Biomedical Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
TABLe 14.1
Illustration of the Overlapping Domains of Language and Literacy Assessed by SLPs and
Educational AT Team Members
Language
Overlapping
Literacy
Speaking and Listening
Literate Language
Reading and Writing
•Form and content for social
and personal uses
•Academic and metalinguistic uses
•Letter knowledge
•Phonemic awareness
•Abstract and igurative content
•Word reading
•Lexical retrieval
•Decontexualized and formal forms
•Spelling
•Auditory memory
•Print concepts
•Punctuation
•Articulation
•Formal oral contexts
•Reading luency
•Fluency
•Print contexts
•Reading comprehension
•Voice
•Writing composition
Source:
Adapted from Ukrainetz, T. A., and Fresquez, E. F. (2003). “What isn't language?” A qualitative study of
the role of the school Speech-Language pathologist.
Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 34
,
284-298.
and teachers (Ukrainetz and Fresquez 2003). Such detailed reporting of specific param-
eters of language and literacy provide clear targets/markers for matching the operational
requirements for various AT intervention. Similar language and literacy abilities and/or
executive functioning skills can be identified to show the distinctive and shared targets
that are evaluated by SLPs and rehabilitation professionals working with adult popula-
tions. These results are used for matching the AT requirements and features.
The SLP is responsible for assessing the relationship that the domains of communi-
cation competence (i.e., linguistic, social, strategic, and operational) (Light 1989; Kovach
2009) may have on the individual's ability to benefit from various AT interventions. These
domains have been identified as important to the feature match process and for monitor-
ing outcomes. The linguistic and social domains require evaluating data on the various
subsystems of language identified earlier in this section. The strategic and operational
domains involve an individual's use of AT features and require evaluating data on execu-
tive functions and the cognitive, sensory, and perceptual domains.
Finally, as part of the AT assessment battery, SLPs will include procedures that are appli-
cable to everyday life. The use of ecological inventories and daily journals may help to iden-
tify variables or barriers to successful implementation of AT interventions (Beukelman and
Mirenda 2005). Conducting a task analysis to identify the operational requirements of AT
under consideration or a discrepancy analysis to identify the performance of peers on simi-
lar tasks may provide insight for feature matching. Interviewing is conducted to identify
the client's or family's values, expectations, beliefs, and goals. However, AT assessments
limited to ecological inventories, interviews, and observations in activities of daily living
will fail to gather the evidence needed to be most effective in the feature match process.
14.1.4 Matching Persons With Technology and SLPs
The MPT model is best applied at the point of selection and trial of the AT interventions
and then used to determine the outcomes of the process of matching the person and
the AT device/system (Scherer 2002, 2004; Scherer and Craddock 2002). As noted above,
external, clinical, and personal evidence is collected and vetted to arrive at the process
of identifying or matching the features and components of an AT device/system for
