Finding the best fit: A discrete choice experiment on the decision making of augmentative and alternative communication professionals

[1]  J. Goldbart,et al.  Professionals’ decision-making in recommending communication aids in the UK: competing considerations , 2019, Augmentative and alternative communication.

[2]  J. Goldbart,et al.  Decision-making in communication aid recommendations in the UK: cultural and contextual influencers , 2019, Augmentative and alternative communication.

[3]  Simon Judge,et al.  The language and communication attributes of graphic symbol communication aids – a systematic review and narrative synthesis , 2019, Disability and rehabilitation. Assistive technology.

[4]  S. Hess,et al.  What’s important in AAC decision making for children? Evidence from a best–worst scaling survey , 2019, Augmentative and alternative communication.

[5]  Janice Light,et al.  Challenges and opportunities in augmentative and alternative communication: Research and technology development to enhance communication and participation for individuals with complex communication needs , 2019, Augmentative and alternative communication.

[6]  Janice Light,et al.  New and emerging AAC technology supports for children with complex communication needs and their communication partners: State of the science and future research directions , 2019, Augmentative and alternative communication.

[7]  Janice Light,et al.  Designing effective AAC displays for individuals with developmental or acquired disabilities: State of the science and future research directions , 2019, Augmentative and alternative communication.

[8]  Alan R. Ellis,et al.  Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: Past, Present and Future , 2018, PharmacoEconomics.

[9]  A Moorcroft,et al.  A systematic review of the barriers and facilitators to the provision and use of low-tech and unaided AAC systems for people with complex communication needs and their families , 2018, Disability and rehabilitation. Assistive technology.

[10]  Yvonne Lynch,et al.  Instructional strategies used in direct AAC interventions with children to support graphic symbol learning: A systematic review , 2018 .

[11]  S. von Tetzchner.  Introduction to the special issue on aided language processes, development, and use: an international perspective , 2018, Augmentative and alternative communication.

[12]  S. Dada,et al.  Augmentative and alternative communication practices: a descriptive study of the perceptions of South African speech-language therapists , 2017, Augmentative and alternative communication.

[13]  Sarah M. Creer,et al.  Provision of powered communication aids in the United Kingdom , 2017, Augmentative and alternative communication.

[14]  A. Dietz,et al.  Assessment With Children Who Need Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC): Clinical Decisions of AAC Specialists. , 2017, Language, speech, and hearing services in schools.

[15]  Lisa A Prosser,et al.  Statistical Methods for the Analysis of Discrete-Choice Experiments: A Report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Good Research Practices Task Force. , 2016, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[16]  David J. Hajjar,et al.  “You Get More Than You Give”: Experiences of Community Partners in Facilitating Active Recreation with Individuals who have Complex Communication Needs , 2016, Augmentative and alternative communication.

[17]  B. Hemsley,et al.  Distance and proximity: research on social media connections in the field of communication disability , 2015, Disability and rehabilitation.

[18]  Janice Murray,et al.  A grounded theory of Internet and social media use by young people who use augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) , 2015, Disability and rehabilitation.

[19]  Jennifer J. Thistle,et al.  Building Evidence-based Practice in AAC Display Design for Young Children: Current Practices and Future Directions , 2015, Augmentative and alternative communication.

[20]  Anne Marie Renzoni,et al.  Towards Advancing Knowledge Translation of AAC Outcomes Research for Children and Youth with Complex Communication Needs , 2015, Augmentative and alternative communication.

[21]  J. Becher,et al.  Comprehension of spoken language in non-speaking children with severe cerebral palsy : Development and application of a newly developed Computer-Based instrument for low motor language testing (C-BiLLT) , 2015 .

[22]  Janice Light,et al.  Communicative Competence for Individuals who require Augmentative and Alternative Communication: A New Definition for a New Era of Communication? , 2014, Augmentative and alternative communication.

[23]  Janice Murray,et al.  ‘Happy and excited’: Perceptions of using digital technology and social media by young people who use augmentative and alternative communication , 2014 .

[24]  Janice Light,et al.  Putting People First: Re-Thinking the Role of Technology in Augmentative and Alternative Communication Intervention , 2013, Augmentative and alternative communication.

[25]  Simon Judge,et al.  Examining the Need for and Provision of AAC Methods in the UK , 2013 .

