Türk Dil ve Konuşma Terapistlerinin Alternatif ve Destekleyici İletişim Sistemleri Hakkındaki Düşüncelerinin İncelenmesi

Year 2024, Volume: 4 Issue: 10, 87 - 94, 03.06.2024

Ayşe Nur Koçak , Handan Çetinkaya , Ruveyda Nur Beniz , Ayşe Nur Karatekin

https://doi.org/10.54270/atljm.2024.58

Abstract

Amaçlar: Dil ve konuşma terapistleri (DKT), alternatif ve destekleyici iletişim sistemlerinin (ADİS) hazırlanması ve öğretilmesinde birincil yetkililerdir. Bu çalışma Türk dil ve konuşma terapistlerinin ADİS sistemleri hakkındaki düşüncelerini incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır.
Gereç ve Yöntemler: Araştırma, araştırmacılar tarafından geliştirilen "Alternatif ve Destekleyici İletişim Sistemleri Bilgi Anketi (ADİSBA)" ile gerçekleştirilmiştir. ADİSBA, a) Demografik sorular, b) ADİS ile ilgili 17 madde ve c) ADİS hakkında iki açık uçlu soru olmak üzere üç bölümden oluşmaktadır. Bu çalışmaya 45 DKT katılmıştır. Katılımcıların %33,3'ü 2-3 yıldır DKT olarak çalışmaktadır ve %55,6'sı bir rehabilitasyon merkezinde çalışmaktadır.
Sonuçlar: Klinik ortamda ADİS kullanan katılımcıların, kullanmayanlara göre ADİSBA skorları istatistiksel olarak anlamlı farklılık göstermektedir (p =,003 <,05). Ancak katılımcıların ADİS hakkında, ders alma, eğitim alma ve DKT olarak hizmet sürelerine göre istatistiksel olarak anlamlı farklılık elde edilememiştir. Katılımcıların %80'inin ADİS kullanımında rahat olmadığı görülmüştür. Aynı katılımcıların ADİS örnekleri incelendiğinde, katılımcıların sadece beş farklı ADİS örneği verebildiği ortaya konmuştur. Katılımcıların verdiği ADİS örneklerinin çoğunluğunun düşük teknolojili ve yardımsız ADİS sistemleridir. Ayrıca katılımcıların en çok verdiği örneğin %32,94 oran ile düşük teknolojili bir cihaz olan "İletişim Tahtası" olduğu gözlemlenmiştir. DKT'lerin %82,2'si ADİS kullanmak istemektedir ancak a) ADİS hakkında bilgi eksikliği, b) materyal yetersizliği, c) ailelerin olumsuz düşünceleri d) DKT'lerin ADİS'leri kullanırken rahat olmamaları bu sürecin önündeki engellerdir.
Sonuç: DKT'lerin ADİS konusunda daha bilinçli olmaları gerekmektedir. Katılımcıların verdikleri örneklerin sınırlı olması, destekli öğrenme sistemlerinin Türkiye'de yeterince bilinmediğini göstermektedir Ancak, ADİS kullanımı konusunda farklı engelleri bulunmaktadır. Türk kültürü ve diliyle uyumlu materyallerin geliştirilmesine ihtiyaç vardır. Bunu geliştirmek için, DKT'lerin ADİS sistemlerine yönelik araştırmalar yapması oldukça önem taşımaktadır. Ayrıca, DKT lisans eğitiminde ADİS ile ilgili verilen eğitiminin geliştirilmesine ihtiyaç bulunmaktadır. Bu gelişme ile Türkçe diline özgü ADİS çeşitlerinin güncel tutulabileceği düşünülmektedir.

Keywords

dil ve konuşma terapisti, betimsel araştırma, alternatif ve destekleyici iletişim sistemleri

AN INVESTIGATION OF TURKISH SPEECH AND LANGUAGE THERAPISTS’ THOUGHTS ON ALTERNATIVE AND AUGMENTATIVE COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS

