The scope of this page is augmentative and alternative communication across the lifespan.
See ASHA's Augmentative and Alternative Communication evidence map for summaries of the available research on this topic.
Augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) is an area of clinical practice that supplements or compensates for impairments in speech-language production and/or comprehension, including spoken and written modes of communication. AAC falls under the broader umbrella of assistive technology, or the use of any equipment, tool, or strategy to improve functional daily living in individuals with disabilities or limitations.
AAC uses a variety of techniques and tools to help the individual express thoughts, wants and needs, feelings, and ideas, including the following:
AAC is augmentative when used to supplement existing speech, alternative when used in place of speech that is absent or not functional, or temporary as when used by patients postoperatively in intensive care (Elsahar et al., 2019).
It is difficult to estimate the prevalence of AAC users due to wide variability across this population in terms of diagnosis, age, location, communication modality, and extent of AAC use. Overall, the more severe an individual’s communication deficit, the more likely the individual would benefit from AAC support (Brown et al., 2021; Funke et al., 2018; Iacono et al., 2016; Kristoffersson et al., 2020).
Speech-language pathologists (SLPs) play a central role in the screening, assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of persons requiring AAC intervention. The professional roles and activities in speech-language pathology include clinical/educational services (diagnosis, assessment, planning, and treatment), advocacy, education, administration, and research.
Appropriate roles for medical/clinical SLPs include the following:
Appropriate roles for school-based SLPs include the following:
As indicated in the ASHA Code of Ethics, SLPs shall engage in only those aspects of the profession that are within the scope of their professional practice and competence, considering their level of education, training, and experience. If an SLP has inadequate experience/training and is unable to assist an AAC user, an SLP refers to or (at minimum) consults with an SLP with experience in AAC.
Individuals who use AAC have an impairment or a limitation in speech, language, reading, and/or writing. These can be the result of congenital disabilities, acquired disabilities, or neurological differences such as autism.
Examples of congenital disabilities that may benefit from AAC include
Individuals with congenital disabilities may continue to acquire language while using AAC. AAC may also serve as a tool to aid in expressive and receptive language acquisition and literacy development in this population. AAC needs may vary and change over time.
Examples of acquired disabilities that may benefit from AAC include
AAC needs for individuals with acquired disabilities vary and may change over time, depending on language and cognitive status at the time of injury as well as on disease onset and progression.
An AAC system is an integrated group of components used to enhance communication. These components include forms of AAC (described below), symbols, selection techniques, and strategies.
The design of an AAC system should incorporate individual strengths and needs. It considers the individual’s full communication abilities and may include existing speech, vocalizations, gestures, and/or some form of external system (e.g., SGD).
An individual may use multiple modalities or many forms of AAC in combination, allowing for change based on context, audience, and communicative intent. A well-designed AAC system is flexible and adaptable. It allows for changes to vocabulary and mode of access as the individual’s language and physical needs change over time.
AAC is typically divided into two broad categories.
Unaided—do not require an external tool. Unaided forms require some degree of motor control. Unaided forms include the following:
Aided—require some form of external tool, either electronic or nonelectronic. Nonelectronic aided forms are often referred to as “light-tech” or “low-tech.” Electronic forms may be referred to as “high-tech.”
Low-tech/light-tech options include the following:
High-tech options include the following:
An individual may use one form of AAC alone or utilize a combination of unaided AAC, low-tech/light-tech aided AAC, and/or high-tech aided AAC forms.
People who use AAC should always have access to their communication tools or devices. Concerns about the overuse of screen time, particularly for young children, do not apply to the use of screens as part of an AAC system.
SGDs often have different voice output options to allow users to select a voice based on the following:
However, voice output options may be limited and may not accurately reflect an individual’s culture. SLPs should be mindful that work continues to be needed to develop AAC treatment and assessment that is culturally responsive (Mindel, 2020).
These devices use synthesized speech output, digitized speech output, or both.
Comparison of Synthesized and Digitized Speech Output
Less “natural sounding”
More “natural sounding”
Requires less device memory storage
Requires more device memory storage
Allows for generation of speech in multiple languages
Allows for recording of speech in an individual’s voice, reflecting their language(s) and dialect(s) used
Allows for novel message generation
Limited novel message generation (number of possible utterances is limited to recorded items)
SGDs should also have customization/individualization options for users to select icons, vocabulary, and languages/dialects that meet their unique needs.
In addition to AAC, other support systems exist for individuals with differences in expressive or receptive communication. These include additional augmentative supports and hearing AT systems. These devices are considered AT but do not fall under AAC, because they do not require skilled SLP intervention prior to use.
Supports include the following:
HATS may aid communication among individuals who are not able to communicate via sign language or choose not to do so (see ASHA’s Practice Portal pages on Hearing Loss in Adults and Hearing Aids For Adults).
Symbols are used in AAC to represent objects, actions, concepts, and emotions. They can include the following:
Symbols may not have the same meaning or relevance across different languages and cultures. Responsive practices consider what is meaningful for each device user.
Iconicity is the association made between a symbol and the item for which it stands (referent; Schlosser, 2003). Iconicity is classified depending on how easily the meaning of a symbol can be guessed.
Iconicity directly affects the communicator’s efficiency and effectiveness, especially with untrained or unfamiliar communication partners. High iconicity refers to displaying a symbol along with a written word and can help communication partners learn and interpret symbols, particularly if no voice output is available (Wilkinson & McIlvane, 2002). Language representation methods (LRMs) refer to three common ways that symbols are used to represent language. The following LRMs are commonly used in AAC systems.
A person who uses AAC may use a single LRM or a combination of LRMs, depending on preference and the functionality of the system.
A person’s spoken vocabulary will change based on their age, communication partner, language development, environment, mood, and context. The symbols used in an AAC system should allow for the same changes and flexibility. Symbols are not universal across cultures. It is important to include symbols that are relevant to the individual and their community. In addition, consider appropriate skin tone and physical features in icons that appropriately reflect the AAC user and their community.
Symbol selection is also based on the person’s ability to access, recognize, and learn each symbol’s meaning. For example, a person with visual deficits may need a symbol that is modified to be viewable or is accessible via other sensory modes such as listening or touch.
The display relates to the way in which symbols are presented on an AAC system. Different encoding options (e.g., alphanumeric, numeric, iconic, alphabetic, and color) are sometimes used to organize displays. Displays can be static (fixed), dynamic (changes based on user actions), or hybrid (a combination of static and dynamic).
A visual scene is a photo or video that represents situations, routines, places, or events. Elements within the visual scene may trigger message output when selected, also known as “hotspots.”
Visual scenes may be easier to learn and use than grid displays for beginning communicators (e.g., young children or older individuals who are at early-functioning communication stages). There is also utility for people with acquired communication needs such as aphasia (Dietz et al., 2020). For more details about visual scene displays and an example, see Tuthill (2014).
Symbol organization on an AAC system affects the individual’s ability to communicate effectively and efficiently. Symbol organization should be appropriate to the user’s language level and address the user’s needs and capabilities as well as those of the communication partners (Beukelman & Light, 2020). Organization strategies may change over time based on changes in skills and contexts.
Most AAC systems, with the exception of visual scenes, are presented in a grid format. The organization of vocabulary, symbol size, and number of symbols on the grid is individualized and determined by the type of display; the type of symbol; and the visual acuity, communication and cognitive skills, integrated sensory system, and motor control of the individual. These systems do not have to be accessed via touch; selections can be made via eye gaze, head pointing, or scanning methods.
Semantic–syntactic displays organize vocabulary based on parts of speech and syntactic framework. Symbols are laid out according to spoken word order and print orientation, and they are adaptable to languages that follow different semantic rules than English (e.g., left-to-right or right-to-left, adjective–noun, noun–adjective). Semantic–syntactic displays are useful for adults with relatively intact language (e.g., individuals with ALS) or language learners, and they can facilitate efficient production of grammatically complex messages.