[26]  A. Lloyd,et al.  A discrete choice experiment to determine patient preferences for injection devices in multiple sclerosis , 2013, Journal of medical economics.

[27]  Laura J. Ball,et al.  Personnel Roles in the AAC Assessment Process , 2012, Augmentative and alternative communication.

[28]  Wendy Quach,et al.  AAC Assessment and Clinical-Decision Making: The Impact of Experience , 2012, Augmentative and alternative communication.

[29]  David R. Beukelman,et al.  AAC Text Messaging , 2012 .

[30]  Joanna Coast,et al.  Using qualitative methods for attribute development for discrete choice experiments: issues and recommendations. , 2012, Health economics.

[31]  P. Enderby,et al.  Barriers and facilitators to the use of high-technology augmentative and alternative communication devices: a systematic review and qualitative synthesis. , 2012, International journal of language & communication disorders.

[32]  Mandy Ryan,et al.  Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. , 2012, Health economics.

[33]  Mickael Bech,et al.  Designing a stated choice experiment: The value of a qualitative process , 2012 .

[34]  B. Batorowicz,et al.  Teamwork in AAC: Examining Clinical Perceptions , 2011, Augmentative and alternative communication.

[35]  J. Rönnberg,et al.  A Qualitative Analysis of Email Interactions of Children who use Augmentative and Alternative Communication , 2010, Augmentative and alternative communication.

[36]  What You Might Not Find in a Typical Transition Plan! Some Important Lessons From Adults Who Rely on Augmentative and Alternative Communication , 2010 .

[37]  S. Lindsay.  Perceptions of health care workers prescribing augmentative and alternative communication devices to children , 2010, Disability and rehabilitation. Assistive technology.

[38]  Janice Murray,et al.  Augmentative and alternative communication: a review of current issues , 2009 .

[39]  Stephen N. Calculator,et al.  Augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) and inclusive education for students with the most severe disabilities , 2009 .

[40]  E. Alant,et al.  The effect of aided language stimulation on vocabulary acquisition in children with little or no functional speech. , 2009, American journal of speech-language pathology.

[41]  Ralf W Schlosser,et al.  Effects of augmentative and alternative communication intervention on speech production in children with autism: a systematic review. , 2008, American journal of speech-language pathology.

[42]  Gillian King,et al.  Expertise in research-informed clinical decision making: Working effectively with families of children with little or no functional speech , 2008 .

[43]  David McNaughton,et al.  “Reach for the Stars”: Five Principles for the Next 25 Years of AAC , 2008 .

[44]  Cathy Binger,et al.  The Morphology and Syntax of Individuals who use AAC: Research Review and Implications for Effective Practice , 2008, Augmentative and alternative communication.

[45]  Bernard C. K. Choi,et al.  Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in health research, services, education and policy: 1. Definitions, objectives, and evidence of effectiveness. , 2006, Clinical and investigative medicine. Medecine clinique et experimentale.

[46]  Ralf W Schlosser,et al.  The impact of augmentative and alternative communication intervention on the speech production of individuals with developmental disabilities: a research review. , 2006, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[47]  Ella Inglebret,et al.  Perspectives of speech language pathologists regarding success versus abandonment of AAC , 2006, Augmentative and alternative communication.

[48]  Janice C Light,et al.  Long-term outcomes for individuals who use augmentative and alternative communication: Part I – what is a “good” outcome? , 2006, Augmentative and alternative communication.

[49]  Sheryl Burghstahler,et al.  AAC, Employment, and Independent Living: A Success Story. , 2006 .

[50]  Rita L. Bailey,et al.  Family members' perceptions of augmentative and alternative communication device use. , 2006, Language, speech, and hearing services in schools.

[51]  David McNaughton,et al.  “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 , 2005 .

[52]  Mandy Ryan,et al.  Discrete choice experiments in health care , 2004, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[53]  D. Hensher,et al.  Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications , 2000 .

[54]  Phil Parette,et al.  Family-Centered Decision Making in Assistive Technology , 1999 .

[55]  Mark J. Garratt,et al.  Efficient Experimental Design with Marketing Research Applications , 1994 .

[56]  S. Holm.  A Simple Sequentially Rejective Multiple Test Procedure , 1979 .