Design and evaluation of validity of an electronic alternative and augmentative communication system for Persian-speaking children

authors:

avatar Seyedeh Sepideh Seyedhosseini , avatar Fatemeh Haresabadi , * , avatar Abbas Ebadi ORCID , avatar Zahra Ghayoumi , avatar Toktam Maleki Shahmahmood ORCID

Koomesh: Vol.24, issue 3; 358-365
published online: August 09, 2022
article type: Research Article
received: June 02, 2021
accepted: November 09, 2021

how to cite: Seyedhosseini S S, Haresabadi F, Ebadi A, Ghayoumi Z, Maleki Shahmahmood T. Design and evaluation of validity of an electronic alternative and augmentative communication system for Persian-speaking children. koomesh. 2022;24(3):e152745. 

Abstract

Introduction: Due to the high prevalence of communication disorders, augmentative and alternative communication methods are one the options ahead to solve the problems of these people. Since there are no complex tools for Persian-speaking children with communication disorders, we decided to design communication assistant software for these children that produces sound output. Materials and Methods: In the first step, 337 basic Persian words were selected based on an extensive literature review on basic words of Persian-speaking children and consultation with experts. To evaluate the Content Validity Ratio (CVR) and the Content Validity Index (CVI), nine speech and language pathologists commented about the appropriateness of the words and 247 words remained. Then, the images of the remaining words were designed by a graphic designer, and, their CVI was evaluated by 6 speech and language pathologists. In the next step, words were audio recorded by an experienced speaker in the studio. Then, a programmer designed the AAC software as a cross-platform software based on the words and their images using the C # programming language. Results: According to Lawshe’s model, for nine experts, the words with a CVR value of >0.78 have remained. In addition, the CVI of the final 247 words was 0.95 and the total CVI for images was estimated as 0.8. Conclusion: The results revealed that the designed electronic AAC system has a good content validity for Persian-speaking children with communication disorders.

References

  • 1.

    Hurtig RR, Downey D. Augmentative and alternative communication in acute and critical care settings: Plural Publishing; 2008.

  • 2.

    Silva DP, Amate FC, Basile FRM, Bianchi Filho C, Rodrigues SC, Bissaco MA. AACVOX: mobile application for augmentative alternative communication to help people with speech disorder and motor impairment. Res Biomed Engin 2018; 34: 166-175.

  • 3.

    Boster JB, McCarthy JW. Designing augmentative and alternative communication applications: The results of focus groups with speech-language pathologists and parents of children with autism spectrum disorder. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2018; 13: 353-365.

  • 4.

    Mohammad K, Joghatayi M. The Report of Social needs to The Welfare Services. Tehran: University of Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences; 1995.

  • 5.

    Beukelman D, Mirenda P. Augmentative and Alternative Communication (3rdedn). Paul H Brookes, Baltimore, MD. 2005.

  • 6.

    Light J, Mcnaughton D. Designing AAC research and intervention to improve outcomes for individuals with complex communication needs. Augment Altern Commun 2015; 31: 85-96.

  • 7.

    Kthner I, Kbler A, Halder S. Comparison of eye tracking, electrooculography and an auditory brain-computer interface for binary communication: a case study with a participant in the locked-in state. J Neuroeng Rehabil 2015; 12: 1-11.

  • 8.

    Beukelman DR, Mirenda P. Augmentative and Alternative Communication: Supporting Children and Adults with Complex Communication Needs: Paul H. Brookes Pub. 2012.

  • 9.

    Sennott S, Bowker A. Autism, aac, and proloquo2go. Perspectives on Augmentative and Alternative Communication. 2009 Dec;18(4):137-45.

  • 10.

    Olive ML, de la Cruz B, Davis TN, Chan JM, Lang RB, O'Reilly MF, et al. The effects of enhanced milieu teaching and a voice output communication aid on the requesting of three children with autism. J Autism Dev Disord 2007; 37: 1505-1513.

  • 11.

    Zarifian T, Seifi MM. Survey of Speech and Language Pathologist's Knowledge of Augmentative and Alternative Communication Methods. Speech Lang Pathol 2014; 1: 13-20. (Persian).

  • 12.

    Nematzadeh SH, Dadras M, Dastjerdi Kazemi M, Mansoorizadeh M. Persian core vocabulary based on Iranian children. Tehran: Madreseh; 2011.

  • 13.

    Mehdipour N, Shirazi TS, Nematzadeh SH. Study of vocabulary and sentence development in Persian children from 18 to 24 months. Speech Lang Pathol 2013; 1: 9-71.

  • 14.

    Davis LL. Instrument review: Getting the most from a panel of experts. Appl Nurs Res 1992; 5: 194-197.

  • 15.

    Lawshe CH. A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychol 1975; 28: 563-575.

  • 16.

    Polit DF, Beck CT, Owen SV. Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations. Res Nurs Health 2007; 30: 459-467.

  • 17.

    Light J, Drager K. AAC technologies for young children with complex communication needs: State of the science and future research directions. Augment Altern Commun 2007; 23: 204-216.##https://doi.org/10.1080/07434610701553635.

  • 18.

    Park D, Song S, Lee D. Smart phone-based context-aware augmentative and alternative communications system. J Central South Univ 2014; 21: 3551-3558.

  • 19.

    Bradshaw J. The use of augmentative and alternative communication apps for the iPad, iPod and iPhone: an overview of recent developments. Tizard Learn Disabil Rev 2013.

  • 20.

    Holyfield C, Drager K, Light J, Caron JG. Typical toddlers' participation in "just-in-time" programming of vocabulary for visual scene display augmentative and alternative communication apps on mobile technology: A descriptive study. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 2017; 26: 737-749.

  • 21.

    Ghatkamble R, Son J, Park D. A design and implementation of smartphone-based AAC system. J Korea Instit Inform Commun Engine 2014; 18: 1895-1903.

  • 22.

    Flores M, Musgrove K, Renner S, Hinton V, Strozier S, Franklin S, et al. A comparison of communication using the Apple iPad and a picture-based system. Augment Altern Commun 2012; 28: 74-84.

  • 23.

    Visvader P. AAC basics and implementation: How to teach students who talk with technology. Boulder, CO: Assistive Technology Team, Boulder Valley School District. 2013.##.