Taxonomic displays group symbols according to semantic category (e.g., people, places, feelings, actions). Typically developing children begin to find this type of grouping helpful at around the age of 6–7 years, so this strategy may not be appropriate for individuals at earlier stages of language development (Beukelman & Light, 2020). The use of taxonomic displays for persons with aphasia can add to the cognitive and linguistic load and may lead to increased errors and slower response time (Petroi et al., 2011).
Activity grid displays (also known as “schematic grid layouts” or “activity-based displays”) organize vocabulary by event schemes, routines, or activities. Each page or display includes activity-specific vocabulary and may be further organized by part of speech (e.g., nouns, verbs). Activity grid displays can increase participation and syntactic development by encouraging use of multiword combinations (Drager et al., 2003). Users may be able to navigate independently from one activity display to another, or they may rely on a facilitator or communication partner to provide the appropriate activity display for a given situation.
Context-based displays are similar to activity grid displays but are designed for a particular (usually frequent) context or environment, allowing for greater generalization than vocabulary designed around a single, specific activity. Context-based displays require a well-developed combination of core and fringe vocabulary.
Pragmatic Organization Dynamic Display (PODD) is a system of organizing and selecting words or symbol vocabulary on a low-tech/light-tech or high-tech AAC system, so that individuals with complex communication needs and their communication partners can communicate more easily. The aim is to provide vocabulary for continuous communication all the time, across a range of different topics, using a variety of messages.
PODD communication books can vary depending on the specific needs of the individual, in
Vocabulary organization considers communicative function and flow of conversational discourse. Books include symbols for navigation, such as “I have something to say” and “Go to page____”; colored page tabs that match page numbers; and symbols for specific operational commands, such as “Turn the page,” “Go back to page__,” and so forth. The first pages of the PODD book often include words or phrases to support behavioral and environmental regulation and may also include pragmatic starters, such as “Something’s wrong,” “I want something,” or “I’m asking a question,” to help individuals convey contextual information (Porter & Cafiero, 2009). PODD can help increase communication because of the focus on the communication partner to work with the client to maneuver the PODD book.
Selection and inclusion of functional, personalized, and meaningful vocabulary within an AAC system can lead to greater intervention success and decreased likelihood of abandonment (Moorcroft et al., 2019) of AAC supports. The SLP considers the individual’s needs for communicating with family members and other communication partners (e.g., in social contexts, academic settings, medical settings, vocational settings, etc.). The vocabulary selected is commensurate with peers, relevant to the individual’s language, dialects, culture, and personal identities. Our personal lexicons shift over time. AAC devices should provide users with opportunities to grow and speak about their personal relationships with their loved ones. Nouns tend to dominate vocabulary sets for AAC users (Dark & Balandin, 2007); however, the inclusion of verbs and other parts of speech can increase AAC acceptance and use (Adamson et al., 1992).
Vocabulary is often divided into two categories: core and fringe (or “extended”). Core vocabulary consists of high-frequency words that make up about 80% of the words used by most people every day (Quick et al., 2019). Core vocabulary contains mostly pronouns, verbs, descriptors, and question words (Witkowski & Baker, 2012). English language learners use a comparable amount of core vocabulary as do native English speakers (Boenisch & Soto, 2015). Fringe vocabulary consists of lower frequency words—mostly nouns—that tend to be context specific. Combining core and fringe vocabulary can increase the frequency of AAC use (Beukelman et al., 1991; van Tilborg & Deckers, 2016; Yorkston et al., 1988).
Selection techniques are the ways in which messages or symbols are accessed by the AAC user. There are two main selection techniques.
Direct selection—The AAC user selects the desired symbol directly from a selection set. Direct selection can be
Indirect selection (scanning)—Each item from a selection set is presented sequentially until the desired item appears and is selected by using a previously agreed-upon motor movement or vocalization or by using a switch.
Comparing Direct and Indirect Selection Techniques
Communicative competence is an individual’s ability to freely express ideas, thoughts, and feelings to a variety of listeners across contexts. It provides the means to achieve personal, educational, vocational, and social goals (Calculator, 2009; Light & McNaughton, 2014; Lund & Light, 2007). Individuals must achieve communicative competence whether they use natural speech or AAC, but their paths may vary (Light et al., 2003).
Communicative competence for AAC users consists of the following five individual competencies (Light et al., 2003; Light & McNaughton, 2014).
See the Assessment section of the Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) Evidence Map for pertinent scientific evidence, expert opinion, and client/caregiver perspective.
The goal of an AAC assessment is to determine the system component that will optimize communication for the user. AAC assessment is an ongoing process; ongoing evaluation and decision making are required, even after an AAC system has been selected. Elements of dynamic assessment and other informal assessments are used to supplement standardized assessment data. See Assessment Tools, Techniques, and Data Sources for a description of testing and data collection options.
Exposing individuals to symbols and systems prior to assessment may ensure more accurate assessment results. This can be accomplished by providing core and fringe vocabulary supports in the home and day environment (e.g., classroom) and by introducing visually represented language using a variety of communication display forms and sizes prior to the formal assessment process.
Assessment considers the needs of the individual. Needs may include one or more of the following:
Primary, secondary, and tertiary components of the AAC system are also considered during assessment.
SLPs also collaborate and engage with family members and caregivers during the assessment. These individuals can often report consistent behaviors and current means of communication beyond what the SLP may directly assess/observe. Lack of family involvement in the AAC process is cited as a significant factor in device abandonment. Therefore, incorporating family members into the AAC process is crucial (Bailey et al., 2006; Moorcroft et al., 2019). Abandonment of an AAC system is used here to mean that an individual has stopped using an AAC device even though one is still needed. Abandonment occurs in approximately one third of cases (Zangari & Kangas, 1997), even if the system is well designed and functional (Johnson et al., 2006).
The assessment should be conducted in the language(s) needed by the AAC user. Unique characteristics, linguistic background, and cultural variables that affect communication style and use are considered and reflected in assessment and treatment plans. Interpretation services may be needed (see Collaborating With Interpreters, Transliterators, and Translators).
If the individual (and/or communication partner) wears hearing aids or prescription eyeglasses, these should be worn during the assessment. Hearing aids should be inspected prior to the assessment to ensure that they are in working order. SLPs should obtain documentation of hearing and vision evaluations or make referrals as appropriate.
Environmental modifications should be made to accommodate vision or hearing deficits and any other physical difficulties. These modifications may include the following:
Consistent with the WHO’s International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) framework (ASHA, 2016; WHO, 2014), a comprehensive assessment of individuals with AAC needs is conducted to identify and describe
See Person-Centered Focus on Function: Augmentative and Alternative Communication for Adult with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) [PDF] and Person-Centered Focus on Function: Augmentative and Alternative Communication for Child with Cerebral Palsy [PDF] for examples of assessment data consistent with the ICF framework.
Many components of the comprehensive assessment may already be documented in an individual’s records (i.e., medical or school records). The components listed below may be completed if not addressed in these records.
See Childhood Hearing Screening and Hearing Screening.
See the Assessment section of the following ASHA Practice Portal resources: Speech Sound Disorders: Articulation and Phonology, Childhood Apraxia of Speech, and Acquired Apraxia of Speech.
The SLP should complete a comprehensive speech and language assessment relative to an individual’s needs. An SLP should evaluate expressive and receptive skills, including
See the Assessment section of the following ASHA Practice Portal resources: Spoken Language Disorders, Late Language Emergence, and Aphasia.
See the Assessment section of Written Language Disorders.
See the Assessment section of Social Communication Disorder.
Memory, attention, problem-solving, and executive skills in the context of functional AAC use.
See Traumatic Brain Injury in Adults and Evaluating and Treating Communication and Cognitive Disorders: Approaches to Referral and Collaboration for Speech-Language Pathology and Clinical Neuropsychology.
Ability to use various symbol features to meet current and future communication needs, including
Based on individual skills and needs, determine appropriate AAC system features, including
See the Resources section of this document for sample feature-matching charts and checklists.
AAC assessments may be time consuming, and if all questions are unanswered, continued assessment may progress alongside treatment. Trials of specific devices are often a component of AAC treatment, and an individual’s success with a specific device may not be effectively determined upon initial assessment.
See the Treatment section of the Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) Evidence Map for pertinent scientific evidence, expert opinion, and client/caregiver perspective.
The goal of intervention is to maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of communication for individuals who are unable to communicate via verbal speech. Whenever possible, intervention takes place in a naturalistic environment in order to promote generalization and functional use. Potential areas of focus for treatment include using AAC to
AAC interventions address the development of adequate, functional communication skills to support individuals with complex communication needs in developing, rebuilding, or sustaining communicative competence to express needs and wants, develop social closeness, exchange information, and participate in social etiquette routines (Drager et al., 2010; Light & McNaughton, 2014).
AAC intervention requires ongoing collaborative decision making and training to promote communicative competence and language and literacy development, as well as modifications to AAC systems to support changes in communication needs over time. For individuals using aided approaches, intervention may include customization of vocabulary, rate enhancement features that allow users to produce language with fewer keystrokes, and updates to software for high-tech devices.
Preferred practice for AAC intervention incorporates multiple communication modalities so that the user is not restricted to aided or unaided approaches but can use a combination of communication modalities, depending on the environment, listener, and intent of the message.
See Person-Centered Focus on Function: Augmentative and Alternative Communication for Adult with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) [PDF] and Person-Centered Focus on Function: Augmentative and Alternative Communication for Child with Cerebral Palsy [PDF] for examples of functional goals consistent with the ICF framework.
SLPs often collaborate with other professionals to improve the success of AAC intervention.
See Collaboration and Teaming and Interprofessional Education/Interprofessional Practice (IPE/IPP).
Communication partners are integral to the assessment and treatment process. Family, friends, and caregivers bring an important and unique understanding of the strengths, challenges, and needs of the individual who uses AAC. In addition to helping the individual identify goals and objectives for treatment, they often have input into the type of AAC system used, daily communication needs, and vocabulary incorporated into the system. This helps ensure carryover and functional use of the system in everyday life. Partial or complete abandonment of AAC can occur when partner input is not considered during AAC intervention (Angelo et al., 1995; H. P. Parette et al., 2000; P. Parette et al., 2000). See Family-Centered Practice for general guidelines.
Communication partner training facilitates effective communication and incorporates instruction in the following skills:
The SLP trains multiple communication partners, including other professionals who work with the AAC user.
Inadequate training of communication partners has been identified as a barrier to device use in addition to limitations of the AAC device itself and insufficient involvement in device selection (Bailey et al., 2006). For example, communication partners are more likely to ask yes/no questions instead of open-ended questions, dominate the conversation, or fail to respond to the individual’s communication attempts when communicating with children who use AAC (Kent-Walsh & McNaughton, 2005).
Successful integration of AAC devices depends on the consistency of use. For instance, a device may not be maximally effective if it is used only at home but not in other situations (e.g., school or the workplace).
Treatment selection depends on a number of factors, including the individual’s communication needs, the presence and severity of co-occurring conditions (e.g., cerebral palsy, apraxia of speech, aphasia, or progressive neurological diseases), and the individual’s communication needs, including language(s) used and consideration of belief systems and other cultural elements.
Once an AAC system is selected, intervention will initially focus on training the individual and their family/caregivers in how to use the device and/or system components (i.e., operational competence). Interventions should incorporate use of the AAC system into a naturalistic environment and address using the system to target broader communication goals such as language and literacy development and social interaction.
SLPs consider strategies, target areas and goals they use in other areas of language treatment as they select and implement AAC treatment approaches. SLPs use AAC system components to address these areas. Additionally, SLPs consider the type and frequency of prompting they use during AAC intervention and training, including fading prompts to facilitate independence.
Below are brief descriptions of both general and specific treatment approaches and instructional strategies for AAC intervention. Some are prescribed interventions with specified procedures, and some are more general approaches to language organization and/or system presentation.
This list is not exhaustive, and the inclusion of any specific treatment approach does not imply endorsement from ASHA.
Augmented input—also called “natural aided language,” “aided language stimulation,” or “aided language modeling”—is a receptive language training approach in which the communication partner provides spoken words along with AAC symbols during communication tasks (e.g., partner points to the AAC symbols while simultaneously talking).
Augmented input is based on the concept that language input provides a model for language development. This approach can lead to increased symbol comprehension in young AAC users and in users with severe cognitive or intellectual disabilities (Binger & Light, 2007; Drager et al., 2006, 2010), as well as increased symbol comprehension and production (Binger & Light, 2007; C. Goossens, 1992; M. D. Harris & Reichle, 2004). In fact, this approach can be effective for participants of many differing ages/disabilities/language skills (O’Neill et al., 2018).
Behavioral interventions are used to teach desired behaviors and are based on behavioral/operant principles of learning (i.e., differential reinforcement, modeling, prompting, and fading). Behavioral methods involve examining antecedents that elicit a behavior and the consequences that follow that behavior. Adjustments are made to increase desired behaviors and/or decrease inappropriate ones. Behavioral interventions range from one-to-one discrete trial instruction to naturalistic approaches.
Discrete trial training (DTT) is a one-to-one instructional approach that uses behavioral methods to teach skills in small systematic steps. The teaching opportunity is a discrete trial with a clearly identified antecedent and consequence (e.g., reinforcement in the form of praise or tangible rewards) for desired behaviors. DTT is most often used for skills that (a) learners are not initiating on their own; (b) have a clear, correct procedure; and (c) can be taught in a one-to-one setting. It may be difficult to generalize learning via DTT beyond the setting in which a skill is learned.
Milieu therapy includes a range of methods—including incidental teaching, time delay, and mand-model procedures—that are integrated into a child’s natural environment. It includes training in everyday environments and during activities that take place throughout the day, rather than only at “therapy time.” Milieu language teaching and other related procedures offer systematic approaches for prompting children to expand their repertoire of communication functions and to use increasingly complex language skills (Kaiser et al., 1992; Kasari et al., 2014).
Incidental teaching is a teaching technique that uses behavioral procedures to teach elaborated language. Naturally occurring teaching opportunities are provided, based on the individual’s interests. The clinician reinforces the individual’s attempts to communicate as these attempts get closer to the desired communication behavior (McGee et al., 1999). The individual should initiate contact, which begins a language teaching episode. If the person does not initiate, an expectant look and a time delay might be sufficient to prompt language use. The clinician can prompt with a question (e.g., “What do you want?”) or model a request (e.g., “Say: I need paint.”).
Time delay is a method of teaching that fades the use of prompts during instruction. For example, the time delay between initial instruction and any additional instruction or prompting is gradually increased as the individual becomes more proficient at the skill being taught. Time delay can be used with individuals regardless of cognitive level or expressive communication abilities.
In Core Vocabulary Approach the clinician teaches the individual an initial set of core vocabulary that often consists of common words used across contexts. This approach considers vocabulary used by typically communicating peers and any additional words needed by the user based on input from members of the community (e.g., family members, teachers). Often, words from the initial set remain in the same location to minimize demands on memory and motor planning as more words are added to the AAC display; however, the extent to which this can happen varies depending on the AAC system. The variety of word types (pronouns, verbs, descriptors, question words, etc.) used in a core vocabulary approach allows the individual to complete various communicative functions, such as asking questions, requesting, rejecting, protesting, commenting, and describing.
Core vocabulary is likely represented by symbols or symbols combined with written words for individuals with congenital disabilities who use AAC. The core vocabulary may consist of only written words, depending on premorbid and current literacy level for those with acquired disabilities. A foundation of language skills based on core vocabulary is crucial if a focus of AAC intervention is to develop oral and written communication skills (Witkowski & Baker, 2012). Core vocabulary is reflective of all language(s) used.
Development of functional communication skills training (e.g., expressing wants and needs, gaining attention, indicating preferences, and protesting) is often the first focus of linguistic intervention for the AAC user. For example, individuals can be taught to make requests by using symbols, objects, or words to indicate desired objects or actions (Johnston et al., 2012). Functional communication skills help minimize communication breakdowns and reduce the occurrence of challenging behaviors (Carr & Durand, 1985; Mirenda, 1997).
