Search results

Graphic symbols, such as photographs, Makaton and Pics for PECS, are often used in the field of augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) to support people with complex communication disorders. However, there is little research focusing on the preferences of people with disabilities in terms of which type of graphic symbol they prefer to use for their communication interactions. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the symbol preferences of people with Autism Spectrum Disorder and those with intellectual disability. The research questions are as follows: Do people prefer coloured or black and white symbols? What type(s) of symbols do they prefer to use for their communication interactions? What type(s) of symbols do they consider more appropriate for children? What type(s) of symbols do they consider more appropriate for adults?

A questionnaire with simple instructions was used to elicit the information from the participants. Through purposive sampling, 25 participants between the ages of 20 and 32 were selected. Twelve participants had been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, while the rest had mild or moderate intellectual disability.

Most of the participants preferred coloured symbols. Of all the six types of symbols, they preferred to use photographs and considered these as being the most appropriate symbols for adults, whereas, for them, Talking Mats is better for children.

It is vital that the voices of people with disabilities are heard and taken into account when services are to be provided.

Graphic symbols have been used widely in the field of augmentative and alternative communication (AAC). The advancement of technology in recent years has stimulated their development even further, thereby providing speech-language pathologists (SLPs) a wide range of options to choose for the individuals they support. However, existing literature on graphic symbols is scant and clinicians must base their decisions almost solely on clinical judgment. This paper aims to investigate the factors SLPs consider when choosing corpuses of graphic symbols for their clients.

An online survey was used that allowed multiple-choice responses. Data were analyzed and presented primarily as percentages.

Most respondents used graphic symbols with people having developmental disorders, and the corpuses of symbols they drew upon were based predominantly on availability, characteristics of the individual’s impairment or disability and intelligibility to the user and his or her communication partners. Existing policies related to graphic symbols also influence clinicians’ choices. SLPs search for support mainly from professional associations and training providers. In terms of use with technology, ready-made symbol packages for clinicians to use were found to be attractive.

Professional associations and institutions that focus on AAC need to provide adequate support to clinicians with a foundation based on evidence-based practice.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first research that focuses on current practices concerning the factors SLPs take into consideration when choosing the optimum graphic symbol corpus(es) for their clients.

The ongoing development of new graphic symbol sets in conjunction with a lack of literature supporting professionals in choosing the optimum set(s) for their users was the driving force behind this research project. The purpose of this paper is to explore the factors that professionals take into consideration when they choose one graphic symbol set instead of another.

Based on the phenomenology of pedagogy, semi-structured interviews were used with three speech and language therapists (SLTs), three special education teachers, one teacher for pupils with hearing loss, one foundation year teacher and one SENCo/deputy head teacher. Thematic analysis was used to process the data.

The results have shown that when professionals choose a graphic symbol set for their user(s), they focus on the iconicity, the software availability and its features. They are also influenced by any existing graphic symbol policies in the area they work. Training and follow-up support also influence professionals’ experiences when choosing graphic symbol sets for their users.

Given the limited literature pertaining to the topic of this paper, it is proposed that further research is conducted in order to build the theoretical and practical frameworks upon which professionals (such as SLTs and teachers), symbols developers and academics can base their future work.

This research aims to contribute to the scant literature regarding the factors that SLTs take into consideration when choosing a graphic symbol set for their user(s).