The great number of available collections of graphic symbols makes the process of selecting the optimal one for students with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) difficult. To this day, very few studies have focused on the factors that drive speech and language therapists (SLPs) to select certain graphic symbol collections to be used during intervention with students with ASD.
The current study aimed to investigate the experiences of SLPs in the selection of graphic symbol collections. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to receive in-depth information from 31 SLPs working, with students with ASD, in Cyprus. Then, the interviews were thematically analysed.
The outcomes revealed that SLPs focus on factors related to themselves (e.g., their training, research involvement, professional judgement), their client (e.g., preferences, symbolic skills) and the graphic symbol collection characteristics (e.g., iconicity, simplicity, color) before making the selection of the optimal symbol collection. Additionally, they reported factors about their clients’ family, including their opinions on symbol collections, their comprehension of symbols, and their clients’ economic status. Assessment and intervention, and practical factors (e.g., accessibility to graphic symbol collections, cost, ready-made material) were also considered.
The findings provide insight into the current practices in this selection as well as how those practices could be improved to meet the needs of individuals with ASD. It suggested that SLPs seek training opportunities and stay current with research advancements related to graphic symbols. The skills and preferences of clients should not be set aside, while collaboration with families is highlighted. Also, the need for developing formal tools to support the process of selecting the optimal collections is revealed.
References
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Dietz, A., Quach, W., Lund, S. K., & McKelvey, M. (2012). AAC assessment and clinical-decision making: The impact of experience. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 28(3), 148-159.
Judge, S., Randall, N., Goldbart, J., Lynch, Y., Moulam, L., Meredith, S., & Murray, J. (2019). The language and communication attributes of graphic symbol communication aids – a systematic review and narrative synthesis. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 15(6), 652–662. doi:10.1080/17483107.2019.1604828
Maguire, M., & Delahunt, B. (2017). Doing a thematic analysis: A practical, step-by-step guide for learning and teaching scholars. All Ireland Journal of Higher Education, 8(3), 3351-33514.
Pampoulou, E. (2017). Exploring professionals’ experiences when choosing graphic symbol sets. Journal of Enabling Technologies. 11(2), 49-58.
Pampoulou, E., & Fuller, D. R. (2020). Exploring AAC graphic symbol choices: a preliminary study. Journal of Enabling Technologies, 14(3), 171-185 doi:10.1108/jet-03-2020-0013
Pampoulou, E., Theodorou, E., & Petinou, K. (2018). The use of augmentative and alternative communication in Cyprus: Findings from a preliminary survey. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 34(1), 5-21.