Language Acquisition Through Motor Planning (LAMP) is a therapeutic approach based on neurological and motor learning principles that uses a high-tech AAC system to provide the child with opportunities to initiate activity, engage in communication around activities of their choice, and access consistent motor plans to locate vocabulary (Potts & Satterfield, 2013).
The LAMP approach teaches the individual to independently select words and build sentences on a voice output AAC device using consistent motor plans to access vocabulary. LAMP’s emphasis on motor planning may reduce the cognitive demands of choosing from a symbol set and may result in more automatic and faster communication (Autism Spectrum Australia, 2013).
Mentoring programs pair young, newly proficient AAC users with older, more experienced users, with the intention of providing positive role models; teaching higher level sociorelational skills; and improving self-confidence and desire to achieve personal, educational, and professional goals. In addition to improving self-confidence and sociorelational skills in the newly proficient AAC user, mentors also benefit from the training experience that prepares them for participation in mentoring programs (Light et al., 2007).
Picture Exchange Communication System (PECS) is a low-tech intervention program for individuals with ASD and other developmental disabilities that is intended to shape a child’s expressive communication abilities using prompting and reinforcement strategies. PECS is a specific approach with specific implementation parameters. PECS is based on applied behavior analysis. PECS training consists of six progressive instructional phases:
PECS requires the facilitator to prepare pictures on and the user to accept and have the ability to transport a communication board or book (Flippin et al., 2010).
Total communication (TC) is a holistic approach to communication that promotes the use of all modes of communication, including sign language, spoken language, gestures, facial expressions, and environmental cues such as pictures and sounds. TC has also been used with populations such as individuals with ASD (e.g., Nunes, 2008; Wong & Wong, 1991).
Video-based instruction (also called “video modeling”) is an observational mode of teaching that uses video recordings to provide a model of a desired communication behavior. Video recordings of such a behavior (e.g., appropriate use of an AAC device) are watched and imitated by a learner. The learner’s attempts to incorporate learned communication behaviors can also be videotaped for later review.
Visual prompting strategies use visual cues (e.g., pointing or gesturing) to help individuals maintain attention, understand spoken language, sequence events, organize environments, or increase independence with task completion (Hodgdon, 1995). Visual prompts can be general (e.g., gesturing toward the communication system) or specific (e.g., pointing to a specific display location).
Visual prompting strategies can help increase an individual’s ability to independently initiate tasks, sustain participation in an activity, perform multistep tasks, and participate in an increased variety of activities.
The use of visual prompting strategies that incorporate the same symbols from an individual’s AAC system or that are incorporated into the system itself can help the AAC user understand, anticipate, and communicate about daily routines and can also help decrease challenging behaviors (Drager et al., 2010). Visual prompting strategies can create opportunities to increase aided language input or augmented input.
Visual schedules are a common method of visual prompting. Visual schedules use objects, photographs, drawings, written words, or other symbols to cue or prompt individuals to complete a sequence of tasks or activities. Symbols on the display are presented horizontally or vertically in the sequence of occurrence and can represent activities within a day or week (or longer period) or the steps within a particular activity. Visual schedules that initiate or sustain interaction are called scripts. Scripts are often used to promote social interaction but can also be used in a classroom setting to facilitate academic interactions and promote academic engagement (Hart & Whalon, 2008).
Visual schedules can be used to
Facilitated communication is a discredited technique by which a “facilitator” provides physical and other supports in an attempt to assist a person with a significant communication disability to point to pictures, objects, printed letters and words, or a keyboard in order to communicate.
According to ASHA’s position statement titled Facilitated Communication, “It is the position of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) that Facilitated Communication (FC) is a discredited technique that should not be used. There is no scientific evidence of the validity of FC, and there is extensive scientific evidence—produced over several decades and across several countries—that messages are authored by the ‘facilitator’ rather than the person with a disability. Furthermore, there is extensive evidence of harms related to the use of FC. Information obtained through the use of FC should not be considered as the communication of the person with a disability” (ASHA, 2018a).
The Rapid Prompting Method, also known as Spelling to Communicate, is a technique in which an instructor holds a letter board and provides prompts to encourage an individual to point to letters to spell words. According to ASHA’s position statement, Rapid Prompting Method, “It is the position of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) that use of the Rapid Prompting Method (RPM) is not recommended because of prompt dependency and the lack of scientific validity. Furthermore, information obtained through the use of RPM should not be assumed to be the communication of the person with a disability” (ASHA, 2018b). Please see ASHA’s resource on Rapid Prompting Method for further details.
Many standardized assessments include items that require a verbal (e.g., picture naming) and/or motor (e.g., pointing) response. For individuals who are not able to do so, it may be necessary to modify the task or the response mode.
Standardized scores cannot be used when assessments are modified because the tasks are fundamentally different (Barker et al., 2012). Assessment should include elements of dynamic assessment and other informal assessments (e.g., direct observation of language use in a variety of natural contexts) to supplement standardized assessment data.
See the Assessment section of ASHA’s Practice Portal page on Written Language Disorders for a discussion of task modifications for assessing literacy skills in individuals who use AAC.
When evaluating and planning for AAC intervention, the clinician considers the individual’s communication abilities and potential barriers to communication. AAC intervention is considered whenever a gap exists between the communication abilities of the AAC user and those of their peers for individuals with congenital disabilities. AAC intervention occurs when a gap is identified between pre- and post-injury abilities for individuals with acquired disabilities. See The Participation Model for Augmentative and Alternative Communication [PDF] (Beukelman & Mirenda, 2013).
Use of AAC should be considered as early as possible, regardless of etiology of the communication impairment. The goal of AAC intervention is to facilitate communication between the individual and their communities. ASHA aligns with the National Joint Committee for the Communication Needs of Persons With Severe Disabilities (NJC) in support of a zero-exclusion policy for AAC services. See the Communication Bill of Rights (Brady et al., 2016; NJC, 1992).
There are no prerequisites for AAC intervention, and a variety of strategies and techniques should be implemented in order to determine the most effective means of communication for the individual (Brady et al., 2016; Zangari & Kangas, 1997). All individuals are considered candidates for AAC intervention if their communication abilities do not meet communication needs. The time and effort involved to implement AAC should not be a reason for exclusion from intervention.
Views of disability vary widely and may influence all areas of AAC service delivery, including the decision to use AAC, the choice of AAC hardware, and the selection of vocabulary and symbol systems. SLPs collaborate with the individual and their family members with consideration of their beliefs and views of how to incorporate AAC into their lives.
A thorough assessment includes gathering information about lifestyle, the desire to communicate, and expectations regarding AAC use that are unique to each individual and their communication environments. Ethnographic interviews can be used to supplement information from commercial questionnaires and surveys and can help clinicians better understand clients’ communicative needs (Jenkins & Rojas, 2020). SLPs also recognize that not all individuals who use AAC will share the same beliefs about AAC as their families (O. Harris, 2015). SLPs consider routines, customs, and activities that are relevant to the AAC user’s culture. Please see ASHA’s Practice Portal page on Cultural Responsiveness for more information.
For individuals who speak more than one language, the clinician should collect a thorough description of prior language exposure and proficiency as well as current level of functioning in every language used. Clinicians should also consider changes in language proficiency due to acquired injury. For example, a bilingual individual with aphasia may no longer be as proficient in all languages used prior to the injury. Availability of culturally and linguistically relevant vocabulary facilitates buy-in and communicative success (Mindel & John, 2018). AAC tools should support various languages and dialects when possible; if the AAC system does not support all of the individual’s language(s), they may be unable to communicate in the home, and carryover will be limited (Dukhovny & Kelly, 2015). In addition, the lack of access to language(s) used will result in social isolation from that linguistic community. An SLP may consider AAC systems with the ability to switch between messages in different languages. Several AAC companies offer devices or software that includes multilingual functionality. See Dukhovny and Kelly (2015) for the availability of SGDs with multilingual capabilities.
Involving families and caregivers in the assessment process may involve working with an interpreter or a translator. See Collaborating With Interpreters, Transliterators, and Translators and Cultural Responsiveness for more information.
