Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Speech Generating Device (SGD) Mentoring Program: Supporting the Development of People Learning to Use an SGD

  • ORIGINAL ARTICLE
  • Published:
Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Mentoring in speech generating device (SGD) use by adults who use an SGD proficiently offers the potential to improve the device usage of people learning an SGD. The aim of the present study was to examine the impact of SGD mentoring on the mentees’ SGD usage. Three mentors, aged 23, 31, and 54 years, and 3 mentees, aged 13, 14, and 32 years, participated. A nonconcurrent multiple baseline across participants design was used to assess the outcomes. Mentee conversation samples were analyzed for the number of total words, the number of different words, and the number of bound morphemes produced in mentoring sessions. Improvements were made in these measures across the mentees following commencement of mentoring sessions with a trained SGD mentor. These results provide preliminary evidence of SGD mentoring success.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ballin, L., Balandin, S., & Stancliffe, R. (in press a). The speech generating device (SGD) mentoring program: Training adults who use an SGD to mentor. AAC: Augmentative & Alternative Communication.

  • Ballin, L., Balandin, S., & Stancliffe, R. (in press b). The speech generating device mentoring program: An evaluation. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology.

  • Ballin, L., Balandin, S., Stancliffe, R., & Togher, L. (2011). Speech-language pathologists’ views on mentoring by people who use speech generating devices. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 13(5), 446–457.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ballin, L., Balandin, S., Stancliffe, R., & Togher, L. (2012). The views of people who use speech generating devices on mentoring new learners. Disability and Rehabilitation. Assistive Technology, 7(1), 63–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1969). Principles of behavior modification. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Binger, C., Berens, J., Kent-Walsh, J., & Taylor, S. (2008). The effects of aided AAC interventions on AAC use, speech, and symbolic gestures. Seminars in Speech and Language, 2008(2), 101–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Binger, C., & Light, J. (2007). The effect of aided AAC modeling on the expression of multi-symbol messages by preschoolers who use AAC. AAC: Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 23(1), 30–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Binger, C., & Light, J. (2008). The morphology and syntax of individuals who use AAC: research review and implications for effective practice. AAC: Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 24(2), 123–138.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Binger, C., Maguire-Marshall, M., & Kent-Walsh, J. (2011). Using aided AAC models, recasts, and contrastive targets to teach grammatical morphemes to children who use AAC. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 54(1), 160–176.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Blockberger, S., & Johnston, J. R. (2003). Grammatical morphology acquisition by children with complex communication needs. AAC: Augmentative & Alternative Communication, 19(4), 207–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruno, J., & Trembath, D. (2006). Use of aided language stimulation to improve syntactic performance during a weeklong intervention program. AAC: Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 22(4), 300–313.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Burgstahler, S., & Cronheim, D. (2001). Supporting peer-peer and mentor-protégé relationships on the internet. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(1), 59–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, K. J., & Light, J. C. (2000). Use of electronic communication to develop mentor-protege relationships between adolescent and adult AAC users: pilot study. AAC: Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 16(4), 227–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehrich, L. C., Tennent, L., & Hansford, B. (2002). A review of mentoring in education: some lessons for nursing. Contemporary Nurse: A Journal for the Australian Nursing Profession, 12(3), 253–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erkut, S., & Mokros, J. R. (1984). Professors as models and mentors for college students. American Educational Research Journal, 21(2), 399–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fey, M. E. (1986). Language intervention with young children. San Diego, CA: College-Hill Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, K. A., & Lim, M. (2010). Single subject research. In J. C. Thomas & M. Hersen (Eds.), Handbook of clinical psychology competencies (pp. 397–424). New York: Springer Reference.