the the al therapist confident in using possibility an adapted
(Ann and student results from FCEE the AAC that stapler
Theng s to use obtained also took tool.(14). reconstructin showed
2011). a by part in the g the promising
AAC syntact student study. The sentence results in
systems are ic A. research Studies could also could also reducing the
based on approa Initially, sought to be conducted with give rise to effort and
physical or ch, to select analyse the people with other new errors time spent
virtual starting the students’ kinds of and fatigue. needed to
boards and each desired performanc disabilities, such So this carry out
use text, sentenc symbol, e through a as autism. Thus, feature was the
figures or e with the dialogue expanding the reformulated. activities.
icons the student with and scope is desirable As far as a The
representin subject required without to assess the symbol was prototype
g everyday (12). the use of using the degree of selected by also sought
activities, two input designed generalisation of mistake, the to validate
persons, command AAC tool. the proposed AAC children the symbol
actions, s: one to The tool(20). could delete suggestion
places and highlight efficiency the wrong feature, and
objects. In the and Two school-age symbol (the demonstrate
order to desired satisfaction students with last one d the
communica symbol in using the cerebral palsy selected) or efficiency
te, children and the AAC participated delete the of this
should other to software in this research, whole phrase approach
select these select the were but only one of (14). for assisting
images or symbol. observed them completed it. the user in
icons But he (12). At this time the the
(Romanillo had software sentences
s Palerm problems evaluation was construction
and Ruiz in made by . It was also
1992). properly researchers and carried out
Besides coordinati therapists and the an
there being ng the user was not evaluation
a number movemen directly asked of the
of ts about which tool prototype
hardware required he prefers to with
solutions to to select communicate. We Boardmaker
assist the one believe that more software, by
people with he interactions would performing
communica desired, still be needed to a simulated
tion so the acquire the dialogue,
disorders, automatic necessary skills to showing the
there are scanning handle the advantages
still many resource software. Instead, of the
unanswere was user satisfaction implemente
d questions preferred was directly d
related to instead of observed in each suggestion
how the direct meeting (20-21). symbols
effective selection. mechanism.
these Time rate In addition,
solutions for qualitative
are(1-2). symbols assessments
selection from a
was speech and
adapted an
to the occupationa
user’s l therapist
needs. are also
The presented
automatic (20).
scanning
was
configure
d to every
1000
milliseco
nds, with
100
milliseco
nds
interval
between
command
s. When
using the
scanning
mode,
only the
select
symbol
command
was
necessary
. During
the test,
student A
chose the
stapler
device,
illustrated
in Figure
9, to
select the
symbols.
In this
initial
test, the
student
was
unable to
construct
 coherent
sentences
, due to
the lack
of
familiaris
ation with
the
system
(12).
Salminen This paper There is as The The data In order to The CAC devices Although this “The “Implement
, A., report yet very study gathering analyse the required a great im- proved limitations in ation of a
Ryan, S., describes little was started data on many related their ability to the services new kind of
& Petrie, and information conduc before the individual services both operate the to support assistive
H. evaluates on how ted in a children cases (for before and after CAC devices, CAC in this technology
(2004). the services CAC is special and more the participants it did not study were required
Impact that were introduced school youngster detail, see received them. necessarily not the new skills
of used to to for s received previous The AAC team improve their therapists’ for
computer introduce speech-imp disable their article), all assessed the need social or own choice, everyone
augment computer aired d CAC the for CAC, strategic skills but were due involved.
ed augmented severely childre devices. informatio established the in the to The staff at
communi communicat disabled n and Baseline n collected aims for CAC, functional use circumstance the special
cation on ion (CAC) children youngs informati was selected suitable of CAC s and school had a
the daily devices to and ters in on was organised input devices and devices in inadequate wide variety
lives of speech-impa youngsters, Finland collected chronologi communication different resources. of
speech-i ired children and what . to cally programs for the commu- The educational
mpaired and kind of Ethical establish according participants and nicative therapists in background
children. youngsters. skills and approv individual to data followed up CAC environments. this study s. The
Part II: The report is time al was profiles types. For interventions. The Training the worked very therapists,
Services the second investment gained of the example, main participants to hard and teachers and
to part of a is required from participan the data log responsibility for use their CAC under helpers who
support study that from the ts and forms were providing the devices in considerable participated
computer investigated clinicians, school their combined participants with natural pressure to in the study
augment the impact such as board daily into one CAC devices lay communicativ provide the were all
ed and occupation and lives with individual with the e environ- CAC devices trained, but
communi importance al and from their data log occupational and ments might for the not all of
cation. of speech the communi that speech therapists. have been participants them
Technolo Blissbased therapists. parents cation recorded The speech beneficial for in a situation necessarily
gy & CAC on the This paper of the devices the therapists several of limited had enough
Disabilit daily describes particip before usability of evaluated the reasons. The resources. It training in
y, 16(3), communicat and ants. they communica language participants is not easy to computer
169-177. ion and evaluates The received tion capabilities and might have establish new technology,
Retrieve activities of the services AAC the CAC devices saw to the learnt the services in an or in
d from the six that were team systems. and the selection of functional use organisation assistive
Science severely used to that The data related appropriate of their that has long technology
and disabled introduce include gathering services by communication devices in traditions and or in AAC.
Technolo speech-impa CAC da continued month. programs and those a It is not
gy ired children devices to medica at 3-, 6- Then the vocabularies. The environments continuously known to
database. and six l and data was occupational where they changing what extent
youngsters – speech-imp doctor, 12-month analysed therapists were needed them: staff. Even if the
from the aired occupa intervals and responsible for this would the outcome therapists
point of severely tional after reported as seating and facilitate was not yet used theory
view of the disabled and children individual positioning, motor spontaneous as positive as in their
children and children speech and case access, visual and gener- was practice and
youngsters, and therapi youngster studies. A perception and alised use of expected, a to what
their youngsters, sts, s received cross-case fixtures for CAC devices, change did extent they
discussion whose teacher their analysis mountings. The and give occur in relied on
partners and progress in s and CAC was then special needs discussion participants’ previous
therapists. CAC was helpers devices. made to teachers and a part- ners lives(14). experience.
In addition, followed , in the Each establish helper took an examples of However, at
the study up during special stage of the active part in the how to the time the
aimed to the first school the data similarities CAC facilitate the AAC
understand year of selecte collection and interventions of use of project
the process CAC d involved differences three participants. CAC(12). started at
of change in device use particip videotape in the On some the special
the daily (see ants for d outcomes occasions the school, only
lives of Salminen et the observati of these physiotherapists a few AAC
speech-impa al., the study. ons and individual were involved in training
ired children previous They scoring of case designing the courses
and paper). The based the studies. positioning, motor were
youngsters paper also their participan The data access and available in
following reports selectio ts’ used in this mountings for the Finland, and
the both n on an communi article CAC devices. The the first text
provision of therapists’ assess cation comes technical book in
a CAC and ment skills from personnel were Finnish
de-vice. The parents’ of the with The individual responsible for the about AAC
study perceptions need Assessme case computers. was not
investigated of the for nt of studies and Overall the speech published
CAC in real services(3). CAC, Communi from therapists and until after
life settings which cation cross-case occupational the project
during the include Skills comparison therapists were had started.
first year of da Question s from responsible for the Moreover,
CAC device discuss naire [7] those training of other CAC was
use(2). ion in the categories persons involved quite new in
with main that dealt in use of the CAC this
the natural with the devices. Both the country(4).
particip communi related occupational and
ants’ cative support speech therapy
parents environm services(4). services took
and a ent, and place at the
discuss interview therapists’ own
ion of s with facilities(4).
the participan
expecte ts, their
d chosen
benefit discussio
s for n partners
the (parents,
particip helpers
ants. and
The teachers)
study and their
was occupatio
carried nal and
out speech
with therapists
the . Each
involve month the
ment therapists
of the filled in
disable data logs
d to collect
childre informati
n and on about
youngs the use
ters, and
their performa
occupa nce of
tional both the
and CAC
speech device
therapi and the
sts, and communi
their cation
discuss folder
ion and
partner related
s from
their services
natural (4).
commu
nicativ
e
environ
ments,
such as
at the
school,
the
school
residen
tial
home
and the
family
homes.
Altoget
her, six
7–15-y
ear-old
disable
d
childre
n and
youngs
ters,
seven
parents
, seven
helpers
, eight
teacher
s, four
speech
therapi
sts and
six
occupa
tional
therapi
sts
particip
ated in
the
study.
The
school
staff
had
conside
rable
experie
nce in
the use
of
comput
ers
with
disable
d
childre
n, but
 only a
few
had
any
experie
nce of
CAC
(3-4).