Language acquisition via AAC is different from language acquisition through typical means. Before acquiring AAC, children likely had (a) reduced means of expression and ability to control communication interactions and (b) fewer opportunities for exploring and interacting with their environment. During the language learning process, AAC users depend on someone else to provide vocabulary and content for their AAC system, and there may be few communicators who can model language using the same form of communication that the child is expected to use (Blockberger & Johnston, 2003; Blockberger & Sutton, 2003).
Acquisition of grammar (both morphology and syntax) can be especially challenging for AAC users who are simultaneously acquiring language, because morphological markers (e.g., tense and plural markers) are difficult to represent via symbols or may be excluded due to space constraints (Sutton et al., 2002).
It is essential to provide support to all beginning communicators as they develop language skills. Children must be able to comprehend and use language to communicate with others in a wide variety of settings and to function effectively in the classroom. For children with disabilities, the skills to support language development very often must be explicitly taught. This includes building both receptive and expressive vocabulary (including both spoken words and AAC symbols). Specific types of vocabulary may need to be targeted (e.g., teaching verbs and adjectives to a child who primarily uses nouns). Once the child has acquired a good number of words and/or AAC symbols, they can be taught how to begin combining words to form sentences (Kent-Walsh & Binger, 2009).
For pragmatic/social language, an AAC user learns to adapt their communication style based on their environment, communication partner, and needs.
Children who use AAC often receive less exposure to language and literacy due to motor, sensory, cognitive, or other impairments.
Lack of literacy development restricts AAC users to nonorthographic symbols and limits their ability for novel message generation (Millar et al., 2004). Nonverbal children may have difficulty acquiring phonemic awareness—an essential skill for literacy development—because they are unable to produce the sounds (Hetzroni, 2004; Millar et al., 2004).
Literacy instruction for AAC users incorporates AAC, AT, and task adaptations that can support literacy learning in children with complex communication needs (Hetzroni, 2004; Light & McNaughton, 2012). Many literacy activities can be adapted to meet the needs of AAC users, for example,
Literacy intervention for children who use AAC also includes instruction on how to read for a variety of purposes while drawing on one’s own relevant background knowledge and personal experiences (Erickson et al., 2006).
In the school-based setting, the SLP works as part of a team that typically includes general and special education teachers, paraprofessionals, physical and occupational therapists, teachers of students with visual or hearing impairment, music therapists, administrators, nurses, case managers, and family members.
Important considerations for this population include
Challenges noted above can be overcome or prevented by
The school-based SLP works as part of a team that may include an AAC or AT specialist who facilitates or completes the AAC evaluation. Implementing AAC in the schools is the responsibility of the school-based team—which includes the school SLP—and may include support from an AAC specialist. If the IEP team determines that AAC is required in order for a student to be provided “free appropriate public education” (FAPE; U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights, 1996; U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs, 2006), the technology must be provided to implement the IEP. The SLP is also responsible for IEP documentation.
According to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (2004), Section 300.105 on AT, on a case-by-case basis, the use of school-purchased AT devices in a child’s home or in other settings is required if the child’s IEP team determines that the child needs access to those devices in order to receive “free appropriate public education.”
Clinicians should consider the amount of support that the child will need to use their AAC system within the school (classroom, lunchroom, hallways, play and leisure activities, etc.) and outside the school setting when working with school-age children who use AAC. Vocabulary selection should give the individual access to the general education curriculum along with access to and use of vocabulary for social communication, functional needs, and support for ongoing language development.
The transition from adolescence to young adulthood can be challenging. The challenges associated with AAC use can present added barriers to success in postsecondary educational or vocational training programs, employment settings, and independent or semi-independent living situations. SLPs are involved in transition planning and may be involved in other support services beyond high school. Support for transitioning individuals who use AAC includes
See ASHA’s Practice Portal page on Transitioning Youth for more information.
Special considerations should be made when evaluating and treating adults as AAC choice may be highly contextual. Temporary needs versus progressive needs should be considered. For example, an adult with a temporary need for a ventilator after a traumatic brain injury may have significantly different communication needs from somebody with a progressive disease (e.g., ALS).
When working with adults who are using AAC, the SLP considers
These factors may affect the individual’s acceptance of AAC, their desire and ability to return to or enter the workforce, any accommodations that may be needed, and the need for communication partner training.
The following factors should be considered when facilitating transition and selecting an appropriate AAC system:
In the acute care setting, the SLP works as part of a team that often includes doctors, nursing staff, physical and occupational therapists, case managers, family members, and caregivers. Many acute care facilities have AAC tool kits for use in acute care settings, and clinicians are encouraged to consult with the treating facility or to consider creating a tool kit. Please see Patient-Provider Communication for an example of such a tool kit.
Important considerations for this population include
Effective AAC assessment via telepractice is a complex process. Refer to guidance from your state, employer, or school district. Some considerations for AAC evaluation include
See a demonstration of equipment setup, intervention, and engagement strategies that are applicable to remote assessment from Special Interest Group 12, Augmentative and Alternative Communication. See ASHA’s Practice Portal page on Telepractice.
SLPs often assist individuals with reduced or impaired communication when nearing the end of life. When supporting an individual with AAC at the end stages of life, the SLP considers
The goal of intervention at this stage is to develop communication strategies that will facilitate efficient and effective communication for as long as possible, including connecting with the outside world via social media, e-mail, and texting. The expected outcome of intervention is not to improve abilities but to allow the individual to express wants and needs and to participate in decision making to the best of their abilities.
SLPs should understand the process of dying to understand the emotional and psychological issues faced by individuals and their family members. The wishes of the patient and family are of utmost importance, and the SLP’s role extends only as far as the patient and family chooses.
See End-of-Life Issues in Speech-Language Pathology for more information.
The following factors may serve as barriers to AAC use (Johnson et al., 2006; Light et al., 1996; Moorcroft et al., 2019; Pape et al., 2002):
Barriers can be reduced if
There are many misconceptions about AAC that may deter an individual or a family member from AAC use. Advocacy and/or counseling efforts are critical to informing these potential AAC users, as well as professionals key to AAC implementation (e.g., SLPs, teachers, applied behavior analysis therapists). Potential AAC users may believe that AAC reduces motivation to improve natural speech and delays language development. However, AAC use may help improve natural speech when used in a multimodal approach (Millar et al., 2006; Sedey et al., 1991).
Consumers and professionals may think that young children are not ready for AAC until they reach school age. However, early AAC use can help develop speech and language (Lüke, 2014; Romski et al., 2010; Wright et al., 2013) and can increase vocabulary for children with developmental delays aged 3 years and younger (Romski et al., 2015). AAC use in preschool-age children may also increase use of multisymbol utterances and grammar development (Binger & Light, 2007; L. Harris et al., 1996; see Romski et al., 2015, for a review), and AAC may improve receptive vocabulary in young children (Brady, 2000; Drager et al., 2006).
Caregivers and professionals may think that cognitive skills such as demonstrating communicative intent and understanding cause and effect are prerequisite to AAC use. However, impaired cognition does not preclude communication (Cress & Marvin, 2003; Zangari & Kangas, 1997). AAC may help children with complex communication needs develop functional communication, cognitive, literacy, and social communication skills (Drager et al., 2010).
SLPs who provide AAC services should be familiar with funding options, including knowledge of public and private funding sources, how funding is determined, and how advocacy may affect funding. Low-tech or light-tech AAC systems are typically created by an SLP and do not typically require or qualify for additional amounts of funding.
SGDs are considered durable medical equipment (DME), and funding by third-party payers can vary. SLPs will need to verify coverage based on their client’s specific needs and insurance. The SLP must justify that the device being ordered is medically necessary in order to receive third-party funding. A payer may require that an SLP consider multiple SGDs during their evaluation process and that those devices must not be from the same manufacturer or product line. SGD vendors may be able to assist with funding questions and may have templates for meeting payer standards; however, this does not take the place of a comprehensive AAC evaluation.