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hill, K. (2010). Advances in augmentative and alternative communication as quality of life technology. Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Clinics of North America, 21(1), 43–58.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hill, K., & Romich, B. (2001). A language activity monitor for supporting AAC evidence-based clinical practice. Assistive Technology, 13, 12–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hodge, S. (2007). Why is the potential of augmentative and alternative communication not being realized? Exploring the experiences of people who use communication aids. Disability and Society, 22(5), 457–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobi, M. (1991). Mentoring and undergraduate academic success: a literature review. Review of Educational Research, 61, 505–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, J. M., Inglebret, E., Jones, C., & Ray, J. (2006). Perspectives of speech language pathologists regarding success versus abandonment of AAC. AAC: Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 22(2), 85–99.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kazdin, A. E. (1982). Single-case research designs: Methods for clinical and applied settings. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, C. H. (2005). Single-case designs for educational research. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Light, J. (1989). Toward a definition of communicative competence for individuals using augmentative and alternative communication systems. AAC: Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 5(2), 137–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Light, J. (1997). "Let's go star fishing": reflections on the contexts of language learning for children who use aided AAC. AAC: Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 13(3), 158–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Light, J., McNaughton, D., Krezman, C., Williams, M., Gulens, M., Galskoy, A., et al. (2007). The AAC Mentor Project: web-based instruction in sociorelational skills and collaborative problem solving for adults who use augmentative and alternative communication. AAC: Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 23(1), 56–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lund, S. K., & Light, J. (2003). The effectiveness of grammar instruction for individuals who use augmentative and alternative communication systems: a preliminary study. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 46(5), 1110–1123.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, J. E., & Epstein, L. H. (1976). Evaluating treatment effectiveness in cerebral palsy: single subject designs. Physical Therapy, 56, 285–294.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mathisen, B., Arthur-Kelly, M., Kidd, J., & Nissen, C. (2009). Using MINSPEAK: a case study of a preschool child with complex communication needs. Disability and Rehabilitation. Assistive Technology, 4(5), 376–383.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McCall, F., Markova, I., Murphy, J., Moodie, E., & Collins, S. (1997). Perspectives on AAC systems by the users and by their communication partners. European Journal of Disorders of Communication, 32, 235–256.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McConachie, H., & Pennington, L. (1997). In-service training for schools on augmentative and alternative communication. European Journal of Disorders of Communication, 32, 277–288.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, K. E., Balcazar, F. E., & Keys, C. B. (2005). Youth with disabilities. In D. L. DuBois & M. J. Karcher (Eds.), Handbook of youth mentoring (pp. 493–507). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • McNaughton, D., Rackensperger, T., Benedek-Wood, E., Krezman, C., Williams, M., & Light, J. (2008). "A child needs to be given a chance to succeed": parents of individuals who use AAC describe the benefits and challenges of learning AAC technologies. AAC: Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 24(1), 43–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McReynolds, L., & Kearns, K. (1983). Single-subject experimental designs in communicative disorders. Baltimore: University Park Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J., Frieiberg, C., Rolland, M., & Reeves, M. J. (1992). Implementing computerized language sample analysis in the public school. Topics in Language Disorders, 12(2), 69–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ormrod, J. E. (1999). Human learning (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pennington, L., Goldbart, J., & Marshall, J. (2004). Interaction training for conversational partners of children with cerebral palsy: a systematic review. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 39(2), 151–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prentke Romich Company (2010). PASS Demo Software. Retrieved from http://www.prentrom.com/downloads/pass.