Lancioni, Persons The The All three The study During the Fifth, the The results
G., with autism encouragin particip participan was carried baseline phase, availability of the study
Singh, spectrum g results ants ts out the mean of different indicate that
N., disorder and reported by were attended according frequencies of request the
O'Reilly, severe to the three centers to a communication options participants
M., profound abovementi men for non-concur events (i.e., during used the
Green, intellectual oned and (Dunca persons rent requests various SGD
V., or multiple other n, with multiple understood by the sections of extensively,
Meer, L., disabilities studies Edwin, multiple baseline caregiver) per the day, as increasing
Alberti, often fail to suggest that and disabilitie design session were zero suggested communicat
G., & ... develop SGDs (and Lewis) s, in across or close to zero. above, could ion and
Lang, R. speech or comparable of 44, which participants Accordingly, the be ensured in activity
(2016). other computer-a 49, and arrangem (Barlow et mean cumulative a relatively engagement
A speech expressive ided 29 ents were al. 2009). activity time per practical throughout
generatin language programs) years made to Duncan session was zero manner. In the sessions.
g device skills and are of age, allow had two or very low. fact, one Although
for show valuable respect them baseline During the could store a the
persons inadequate resources ively engageme sessions intervention large variety frequencies
with active for a Dunca nt in a while phase, the mean of request of
intellectu communicat variety of n had number Edwin and frequencies of sentences communicat
al and ion even persons suffere of Lewis had communication into the ion events
sensory- when they with severe d a relevant four events were about computer differed
motor have multiple road activities baseline six, 10, and 11 for system and across
disabiliti interests in disabilities acciden during sessions. the three select for participants,
es. their (Ball et al. t, the day. The participants, possible the mean
Journal environment 2004; which Activities interventio respectively. The activation activity
Of and requests Kagohara caused for n phase mean cumulative only those time per
Develop to make et al. 2010; multipl Duncan included activity time per correspondin session was
mental & (Chung et Lancioni et e bone could 68, 80, and session was about g to the similarly
Physical al. 2012; al. 2013a, fractur include 69 sessions 45 min for options high across
Disabiliti Cockerill et c, 2014a; es and being for the Duncan and available them. These
es, 28(1), al. 2014; Rispoli et severe guided to three around 50 min for within data, which
85. Iacono et al. al. 2010a, brain the coffee participants Edwin and Lewis. specific are in line
doi:10.10 2013; Light b; Sigafoos injury machine , Participants sessions. with the
07/s1088 and et al. 2013; (concer and respectivel seemed consistent Change of participants’
2-015-94 McNaughto Thunberg ning getting a y. Sessions in choosing the objects strong
24-6 n 2012; et al. the cup of lasted 60 specific activities and tags on preference
DOI McNaughto 2009). frontal coffee, min and (e.g., getting the device for sessions
10.1007/ n and Light Many of lobes having a occurred coffee or a can be easily with the
s10882-0 2013; those and cigarette, once or cigarette for and quickly device,
15-9424- O’Reilly et persons particul gathering twice a Duncan and going carried out, suggests
6. al. 2005; would not arly the the day. to the corner with thus the that they
Roche et al. be able to basal results of Toward the music and device’s use enjoyed the
2014; develop areas) football end of the massage or sorting would be opportunity
Snodgrass et satisfactory with games, study, 36 and putting away fairly to be
al. 2013; /effective subseq and staff material for practical involved in
Sutherland forms of uent having members Edwin and within a variety of
et al. 2014). active coma, some working in Lewis). The other applied activities
Similarly, communica about water or the centers activities could contexts. The entailing
persons with tion 18 specific that the vary across device can interesting
extensive without the years food participants sessions. Also, the also be stimulation
neuro-motor use of such prior to items. attended participants chose considered as well as in
impairment resources the Activities were the session with relatively activities
due to (Beukelma beginni for Edwin interviewe the device in 29 of affordable. In targeting
acquired n et al. ng of could d about the the 30 preference fact, the information
brain injury 2008; this include SGD, checks (i.e., total estimated and
or Brownlee study. table which had across cost for the physical
neurodegene and He had setting, been participants) reported comfort (for
rative Bruening recover object employed carried out during prototype Duncan) or
diseases 2012; ed assemblin for the the intervention version is direct
(e.g., Casey from g, sorting interventio phase. For each about physical
amyotrophic 2011; his and n, and item of the US$1,500 engagement
lateral Lancioni et ordeal putting asked to questionnaire, the (9). with objects
sclerosis) al. 2012a, with away rate its table reports the (8).
often fail to b, c; multipl waste impact and mean rating score
make Sigafoos et e material, usability. and standard
themselves al. 2013). disabili and Baseline deviation
understood This ties collecting Edwin and computed across
having lost evidence involvi water Lewis sat the 36 staff
any can be ng bottles. at their members involved
effective taken as (a) spastic Activities desks in in the interview.
means to clear tetrapar for Lewis which they The scores were
communicat endorseme esis, could had some high (positive) for
e their needs nt of SGDs total combine objects or all five items, with
and desires within blindne those objects and the means ranging
(Casey education ss and used for pictures. from 4.22 to 4.63,
2011; and deafnes Edwin Duncan and the standard
Fried-Oken rehabilitati s, and with was in his deviations from
et al. 2012; on contexts lack of others wheelchair. 0.50 to 0.59 (8).