SLPs writing AAC evaluations and completing funding requests must disclose any financial relationships that they have with device manufacturers and must certify that their recommendation for device selection is based on a comprehensive evaluation and preferred practice patterns and is not due to any financial incentive.
The Assistive Technology Act (AT Act) of 2004 provides every state and territory with federal funding to support efforts to increase access to, and acquisition of, AT devices and services (Assistive Technology Act, 2004). Find your state’s AT Act program at the National Assistive Technology Act Technical Assistance and Training (AT3) Center - Program Directory. For more information about the AT Act, go to National Assistive Technology Act Technical Assistance and Training (AT3) Center - AT Act Information.
Please see Local Coverage Determinations by State Index for further information. See ASHA’s Medicare Coverage Policy on Speech-Generating Devices as well as guidelines from CMS. Medicare rules are subject to change. Medicare may not cover AAC devices in all settings (e.g., skilled nursing facilities, hospice). SLPs work with their patients and facilities to provide appropriate services to their areas of need.
Refer to the Medicaid Guidelines for your state.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (2010), commonly called the Affordable Care Act of 2010, prohibits disability-based discrimination in insurance policies for essential health benefits, which often includes SGDs.
There is significant variability in funding of AAC devices between different plans and companies. Each is different, and an SLP should check with the provider before beginning the process of obtaining a dedicated AAC device (e.g., SGD).
Tablets, apps, and computers are considered nondurable, nondedicated devices, and payers’ coverage for these devices varies. SLPs need to verify coverage with the individual’s insurance, based on that individual’s specific plan and coverage.
Technology to assist with communication over the phone may be covered by a state’s telecommunication equipment distribution program. Eligibility may vary state-to-state. A listing of these programs is available at TEDPA Telecommunications Equipment Distribution Program Association.
For individuals who are deaf-blind, the federally funded I Can Connect program provides eligible individuals with devices necessary for distance-related communication (including computers and software), as well as evaluation and training on the equipment.
As with SGDs, an SLP should document medical necessity for accessories. A team-based approach is suggested when considering appropriate accessories, particularly with considerations from physical therapy and occupational therapy. Accessories that may support an AAC user include the following:
This list of resources is not exhaustive and the inclusion of any specific resource does not imply endorsement from ASHA.
Adamson, L. B., Romski, M. A., Deffebach, K., & Sevcik, R. A. (1992). Symbol vocabulary and the focus of conversations: Augmenting language development for youth with mental retardation. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 35(6), 1333–1343. https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.3506.1333
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2016). Scope of practice in speech-language pathology [Scope of practice]. https://www.asha.org/policy/sp2016-00343/
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2018a). Facilitated communication [Position statement]. https://www.asha.org/policy/ps2018-00352/
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2018b). Rapid prompting method [Position statement]. https://www.asha.org/policy/ps2018-00351/
Andzik, N. R., Schaefer, J. M., Nichols, R. T., & Chung, Y.-C. (2018). National survey describing and quantifying students with communication needs. Developmental Neurorehabilitation, 21(1), 40–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/17518423.2017.1339133
Angelo, D., Jones, S., & Kokoska, S. (1995). Family perspective on augmentative and alternative communication: Families of young children. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 11(3), 193–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434619512331277319
Assistive Technology Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-364, 118 Stat. 1707 (2004).
Autism Spectrum Australia. (2013). Evaluation of the Language Acquisition through Motor Planning (LAMP) program with children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD). Aspect Research Insights, 6, 1–4. https://www.liberator.co.uk/media/wysiwyg/Documents/Autism_Spectrum_LAMP_Research_Report.pdf [PDF]
Bailey, R. L., Parette, H. P., Jr., Stoner, J. B., Angell, M. E., & Carroll, K. (2006). Family members’ perceptions of augmentative and alternative communication device use. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 37(1), 50–60. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2006/006)
Barker, R. M., Saunders, K. J., & Brady, N. C. (2012). Reading instruction for children who use AAC: Considerations in the pursuit of generalizable results. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 28(3), 160–170. https://doi.org/10.3109/07434618.2012.704523
Beukelman, D. R., & Light, J. C. (2020). Augmentative & alternative communication: Supporting children and adults with complex communication needs (5th ed.). Brookes.
Beukelman, D. R., McGinnis, J., & Morrow, D. (1991). Vocabulary selection in augmentative and alternative communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 7(3), 171–185. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434619112331275883
Beukelman, D. R., & Mirenda, P. (2013). Augmentative & alternative communication: Supporting children and adults with complex communication needs (4th ed.). Brookes.
Binger, C., & Light, J. (2007). The effect of aided AAC modeling on the expression of multi-symbol messages by preschoolers who use AAC. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 23(1), 30–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434610600807470
Blockberger, S., & Johnston, J. (2003). Grammatical morphology acquisition by children with complex communication needs. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 19(4), 207–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434610310001598233
Blockberger, S., & Sutton, A. (2003). Towards linguistic competence: The language experiences and knowledge of children with extremely limited speech. In J. Light, D. Beukelman, & J. Reichle (Eds.), Communication competence for individuals who use AAC (pp. 63–106). Brookes.
Boenisch, J., & Soto, G. (2015). The oral core vocabulary of typically developing English speaking school-aged children: Implications for AAC practice. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 31(1), 77–84. https://doi.org/10.3109/07434618.2014.1001521
Brady, N. C. (2000). Improved comprehension of object names following voice output communication aid use: Two case studies. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 16(3), 197–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434610012331279054
Brady, N. C., Bruce, S., Goldman, A., Erickson, K., Mineo, B., Ogletree, B. T., Paul, D., Romski, M., Sevcik, R., Siegel, E., Schoonover, J., Snell, M., Sylvester, L., & Wilkinson, K. (2016). Communication services and supports for individuals with severe disabilities: Guidance for assessment and intervention. American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 121(2), 121–138. https://doi.org/10.1352/1944-7558-121.2.121
Brown, M. N., Grames, L. M., & Skolnick, G. B. (2021). Augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) use among patients followed by a multidisciplinary cleft and craniofacial team. The Cleft Palate–Craniofacial Journal, 58(3), 324–331. https://doi.org/10.1177/1055665620947606
Calculator, S. N. (2009). Augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) and inclusive education for students with the most severe disabilities. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 13(1), 93–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603110701284656
Carr, E., & Durand, M. (1985). Reducing behavior problems through functional communication training. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18(2), 111–126. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1985.18-111
Costello, J. M. (2011/2016). Message banking, voice banking and legacy messages [Message banking examples from people with ALS]. Boston Children’s Hospital. https://www.childrenshospital.org/~/media/centers-and-services/programs/a_e/augmentative-communication-program/messagebankdefinitionsandvocab201613.ashx?la=en
Creer, S., Enderby, P., Judge, S., & John, A. (2016). Prevalence of people who could benefit from augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) in the UK: Determining the need. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, e51(6), 639–653. https://doi.org/10.1111/1460-6984.12235
Cress, C. J., & Marvin, C. A. (2003). Common questions about AAC services in early intervention. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 19(4), 254–272. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434610310001598242
Dark, L., & Balandin, S. (2007). Prediction and selection of vocabulary for two leisure activities. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 23(4), 288–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434610601152140
Dietz, A., Wallace, S. E., & Weissling, K. (2020). Revisiting the role of augmentative and alternative communication in aphasia rehabilitation. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 29(2), 909–913. https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_AJSLP-19-00041
Drager, K. D. R., Light, J., & McNaughton, D. (2010). Effects of AAC interventions on communication and language for young children with complex communication needs. Journal of Pediatric Rehabilitation Medicine: An Interdisciplinary Approach, 3(4), 303–310. https://doi.org/10.3233/PRM-2010-0141
Drager, K. D. R., Light, J., Speltz, J., Fallon, K., & Jeffries, L. (2003). The performance of typically developing 2½-year-olds on dynamic display AAC technologies with different system layouts and language organizations. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 46(2), 298–312. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2003/024)
Drager, K. D. R., Postal, V. J., Carroulus, L., Castellano, M., Gagliano, C., & Glynn, J. (2006). The effect of aided language modeling on symbol comprehension and production in 2 preschoolers with autism. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 15(2), 112–125. https://doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360(2006/012)
Dukhovny, E., & Kelly, E. B. (2015). Practical resources for provision of services to culturally and linguistically diverse users of AAC. Perspectives on Communication Disorders and Sciences in Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CLD) Populations, 22(1), 25–39. https://doi.org/10.1044/cds22.1.25
Elliott, E., Newton, J., Rewaj, P., Gregory, J. M., Tomarelli, L., Colville, S., Chandran, S., Pal, S., & CARE-MND Consortium. (2020). An epidemiological profile of dysarthria incidence and assistive technology use in the living population of people with MND in Scotland. Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis and Frontotemporal Degeneration, 21(1–2), 116–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/21678421.2019.1672748
Elsahar, Y., Hu, S., Bouazza-Marouf, K., Kerr, D., & Mansor, A. (2019). Augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) advances: A review of configurations for individuals with a speech disability. Sensors, 19(8), 1911. https://doi.org/10.3390/s19081911
Erickson, K. A., Koppenhaver, D. A., & Cunningham, J. W. (2006). Balanced reading intervention and assessment in augmentative communication. In R. J. McCauley, M. E. Fey, & R. Gillam (Eds.), Treatment of language disorders in children (pp. 309–346). Brookes.