Abstract

Objectives: Speech and language therapists (SLP) are the primary authorities for preparing and teaching alternative and augmentative communication systems (AAC). This study aims to find Turkish SLPs' thoughts about AAC systems.
Materials and Methods: The research was carried out with a survey that, researchers developed called “Alternative and Augmentative Communication Knowledge Questionnaire (AACQ)”. AACQ contains three parts, a) Demographic questions, b) 17 items about AAC & and c) Two open-ended questions about the AAC. For this study, 45 SLPs participated. 33.3% of the participants have been working as SLPs for 2-3 years and 55.6% of them are working in a rehabilitation center.
Results: AACQ scores differ statistically and significantly according to the group that uses AAC in clinical settings (p =,003 <,05). But did not differ statistically according to taking a lecture about AAC, taking courses about AAC and, their length of service as an SLP. It was observed that 80% of the participants were not comfortable using AAC. When the AAC examples of the same participants were analyzed, participants only gave five different examples. The example with the highest percentage and the majority of the rest of the examples were low-tech and un-aided AAC systems. Also observed that the largest proportion of the example is “Communication Board” with 32.94% percent which is low-tech device. 82.2% of the SLPs want to use AAC but a) lack of knowledge about AAC, b) insufficient material, c)families’ negative thoughts d) discomfort of SLPs while using the AACs were barriers to this process.
Conclusion: Turkish SLPs need to become more aware of the AAC. The limited examples shows that AAC systems are not sufficiently known in Turkey. But they also have different barriers to using AAC. There is a need to develop materials compatible with Turkish culture and language. To improve that, it is important to conduct investigations into the AAC systems of the Turkish SLPs. In addition, there is a need to improve AAC education in undergraduate lectures in SLP education. With this development, it is thought that Turkish language-specific ADIS varieties can be kept up to date.

Keywords

alternative and augmentative communication systems, speech and language pathologist, descriptive research

Ethical Statement

The ethics committee of this research was approved by İstinye University Human Research Ethics Committee on 10.03.2022 with protocol number 22-42. At the same time, all participants were informed about the research, and voluntary consent was read before data collection.