Lancioni et dealing sphinct such as All three
al. 2013a, c, with eric listening participants “In conclusion,
2014a, b, c; persons control to music were this study
Rispoli et al. with . His and informed at provides
2010b). multiple general drinking the start of encouraging
Given the disabilities, conditi coffee. each evidence on the
critical and (b) on had All three session that use and
relevance encourage gradual participan a caregiver effectiveness of
that any ment to ly ts were was SGD technology
education develop improv apparentl present in with a group of
and new forms ed and, y the room people who have
rehabilitatio of SGDs althoug interested (i.e., the so far received
n program that could J h he in using a caregiver only marginal
attaches to Dev Phys was in technolog contacted attention. New
active Disabil a y device them and research with
communicat (2016) wheelc that could indicated additional
ion, multiple 28:85–98 hair, he help them that she participants would
research 87 be had make was be necessary to
efforts have suitable for reacqui requests working in determine the
been made persons red and thus the room). generality of these
to enable whose satisfac in being Communic findings and
those conditions tory involved ation acquire useful
persons to may recepti in the events information for
express prevent ve present allowed possible
themselves them from commu study. access to intervention
effectively operating nicatio Their the improvements
(Lancioni et the n skills legal activities (Barlow et al.
al. 2012a, available allowin represent requested. 2009; Kazdin
2014a; forms (e.g., g him atives, If no 2001; Kennedy
Lidström persons to be moreover communica 2005). Research
and with inform , had tion events would also need
Hemmingss blindness ed provided occurred, to investigate (a)
on 2014; or minimal about a formal the ways of upgrading
Ramdoss et residual daily consent caregiver the present
al. 2011; vision). events for their proposed technology in
Sigafoos et The present and participati an activity terms of
al. 2011, study was relevan on in the for the functionality,
2014). in line with t study, participants friendliness, and
Programs this latter people. which to engage cost, and (b) the
for persons point and Edwin had been in during feasibility of using
with autism its primary had a approved the third the device through
spectrum aim was to diagno by a quarter of most of the day by
disorder and develop sis of scientific the session. adopting the
intellectual and assess congen and ethics Interventio solutions
disabilities a new SGD ital committe n During suggested above
have that could enceph e (6). the or different ones
assessed the be used alopath interventio considered
possibility with y and n phase, appropriate within
of participants present the the research
establishing whose ed with participants context (Bauer
manual multiple total had the and Elsaesser
signs as well disabilities blindne SGD, 2012; Foley and
as the use of included ss, which Ferri 2012;
assistive blindness deafnes worked as Gibson et al.
technology or minimal s, and described 2012;
solutions residual some in the Lamontagne et al.
such as vision and motor Setting and 2013; Lancioni et
Picture motor or coordin Technolog al. 2013a, b, c;
Exchange motor and ation y section. Lenker et al.
Communica hearing proble Prior to 10 2013; Näslund
tion impairment ms that sessions of and Gardelli 2013;
Systems . Three made this phase, Ripat and
(PECS) or participants his caregivers Woodgate 2011).
Speech were approa asked the Attention to
Generating involved. ch to participants participants’
Devices The study objects whether satisfaction with
(SGDs) also somew they the device and
(Bracken assessed hat preferred staff’s ratings of
and Rohrer the (a) hesitan to use the its acceptability
2014; participants t or SGD (i.e., and impact would
Gevarter et ’ attitude impreci and thus need to constitute
al. 2013a, b; toward the se. He start a a critical
Lancioni et SGD (i.e., was regular requirement
al. 2007; their capable interventio throughout the
Lang et al. preference of n session) research and
2014a, b; or carryin or wanted implementation
Ramdoss et non-prefere g out a to spend processes (9-10).
al. 2011; nce for number time in an
Sigafoos et sessions of occupation
al. 2013; with the daily al area with
Van der device) and activiti daily
Meer et al. (b) staff’s es and occupation
2012a, b). opinion seemed al material
Programs about the to have (i.e.,
for persons device’s clear preferring
with impact and prefere this
extensive usability. nces situation to
neuro-motor For the for a session
impairment latter goal, some with the
have relied 36 staff of SGD). The
on the use persons them, 68–80
of working in but he interventio
computer-ai the was n sessions
ded contexts unable with the
solutions that the to SGD were
comparable participants make preceded
to SGDs (2). attended success by five or
were ful six 90 J
interviewed request Dev Phys
(4-5). s Disabil
throug (2016)
h 28:85–98
typical introductor
commu y sessions.
nicatio During
n these
means. sessions,
Indeed, the
he participants
Lewis were
had a guided to
diagno practice the
sis of use of the
congen device and
ital their
enceph (device-ver
alopath balized)
y with requests
minima were
l responded
residua to as
l vision specified
and above (7).
spastic
tetrapar
esis,
which
preclud
ed
indepe
ndent
ambula
tion
and
reduce
d his
manual
dexterit
y. He
underst
ood a
variety
of
simple
verbal
instruct
ions
concer
ning
daily
activiti
es, but
had no
speech
abilitie
s
except
for a
few,
difficul
t-to-int
erpret
vocaliz
ations.
His
active
commu
nicatio
n could
 rely on
those
vocaliz
ations,
confus
ed
gesturi
ng, or
selectio
n of
pictoria
l
represe
ntation
s (5-6).

References (Both from FSP 1, FSP 2, FSP 3 etc.; and references from the controversies, disagreements with other authors’
column)
*Note: Always in APA format on a separate page.
 References
Bayat, M. (2014). Global education diplomacy and inclusion in developing countries: Lessons from West Africa. Childhood
Education, 90(4), 272+. Retrieved from ​http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc
Billig, M. Condor, S. Edwards, D. Gane, M. Middleton D. & Radley, A. (1988) Ideological Dilemmas, a Social Psychology of
Everyday Thinking (London, Sage).Retrieved from JSTOR Journals database
Brahm, N. (1993). Ideological dilemmas in special needs education: Practitioners' views. Oxford Review Of Education, (4), 527.
Retrieved from JSTOR Journals database
Karlsson, P., Johnston, C., & Barker, K. (2017). Stakeholders' views of the introduction of assistive technology in the classroom: How
family-centred is Australian practice for students with cerebral palsy?. Child: Care, Health & Development, 43(4),
598-607.doi:10.1111/cch.12468
K.O. Simpson, D.R. Beukelman and A. Bird, Survey of school speech and language service provision to student with severe
communication impairments in Nebraska, AAC Augmentative and Alternative Communication 14 (1998), 212–221. [11]
Kwok, E. L., Joanisse, M. F., Archibald, L. D., & Oram Cardy, J. (2018). Immature auditory evoked potentials in children with
moderate--severe developmental language disorder. Journal Of Speech, Language & Hearing Research, 61(7), 1718-1730.
doi:10.1044/2018_JSLHR-L-17-0420
Lancioni, G., Singh, N., O'Reilly, M., Green, V., Meer, L., Alberti, G., & ... Lang, R. (2016). A speech generating device for persons
with intellectual and sensory-motor disabilities. Journal Of Developmental & Physical Disabilities, 28(1), 85.
doi:10.1007/s10882-015-9424-6 DOI 10.1007/s10882-015-9424-6
Law, M., Hanna, S., King, G., Hurley, P., King, S., Kertoy, M. & Rosenbaum, P. (2003) Factors affecting family-centred service
delivery for children with disabilities. Child: Care, Health and Development, 29, 357–366.
Mâţă, L., Pânişoară, G., Făt, S., Malureanu, C., & Lazăr, I. (2018). Systematic review of technology-based psychoeducational
interventions for language disorders. BRAIN: Broad Research In Artificial Intelligence & Neuroscience, 9(1), 151. Retrieved
from Complimentary Index database
Nijland, L., Terband, H., & Maassen, B. (2015). Cognitive functions in childhood apraxia of speech. Journal Of Speech, Language,
And Hearing Research, 58(3), 550-565. DOI: 10.1044/2015_JSLHR-S-14-0084
Salminen, A., Ryan, S., & Petrie, H. (2004). Impact of computer augmented communication on the daily lives of speech-impaired
children. Part II: Services to support computer augmented communication. Technology & Disability, 16(3), 169-177.
Retrieved from Science and Technology database
Saturno, C. E., Ramirez, A. G., Conte, M. J., Farhat, M., & Piucco, E. C. (2015). An augmentative and alternative communication tool
for children and adolescents with cerebral palsy. Behaviour & Information Technology, 34(6),
632-645.doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2015.1019567
Szecsi, T., & Giambo, D. A. (2007). Inclusive educational practices around the world: An introduction. Childhood Education, 83(6),
338+. Retrieved from ​http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/