Flippin, M., Reszka, S., & Watson, L. R. (2010). Effectiveness of the Picture Exchange Communication System (PECS) on communication and speech for children with autism spectrum disorders: A meta-analysis. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 19(2), 178–195. https://doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360(2010/09-0022)
Freeman-Sanderson, A., Morris, K., & Elkins, M. (2019). Characteristics of patient communication and prevalence of communication difficulty in the intensive care unit: An observational study. Australian Critical Care, 32(5), 373–377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aucc.2018.09.002
Fuller, D., & Lloyd, L. (1991). Toward a common usage of iconicity terminology. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 7(3), 215–220. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434619112331275913
Funke, A., Spittel, S., Grehl, T., Grosskreutz, J., Kettemann, D., Petri, S., Weyen, U., Weydt, P., Dorst, J., Ludolph, A. C., Baum, P., Oberstadt, M., Jordan, B., Hermann, A., Wolf, J., Boentert, M., Walter, B., Gajewski, N., Maier, A., ...Meyer, T. (2018). Provision of assistive technology devices among people with ALS in Germany: A platform-case management approach. Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis and Frontotemporal Degeneration, 19(5–6), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/21678421.2018.1431786
Glennen, S. L. (1997). Augmentative and alterative communication systems. In S. L. Glennen & D. C. DeCoste (Eds.), Handbook of augmentative and alternative communication (pp. 59–96). Singular.
Goossens, C. (1992). Engineering the preschool environment for interactive symbolic communication: 18 months to 5 years developmentally. Southeast Augmentative Communication Conference Publications.
Harris, L., Doyle, E. S., & Haaf, R. (1996). Language treatment approach for users of AAC: Experimental single-subject investigation. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 12(4), 230–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434619612331277698
Harris, M. D., & Reichle, J. (2004). The impact of aided language stimulation on symbol comprehension and production in children with moderate cognitive disabilities. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 13(2), 155–167. https://doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360(2004/016)
Harris, O. (2015). A cultural basis to develop strong advocates for client and family involvement in the speech-generated device evaluation and funding process. Perspectives on Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 24(4), 142–146. https://doi.org/10.1044/aac24.4.142
Hart, J. E., & Whalon, K. J. (2008). Promote academic engagement and communication of students with autism spectrum disorder in inclusive settings. Intervention in School and Clinic, 44(2), 116–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451207310346
Hetzroni, O. E. (2004). AAC and literacy. Disability and Rehabilitation, 26(21–22), 1305–1312. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638280412331280334
Hill, K., & Corsi, V. (2012). Role of speech-language pathologists in assistive technology assessments. In S. Federici & M. J. Scherer (Eds.), Assistive technology assessment handbook (pp. 301–327). CRC Press.
Hodgdon, L. Q. (1995). Solving social-behavioral problems through the use of visually supported communication. In K. A. Quill (Ed.), Teaching children with autism: Strategies to enhance communication and socialization (pp. 265–286). Delmar.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. § 300.105, Assistive Technology. http://idea.ed.gov/explore/view/p/%2Croot%2Cregs%2C300%2CB%2C300%252E105%2C
Jenkins, K., & Rojas, R. (2020). Developing cultural competence from a Funds of Knowledge framework: Ethnographic interviewing revisited. Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups, 5(6), 1683–1686. https://doi.org/10.1044/2020_PERSP-20-00081
Johnson, J. M., Inglebret, E., Jones, C., & Ray, J. (2006). Perspectives of speech-language pathologists regarding success versus abandonment of AAC. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 22(2), 85–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434610500483588
Johnston, S. S., Reichle, J., Feeley, K. M., & Jones, E. A. (2012). AAC strategies for individuals with moderate to severe disabilities. Brookes.
Judge, S., Enderby, P., Creer, S., & John, A. (2017). Provision of powered communication aids in the United Kingdom. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 33(3), 181–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434618.2017.1347960
Kaiser, A. P., Yoder, P. J., & Keetz, A. (1992). Evaluating milieu teaching. In S. F. Warren & J. Reichle (Eds.), Causes and effects in communication and language intervention (pp. 9–47). Brookes.
Kasari, C., Kaiser, A., Goods, K., Nietfeld, J., Mathy, P., Landa, R., Murphy, S., & Almirall, D. (2014). Communication interventions for minimally verbal children with autism: A sequential multiple assignment randomized trial. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 53(6), 635–646. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2014.01.019
Kent-Walsh, J., & Binger, C. (2009). Addressing the communication demands of the classroom for beginning communicators and early language users. In G. Soto & C. Zangari (Eds.), Practically speaking: Language, literacy and academic development for students with AAC needs (pp. 143–172). Brookes.
Kent-Walsh, J., & McNaughton, D. (2005). Communication partner instruction in AAC: Present practices and future directions. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 21(3), 195–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434610400006646
Kristoffersson, E., Sandber, A. G., & Holck, P. (2020). Communication ability and communication methods in children with cerebral palsy. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 62(8), 933–938. https://doi.org/10.1111/dmcn.14546
Light, J. C., Beukelman, D. R., & Reichle, J. (2003). Communicative competence for individuals who use AAC: From research to effective practice. Brookes.
Light, J. C., & McNaughton, D. (2012). The changing face of augmentative and alternative communication: Past, present, and future challenges. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 28(4), 197–204. https://doi.org/10.3109/07434618.2012.737024
Light, J. C., & McNaughton, D. (2014). Communicative competence for individuals who require augmentative and alternative communication: A new definition for a new era of communication? Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 30(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3109/07434618.2014.885080
Light, J. C., McNaughton, D., Krezman, C., Williams, M., Gulens, M., Galskoy, A., & Umpleby, M. (2007). The AAC Mentor Project: Web-based instruction in sociorelational skills and collaborative problem solving for adults who use augmentative and alternative communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 23(1), 56–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434610600924499
Light, J. C., Stoltz, B., & McNaughton, D. (1996). Community-based employment: Experiences of adults who use AAC. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 12(4), 215–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434619612331277688
Lin, S. C., & Gold, R. S. (2017). Assistive technology needs, functional difficulties, and services utilization and coordination of children with developmental disabilities in the United States. Assistive Technology, 30(2), 100–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400435.2016.1265023
Lund, S. K., & Light, J. C. (2007). Long-term outcomes for individuals who use augmentative and alternative communication: Part III—Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 23(4), 323–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/02656730701189123
Lüke, C. (2014). Impact of speech-generating devices on the language development of a child with childhood apraxia of speech: A case study. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 11(1), 80–88. https://doi.org/10.3109/17483107.2014.913715
McGee, G. G., Morrier, M. J., & Daly, T. (1999). An incidental teaching approach to early intervention for toddlers with autism. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 24(3), 133–146. https://doi.org/10.2511/rpsd.24.3.133
Mechling, L. C. (2007). Assistive technology as a self-management tool for prompting students with intellectual disabilities to initiate and complete daily tasks: A literature review. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 42(3), 252–269. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23879621
Millar, D. C., Light, J. C., & McNaughton, D. B. (2004). The effect of direct instruction and writer’s workshop on the early writing skills of children who use augmentative and alternative communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 20(3), 164–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434610410001699690
Millar, D. C., Light, J. C., & Schlosser, R. W. (2006). The impact of augmentative and alternative communication intervention on the speech production of individuals with developmental disabilities: A research review. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49(2), 248–264. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2006/021)
Mindel, M. (2020). Talk like me: Supporting students who are African American using augmentative and alternative communication. Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups, 5(6), 1586–1592. https://doi.org/10.1044/2020_PERSP-20-00041
Mindel, M., & John, J. (2018). Bridging the school and home divide for culturally and linguistically diverse families using augmentative and alternative communication systems. Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups, 3(12), 154–163. https://doi.org/10.1044/persp3.SIG12.154
Mirenda, P. (1997). Supporting individuals with challenging behavior through functional communication training and AAC: Research review. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 13(4), 207–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434619712331278048
National Joint Committee for the Communication Needs of Persons With Severe Disabilities. (1992). Guidelines for meeting the communication needs of persons with severe disabilities [Guidelines]. https://www.asha.org/policy
Nunes, D. R. P. (2008). AAC interventions for autism: A research summary. International Journal of Special Education, 23(2), 17–26.
