Factors predicting school staff's responsivity toward students with intellectual and developmental disability and complex communication needs

Teachers' use of augmented input and responsive strategies in schools for students with intellectual disability: A multiple case study of a communication partner intervention

Background and aims

Teachers serve as critical communication partners for students with intellectual disability (ID) who face communication difficulties. However, teachers may lack sufficient training in using communication partner strategies and augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) in the classroom. This study aimed to explore teacher application of a communication partner intervention (AKKtiv ComPal) in schools for students with ID.

Methods

Video observations were conducted at four schools during a teacher-led group activity at pre- and postintervention, with follow-up 7 months later, focusing on communication partner strategies and AAC use applied as a universal approach in the classroom. Differences and similarities in intervention application and contextual factors that may influence teacher application were investigated using a multiple case study approach, in which the four teachers and their contexts served as the four examined cases.

Results

All cases increased the access to communication boards in the classroom and used more augmented input and responsive strategies following intervention. Follow-up measures revealed variability in augmented input and sustained or more use of responsive strategies. Despite increased strategy use, access to communication boards remained inconsistent, and augmented input was used with variability across observation minutes. Influencing factors to teacher application seemed to be classroom setups (such as having a table), previous AAC skills, student characteristics, and postintervention efforts such as repeating the intervention or participating in follow-up sessions.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates that classroom teachers for students with ID can use augmented input and responsive strategies as a universal design approach in the classroom following the AKKtiv ComPal intervention. However, teachers may utilize the strategies somewhat differently, partly influenced by their contextual factors.

Implications

The findings suggest that while teachers for students with ID can successfully use communication partner strategies in the classroom, their use of augmented input should be nurtured over time to ensure sustained use and possibly improve consistency. Additionally, adapting to the physical environment of the classroom is crucial to optimize the application of these strategies.

A trained communication partner’s use of responsive strategies in aided communication with three adults with Rett syndrome: A case report

Purpose

To explore and describe a trained communication partner’s use of responsive strategies in dyadic interaction with adults with Rett syndrome.

Introduction

Responsive partner strategies facilitate social, communicative, and linguistic development. The common feature is that the communication partner responds contingently to the other’s focus of attention and interprets their acts as communicative. Research on responsive partner strategies that involves individuals with significant communication and motor disabilities remains sparse. The same applies to if, and how, the use of communication aids impacts on the partner’s use of responsive strategies.

Materials and methods

A therapist, trained in responsive partner strategies and aided communication interacted during 14 sessions with each of three participants. The participants were adults with Rett syndrome. A gaze-controlled device and responsive strategies were used during all sessions. The Responsive Augmentative and Alternative Communication Style scale (RAACS) was used to assess the partner’s responsiveness. RAACS consists of 11 items including ratings of to what extent the partner is being attentive to, confirms, and expands the individual’s communication. During eight of the 14 sessions, aided AAC Modelling was also used, i.e., the communication partner pointed at symbols on the gaze-controlled device while interacting. In addition to RAACS, each time the communication partner confirmed or expanded on communication when (a) the participants used the gaze-controlled device and (b) the participants did not use the gaze-controlled device was counted. Descriptive statistics were used to present the results. Non-parametric tests were used to compare means between the two conditions and between participants.

Results

Inter-rater agreement for the different RAACS items ranged from 0.73 to 0.96 and was thus found to be fair to excellent. The communication partner’s use of responsive strategies varied when communicating with different participants and the scores were higher when aided AAC modeling was used. The communication partner’s number of responses and use of responsive strategies were higher when the participants communicated through a gaze-controlled device.

Conclusion

The communication partner’s use of responsive and scaffolding strategies is not a fixed construct but varies in interactions with different non-speaking persons. The same is true whether the non-speaking person uses a gaze-controlled device with digitized speech or not.