|
The acceptance of assistive technology, such as AAC devices,
by elderly persons is influenced by many different factors.
First, most of the individuals in this age group have lived
for many years with normal communication skills and acquiring
a communication disorder late in life requires accepting, and
adjusting to, a disability. Acceptance of assistive technology
can be viewed as one aspect of accepting one's disability. Second,
given the interactive nature of communication, AAC technology
must also be accepted by an elderly person's communication partners
(listeners) if it is to be used successfully. If these important
listeners are unwilling to accept and endorse AAC strategies,
many elderly persons are unwilling to do so for themselves.
Third, the rehabilitation professionals who serve elderly persons
usually have been trained to assist the elderly in recovering
their natural communication skills. Therefore, acceptance of
an AAC system is recognition on their part that natural speech
functions cannot be recovered sufficiently to meet daily communication
needs.
|
|
Project R1-1: We completed
a project comparing the attitudes of AAC users with ALS, their
family members/caregivers, and peers toward disordered natural
speech, low tech communication books, and high tech AAC devices.
Participants viewed three videotaped stories of a man with ALS
presented in each of the three different methods. All groups
preferred high tech AAC devices first, then low tech options,
and disordered natural speech last.
Project R1-2: In a second
project, we compared the attitudes of AAC users with ALS, their
spouses/caregivers, and peers for story-telling presented on
word-by-word, sentence-by-sentence, and full narrative bases.
Participants viewed three videotaped stories of a man with ALS
presented in each of the three different methods. Listeners
were then asked to rank their preference for the three methods.
All participants preferred full narrative presentation first,
followed by sentence-by-sentence, and word-by-word presentation
last.
Project R1-3: We completed
a third project comparing preferences for story telling by a
man with moderate phasis using three different communication
modes: natural speech, a low technology notebook, and an AAC
device with digitized speech output. Three groups of participants
were involved in the project: caregivers/family members, speech
language pathologists, and peers. Family members and speech
language pathologists preferred natural speech over the low
tech or high tech options. The peers preferred the digitized
speech mode over the natural speech or the low tech communication
book.
Project R1-4: For individuals
with aphasia (due to stroke), peers (persons of a similar age
without aphasia) strongly supported their use of an AAC device
with digitized voice as compared to a low tech or residual natural
speech. However, family members preferred the use of residual
natural speech rather than either of the AAC technologies. Peers
with aphasia clustered according to age. Younger persons with
aphasia preferred the AAC device with digitized speech for story
telling while older persons with aphasia preferred the natural
speech mode of communication.
Project R1-5: The project
with traumatic brain injury is ongoing. Currently, we are collecting
data for an attitude study toward the use of supplemented speech
(AAC plus residual natural speech) for persons with traumatic
brain injury. The respondents in this attitude study will be
persons with traumatic brain injury, their family members, health
care professionals, and the public.
|