References

• Dil ve Konuşma Terapistleri Derneği (DKTD). Dil ve Konuşma Terapisti Kimdir?. 2020. Retrieved from https://www.dktd.org/tr/files/download/p1e8tpiusl15n41h7pq2n1ib35u34.pdf
• Binger C. Aided AAC Intervention for Children With Suspected Childhood Apraxia of Speech. Perspectives on Augmentative and Alternative Communication. 2007 Apr 1;16(1):10.
• Cress C, King J. AAC strategies for people with primary progressive aphasia without dementia: two case studies. Augmentative and Alternative Communication. 1999 Jan;15(4):248–59.
• Glennen SL. The Handbook of Augmentative and Alternative Communication. San Diego: Singular Publ., [20]00; 1997.
• ASHA. Roles and Responsibilities of Speech-Language Pathologists in Schools. Ashaorg [Internet]. 2009; Available from: https://www.asha.org/policy/PI2010-00317/
• Marshall J, Goldbart J. “Communication is everything I think.” Parenting a child who needs Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC). International Journal of Language &amp; Communication Disorders. 2008 Jan;43(1):77–98.
• Association (ASHA) ASLH. Childhood Apraxia of Speech [Internet]. American Speech- Language-Hearing Association. 2007. Available from: https://www.asha.org/policy/TR2007-00278/
• Morgan AT, Murray E, Liégeois FJ. Interventions for childhood apraxia of speech. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2018 May 30;5(5).
• Auer P, Hörmeyer I. Achieving intersubjectivity in Augmented and Alternative Communication (AAC): Intercorporeal, embodied and disembodied practices. 2017 Jan 1;55.
• Bendová P. Social-psychological aspects of the application of alternative and augmentative communication (AAC) in pupils with cerebral palsy. Annales Universitatis Paedagogicae Cracoviensis Studia Psychologica. 2011 V(1):58–63.
• Beukelman DR, Fager S, Ball L, Dietz A. AAC for adults with acquired neurological conditions: A review. Augmentative and Alternative Communication. 2007 Jan;23(3):230–42.
• Clarke M, Price K. Augmentative and alternative communication for children with cerebral palsy. Paediatrics and Child Health. 2012 Sep;22(9):367–71.
• Bloch S, Wilkinson R. The Understandability of AAC: A Conversation Analysis Study of Acquired Dysarthria. Augmentative and Alternative Communication. 2004 Jan;20(4):272–82.
• Creer S, Enderby P, Judge S, John A. Prevalence of people who could benefit from augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) in the UK: determining the need. International Journal of Language &amp; Communication Disorders. 2016 Apr 26;51(6):639–53.
• Babb S, Jung S, Ousley C, McNaughton D, Light J. Personalized AAC Intervention to Increase Participation and Communication for a Young Adult With Down Syndrome. Topics in Language Disorders. 2021 Jul;41(3):232–48.
• Bourgeois M, Fried-Oken M, Rowland C. AAC Strategies and Tools for Persons With Dementia. The ASHA Leader. 2010 Mar;15(3):8–11.
• Navarro II, Cretcher SR, McCarron AR, Figueroa C, Alt M. Using AAC to unlock communicative potential in late-talking toddlers. Journal of Communication Disorders. 2020 Sep;87:106025.
• Oommen ER, McCarthy JW. Simultaneous Natural Speech and AAC Interventions for Children with Childhood Apraxia of Speech: Lessons from a Speech-Language Pathologist Focus Group. Augmentative and Alternative Communication. 2015 Jan 2;31(1):63–76.
• Ganz JB, Goodwyn FD, Boles MM, Hong ER, Rispoli MJ, Lund EM, et al. Impacts of a PECS Instructional Coaching Intervention on Practitioners and Children with Autism. Augmentative and Alternative Communication. 2013 Aug 19;29(3):210–21.
• Nunes DRP. AAC Interventions for Autism: A Research Summary. International Journal of Special Education. 2008;23(2):17–26.
• Kent-Walsh J, Binger C. Methodological advances, opportunities, and challenges in AAC research. Augmentative and Alternative Communication. 2018 Apr 3;34(2):93–103.
• Sennott SC, Light JC, McNaughton D. AAC Modeling Intervention Research Review. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities. 2016 Apr 8;41(2):101–15.
• Hetzroni O. AAC and literacy. Disability and Rehabilitation. 2004 Jan;26(21-22):1305–12.
• Foley BE, Staples AH. Developing Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) and Literacy Interventions in a Supported Employment Setting. Topics in Language Disorders. 2003;23(4):325.
• Marvin LA, Montano JJ, Fusco LM, Gould EP. Speech-Language Pathologists’ Perceptions of Their Training and Experience in Using Alternative and Augmentative Communication. Contemporary Issues in Communication Science and Disorders. 2003 Mar;30(Spring):76–83.
• Costigan FA, Light J. A Review of Preservice Training in Augmentative and Alternative Communication for Speech-Language Pathologists, Special Education Teachers, and Occupational Therapists. Assistive Technology. 2010 Dec 3;22(4):200–12.
• Wormnæs S, Abdel Malek Y. Egyptian Speech Therapists Want More Knowledge About Augmentative and Alternative Communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication. 2004 Mar;20(1):30–41.
• Zarifian T, Malekian M, Azimi T. Iranian Speech-language Pathologists’ Awareness of Alternative and Augmentative Communication Methods. Iranian Rehabilitation Journal. 2021 Mar 1;19(1):41–50.
• Ratcliff A, Koul R, Lloyd LL. Preparation in Augmentative and Alternative Communication: An Update for Speech-Language Pathology Training. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology. 2008 Feb;17(1):48–59.
• Subihi AS. Saudi Special Education Student Teachers’ Knowledge of Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC). International Journal of Special Education. 2013;28(3):93–103.
• George D, Mallery P. SPSS for Windows Step by Step. Allyn &amp; Bacon; 2003.
• Hidecker MJC. AAC Use by Young Children at Home. Perspectives on Augmentative and Alternative Communication. 2010 Apr;19(1):5–11.
• Clarke H, McConachie K, Pri M. Views of young people using augmentative and alternative communication systems. International Journal of Language &amp; Communication Disorders. 2001 Jan;36(1):107–15.
• McCord MS, Soto G. Perceptions of AAC: An Ethnographic Investigation of Mexican-American Families. Augmentative and Alternative Communication. 2004 Jan;20(4):209–27.
• Granlund M, BjÖrck-ÅKesson E, Wilder J, Ylvén R. AAC Interventions for Children in a Family Environment: Implementing Evidence in Practice. Augmentative and Alternative Communication. 2008 Jan;24(3):207–19.
• Yaşa İC, Tokalak S. Turkish speech-language therapists’ perceptions and experiences of augmentative and alternative communication. The European Research Journal. 2023 Sep 4;9(5):948–62.