O’Neill, T., Light, J., & Pope, L. (2018). Effects of interventions that include aided augmentative and alternative communication input on the communication of individuals with complex communication needs: A meta-analysis. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 61(7), 1743–1765. https://doi.org/10.1044/2018_JSLHR-L-17-0132
Pape, T. L. B., Kim, J., & Weiner, B. (2002). The shaping of individual meanings assigned to assistive technology: A review of personal factors. Disability and Rehabilitation, 24(1–3), 5–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638280110066235
Parette, H. P., Jr., Brotherson, M. J., & Huer, M. B. (2000). Giving families a voice in augmentative and alternative communication decision-making. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 35(2), 177–190. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23879942
Parette, P., VanBiervliet, A., & Hourcade, J. J. (2000). Family-centered decision making in assistive technology. Journal of Special Education Technology, 15(1), 45–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/016264340001500104
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, H.R. 3590, Pub. L. No. 111-148. https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/house-bill/3590
Petroi, D., Koul, R., & Corwin, M. (2011, November). Resource allocation and use of SGDs by persons with aphasia [Paper presentation]. Annual Convention of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, San Diego, CA, United States.
Porter, G., & Cafiero, J. M. (2009). Pragmatic Organization Dynamic Display (PODD) communication books: A promising practice for individuals with autism spectrum disorders. Perspectives on Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 18, 121–129. https://doi.org/10.1044/aac18.4.121
Potts, M., & Satterfield, B. (2013). Studies in AAC and autism: The impact of LAMP as a therapy intervention. https://gatfl.gatech.edu//tflwiki/images/4/43/LAMP_Rsch_Article.pdf [PDF]
Quick, N., Erickson, K., & McCright, J. (2019). The most frequently used words: Comparing child-directed speech and young children’s speech to inform vocabulary selection for aided input. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 35(2), 120–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434618.2019.1576225
Romski, M., Sevcik, R. A., Adamson, L. B., Cheslock, M., Smith, A., Barker, M., & Bakeman, R. (2010). Randomized comparison of augmented and nonaugmented language interventions for toddlers with developmental delays and their parents. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 53(2), 350–364. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2009/08-0156)
Romski, M., Sevcik, R. A., Barton-Hulsey, A., & Whitmore, A. S. (2015). Early intervention and AAC: What a difference 30 years makes. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 31(3), 181–202. https://doi.org/10.3109/07434618.2015.1064163
Schlosser, R. (2003). Selecting graphic symbols for an initial request lexicon. In R. Schlosser (Ed.), The efficacy of augmentative and alternative communication: Toward evidence-based practice (pp. 347–402). Elsevier.
Sedey, A., Rosin, M., & Miller, J. (1991, November). The use of signs among children with Down syndrome [Poster presentation]. Annual Convention of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, Atlanta, GA, United States.
Sutton, A., Soto, G., & Blockberger, S. (2002). Grammatical issues in graphic symbol communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 18(3), 192–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434610212331281271
Tuthill, J. (2014). Get real with visual scene displays. The ASHA Leader, 19(6), 34–35. https://doi.org/10.1044/leader.APP.19062014.34
U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights. (1996). Free appropriate public education for students with disabilities: Requirements under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/edlite-FAPE504.html#:~:text=The%20Section%20504%20regulation%20requires,severity%20of%20the%20person's%20disability.
U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs. (2006). OSEP policy documents regarding the education of infants, toddlers, children and youth with disabilities: Free appropriate public education. https://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/letters/revpolicy/tpfape.html
van Tilborg, A., & Deckers, S. R. J. M. (2016). Vocabulary selection in AAC: Application of core vocabulary in atypical populations. Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups, 1(12), 125–138. https://doi.org/10.1044/persp1.SIG12.125
Wilkinson, K., & McIlvane, W. (2002). Considerations in teaching graphic symbols to beginning communicators. In J. Reichle, D. Beukelman, & J. C. Light (Eds.), Exemplary practices for beginning communicators: Implications for AAC (pp. 273–322). Brookes.
Witkowski, D., & Baker, B. (2012). Addressing the content vocabulary with core: Theory and practice for nonliterate or emerging literate students. Perspectives on Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 21(3), 74–81. https://doi.org/10.1044/aac21.3.74
Wong, V., & Wong, S. N. (1991). Brainstem auditory evoked potential study in children with autistic disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 21(3), 329–340. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02207329
World Health Organization. (1997). Life skills education for children and adolescents in schools [Programme on Mental Health Organization].
World Health Organization. (2014). International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health.
Wright, C. A., Kaiser, A. P., Reikowsky, D. I., & Roberts, M. Y. (2013). Effects of a naturalistic sign intervention on expressive language of toddlers with Down syndrome. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 56(3), 994–1008. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2012/12-0060)
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434618812331274807
Zangari, C., & Kangas, K. (1997). Intervention principles and procedures. In L. Lloyd, D. Fuller, & H. Arvidson (Eds.), Augmentative and alternative communication (pp. 235–253). Allyn & Bacon.
Zubow, L., & Hurtig, R. (2013). A demographic study of AAC/AT needs in hospitalized patients. Perspectives on Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 22(2), 79–90. https://pubs.asha.org/doi/10.1044/aac22.2.79
Content for ASHA's Practice Portal is developed through a comprehensive process that includes multiple rounds of subject matter expert input and review. ASHA extends its gratitude to the following subject matter experts who were involved in the development of the Augmentative and Alternative Communication page.
In addition, ASHA thanks the members of the Steering Committee and Working Groups of the Special Interest Group on Augmentative and Alternative Communication whose work was foundational to the development of this content. Members were Stephen Calculator (chair, document revisions committee, 2001), Doreen Blischak, Amy Finch, Tracy Kovach, Lyle Lloyd, Susan McCloskey, Anne McGann, Cassie Sementelli, Ralf Schlosser, and Rose Sevcik. Alex Johnson, 2000–2002 vice president for professional practices in speech-language pathology, and Celia Hooper, 2003–2005 served as monitoring vice presidents. Michelle Ferketic, Roseanne Clausen, and Susan Karr (ex officios) provided additional support.
The recommended citation for this Practice Portal page is:
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (n.d.). Augmentative and Alternative Communication (Practice Portal). Retrieved month, day, year, from www.asha.org/Practice-Portal/Professional-Issues/Augmentative-and-Alternative-Communication/.
Content Disclaimer: The Practice Portal, ASHA policy documents, and guidelines contain information for use in all settings; however, members must consider all applicable local, state and federal requirements when applying the information in their specific work setting.