  • Rackensperger, T., Krezman, C., McNaughton, D., Williams, M. B., & D'Silva, K. (2005). "When I first got it, I wanted to throw it off a cliff": the challenges and benefits of learning AAC technologies as described by adults who use AAC. AAC: Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 21(3), 165–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rhodes, J. E. (1994). Older and wiser: Mentoring relationships in childhood and adolescence. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 14(3), 187–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rispoli, M., Franco, J. H., van der Meer, L. A. H., Lang, R., & Camargo, S. P. H. (2010). The use of speech generating devices in communication interventions for individuals with developmental disabilities: a review of the literature. Developmental Neurorehabilitation, 13(4), 276–293.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., & Casto, G. (1987). The quantitative synthesis of single subject research methodology: methodology and validation. Remedial and Special Education, 8, 24–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., Cook, S. B., & Escobar, C. (1986). Early intervention for children with conduct disorders: a quantitative synthesis of single-subject research. Behavioral Disorders, 11, 260–271.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M. (1996). The medium or the message: A study of speaking children using communication boards. In S. von Tetzchner & M. H. Jensen (Eds.), Augmentative and alternative communication: European perspectives (pp. 119–136). London: Whurr Publishers Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M., & Grove, N. (2003). Asymmetry in input and output for individuals who use augmentative and alternative communication. In J. Light, D. Beukelman, & J. Reichle (Eds.), Communicative competence for individuals who use AAC: From research to effective practice. Paul H. Brookes: Baltimore, MD.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Tetzchner, S., Brekke, K. M., Sjøthun, B., & Grindheim, E. (2005). Constructing preschool communities of learners that afford alternative language development. AAC: Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 21(2), 82–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Tetzchner, S., & Jensen, M. H. (1996). Augmentative and alternative communication: European perspectives. London: Whurr Publishers Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watkins, R. V., Kelly, D. J., Harbers, H. M., & Hollis, W. (1995). Measuring children's lexical diversity: differentiating typical and impaired language learners. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 38, 1349–1355.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Watkins, S., Pittman, P., & Walden, B. (1998). The deaf mentor experimental project for young children who are deaf and their families. American Annals of the Deaf, 143(1), 29–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Watson, P. J., & Workman, E. A. (1981). The non-current multiple baseline across-individuals design: an extension of the traditional multiple baseline design. Journal of Behavior and Experimental Psychiatry, 12(3), 257–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research is supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia/Cerebral Palsy Foundation co-funded doctoral scholarship and by funds provided by Speech Pathologists, Physiotherapists, and Occupational Therapists on Developmental Disabilities (SPOT on DD) and Speech Pathology Australia. The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of these organizations. The authors would like to thank the participants who contributed their time to this research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Discipline of Speech Pathology, Faculty of Health Sciences, The University of Sydney, PO Box 170, Lidcombe, NSW, 1825, Australia

    Liora Ballin

  2. Faculty of Education, Victoria University Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand

    Susan Balandin

  3. Centre for Disability Research & Policy, Faculty of Health Sciences, The University of Sydney, PO Box 170, Lidcombe, NSW, 1825, New Zealand

    Roger J. Stancliffe

Authors
  1. Liora Ballin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Susan Balandin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Roger J. Stancliffe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Liora Ballin.

Appendix A

Appendix A

Calculation Method for the Language Measures

Number of Total Words (NTW)

The NTW was calculated by counting the number of words produced with an SGD. Compound words and proper names were counted as single words. Error words that were deleted or replaced were not included.

Number of Different Words (NDW)

The NDW was calculated by counting the number of different word roots produced with an SGD. Words were considered to have the same word root if they were derivatives of the root word created through the addition of prefixes and suffixes (e.g., “run,” “runs,” “ran,” and “running” share the same word root, “run”).

Number of Bound Morphemes (NBM)

The NBM was calculated by counting the number of bound morphemes produced with an SGD. Bound morphemes include derivational and inflectional morphemes. Derivational morphemes are added to a word to create another word (e.g., the addition of “ness” to “happy” to give “happiness”). Inflectional morphemes modify a word’s tense, number, and aspect, without deriving a new word or a word in a new grammatical category (e.g., the “dog” morpheme with the plural marker morpheme “s” becomes “dogs”). All inflections, including possessive “s,” plural “s,” third person singular “s,” regular past “ed,” and progressive “ing,” were counted as separate morphemes. Plurals never occurring in the singular (e.g., “pants,” “clothes”) were counted as one morpheme. Irregular past tense verbs (e.g., “got,” “went”) and irregular plurals (e.g., “mice,” “men”) were counted as having one bound morpheme. Contractions (e.g., “she’s,” “can’t”) were counted as having one bound morpheme.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ballin, L., Balandin, S. & Stancliffe, R.J. The Speech Generating Device (SGD) Mentoring Program: Supporting the Development of People Learning to Use an SGD. J Dev Phys Disabil 25, 437–459 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-012-9322-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-012-9322-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation