Metrics for Comparing Three Word-Based Software Programs Used for Augmentative and Alternative Communication

The purpose of this investigation was to conduct an analysis of a set of metrics developed for comparing features of software used in speech generating devices (SGD) for augmentative and alternative communication (AAC). These metrics – measures of speed, efficiency, and accuracy – were employed during a sentence reconstruction task. Twenty two participants without disabilities reconstructed nine sentences using each of three SGD software programs, counterbalanced to remove order effects. Results revealed differences in the metrics across the software programs that were supported by a social validation survey completed by the participants. These results provide benchmark data about relative speed, accuracy, and efficiency of these software programs in structured use, and can inform professionals in matching potential AAC users with specific features of word-based software.

[1]  Kathleen F. McCoy,et al.  Brevity and speed of message delivery trade-offs in augmentative and alternative communication , 2007, Augmentative and alternative communication.

[2]  Jacob Cohen.  Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , 1969, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[3]  Kim Adams,et al.  The effect of context priming and task type on augmentative communication performance , 2009, Augmentative and alternative communication.

[4]  D R Beukelman,et al.  Extended communication samples of augmented communicators. II: Analysis of multiword sequences. , 1990, The Journal of speech and hearing disorders.

[5]  Horabail S. Venkatagiri.  Efficiency of lexical prediction as a communication acceleration technique , 1993 .

[6]  Bernard M O'Keefe,et al.  Identification and Rankings of Communication Aid Features by Five Groups , 1998 .

[7]  Laura M. Justice,et al.  The Importance of Effect Sizes in the Interpretation of ResearchPrimer on Research: Part 3 , 2006 .

[8]  D. Jeffery Higginbotham,et al.  Subject selection in AAC research: Decision points , 1995 .

[9]  D. Beukelman,et al.  Augmentative & Alternative Communication: Supporting Children & Adults With Complex Communication Needs , 2006 .

[10]  Kathleen F. McCoy,et al.  Relevance and speed of message delivery trade-offs in augmentative and alternative communication. , 2003, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[11]  D. Jeffery Higginbotham,et al.  Evaluation of keystroke savings across five assistive communication technologies , 1992 .

[12]  Raymond Quist,et al.  Assistive communication devices: Call for specifications , 1992 .

[13]  Simon P. Levine,et al.  Effect of a word prediction feature on user performance , 1996 .

[14]  T. Levine,et al.  Eta Squared, Partial Eta Squared, and Misreporting of Effect Size in Communication Research , 2002 .

[15]  Vinoth Jagaroo,et al.  Contributions of Principles of Visual Cognitive Science to AAC System Display Design , 2004 .

[16]  Denise Reid,et al.  Effects of word prediction and location of word prediction list on text entry with children with spina bifida and hydrocephalus , 2002 .

[17]  W. Thalheimer,et al.  How to calculate effect sizes from published research: A simplified methodology , 2002 .

[18]  K M Yorkston,et al.  Extended communication samples of augmented communicators. I: A comparison of individualized versus standard single-word vocabularies. , 1990, The Journal of speech and hearing disorders.