Model for Vocabulary Selection of Sensitive Topics: An Example from Pain-Related Vocabulary

Abstract

Vocabulary selection for graphic symbol-based augmentative and alternative communication systems is important to enable persons with significant communication difficulties to express a variety of communication functions to indicate needs and wants, to develop social closeness, and to fulfill social etiquette. For persons who experience pain, abuse, bullying, or neglect, it is essential to be able to communicate about sensitive issues. However, published core vocabulary lists allow limited scope for communicating about sensitive topics, due mainly to the techniques employed to determine such lists (e.g., observations or recording of communication patterns of peers with typical development during fun-based or daily activities). This article is based on the outcome of a study of children's pain-related vocabulary. Based on the study, we propose a model for selecting vocabulary on sensitive topics. The model consists of four phases: (1) using hypothetical scenarios; (2) considering different perspectives that may affect vocabulary selection; (3) involving direct stakeholders, and (4) customizing vocabulary.

Keywords

Augmentative and alternative communication - sensitive topics - stakeholder review - vocabulary - vocabulary selection

• References

• 1 Bornman J, Bryen DN. Social validation of vocabulary selection: ensuring stakeholder relevance. Augment Altern Commun 2013; 29 (02) 174-181
• 2 Light J, Parsons AR, Drager K. “There's more to life than cookies”: Developing interactions for social closeness with beginning communicators who use AAC. In: Exemplary Practices for Beginning Communicators: Implications for AAC. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes; 2002: 187-218
• 3 Light J. Interaction involving individuals using augmentative and alternative communication systems: state of the art and future directions. Augment Altern Commun 1988; 4 (02) 66-82
• 4 Carlson F. A format for selecting vocabulary for the nonspeaking child. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch 1981; 12 (04) 240-245
• 5 Snodgrass MR, Stoner JB, Angell ME. Teaching conceptually referenced core vocabulary for initial augmentative and alternative communication. Augment Altern Commun 2013; 29 (04) 322-333
• 6 Reichle J, Drager K, Caron J, Parker-McGowan Q. Playing the long game: considering the future of augmentative and alternative communication research and service. Semin Speech Lang 2016; 37 (04) 259-273
• 7 Morrow DR, Mirenda P, Beukelman DR, Yorkston KM. Vocabulary selection for augmentative communication systems: a comparison of three techniques. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 1993; 2 (02) 19-30
• 8 Balandin S, Iacono T. A few well-chosen words. Augment Altern Commun 1998; 14 (03) 147-161
• 9 Bryen DN. Vocabulary to support socially-valued adult roles. Augment Altern Commun 2008; 24 (04) 294-301
• 10 Yorkston K, Dowden P, Honsinger M, Marriner N, Smith K. A comparison of standard and user vocabulary lists. Augment Altern Commun 1988; 4 (04) 189-210
• 11 Beukelman DR, Mirenda P. Augmentative and Alternative Communication. Supporting Children and Adults with Complex Communication Needs. 4 ed. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes; 2013
• 12 Boenisch J, Soto G. The oral core vocabulary of typically developing English-speaking school-aged children: implications for AAC practice. Augment Altern Commun 2015; 31 (01) 77-84
• 13 Balandin S, Iacono T. Topics of meal-break conversations. Augment Altern Commun 1998; 14 (03) 131-146
• 14 Banajee M, Dicarlo C, Buras Stricklin S. Core vocabulary determination for toddlers. Augment Altern Commun 2003; 19 (02) 67-73
• 15 Fallon KA, Light J, Page TK. Enhancing vocabulary selection for preschoolers who require augmentative and alternative communication (AAC). Am J Speech Lang Pathol 2001; 10: 81-94
• 16 Fried-Oken M, More L. An initial vocabulary for nonspeaking preschool children based on developmental and environmental language sources. Augment Altern Commun 1992; 8 (01) 41-56
• 17 Marvin C, Beukelman DR, Bilyeu D. Vocabulary-use patterns in preschool children: effects of context and time sampling. Augment Altern Commun 1994; 10 (04) 224-236
• 18 Trembath D, Balandin S, Togher L. Vocabulary selection for Australian children who use augmentative and alternative communication. J Intellect Dev Disabil 2007; 32 (04) 291-301
• 19 Beukelman DR, McGinnis J, Morrow D. Vocabulary selection in augmentative and alternative communication. Augment Altern Commun 1991; 7 (03) 171-185
• 20 Stuart S, Beukelman DR, King J. Vocabulary use during extended conversations by two cohorts of older adults. Augment Altern Commun 1997; 13 (01) 40-47
• 21 Goossens C, Crain S, Elder PS. Communication Displays for Engineered Preschool Environments. Solana Beach, CA: Mayer-Johnson Company; 1994
• 22 Goossens C. Aided communication intervention before assessment: a case study of a child with cerebral palsy. Augment Altern Commun 1989; 5 (01) 14-26
• 23 Johnson E, Bornman J, Tönsing KM. An exploration of pain-related vocabulary: implications for AAC use with children. Augment Altern Commun 2016; 32 (04) 249-260
• 24 Balandin S, Iacono T. Crews, wusses, and whoppas: core and fringe vocabularies of Australian meal-break conversations in the workplace. Augment Altern Commun 1999; 15 (02) 95-109
• 25 Hill K. Augmentative and alternative communication and language: evidence-based practice and language activity monitoring. Top Lang Disord 2004; 24 (01) 18-30
• 26 Beukelman DR, Yorkston KM, Poblete M, Naranjo C. Frequency of word occurrence in communication samples produced by adult communication aid users. J Speech Hear Disord 1984; 49 (04) 360-367
• 27 Karlan GR, Lloyd LL. Considerations in the planning of communication intervention: Selecting a lexicon. Journal of the Association for the Severely Handicapped. 1983; 8 (02) 13-25
• 28 Tönsing KM, Alant E. Topics of social conversation in the work place: a South African perspective. Augment Altern Commun 2004; 20 (02) 89-102
• 29 Schlosser RW. Social validation of interventions in augmentative and alternative communication. Augment Altern Commun 1999; 15 (04) 234-247
• 30 Lee YM, Kim YT, Park EH. A preliminary study for the core and fringe AAC vocabulary used by elementary school students. Communication Sciences & Disorders. 2005; 10 (01) 134-152
• 31 Da Fonte MA, Pufpaff LA, Taber-Doughty T. Vocabulary use during storybook reading: implications for children with augmentative and alternative communication needs. Psychol Sch 2010; 47 (05) 514-524
• 32 Brewster S. Saying the “F word … in the nicest possible way”: augmentative communication and discourses of disability. Disabil Soc 2013; 28 (01) 125-128
• 33 Wennström B, Bergh I. Bodily and verbal expressions of postoperative symptoms in 3- to 6-year-old boys. J Pediatr Nurs 2008; 23 (01) 65-76
• 34 Stanford EA, Chambers CT, Craig KD, McGrath PJ, Cassidy KL. “Ow!”: spontaneous verbal pain expression among young children during immunization. Clin J Pain 2005; 21 (06) 499-502
• 35 Herr K, Coyne PJ, McCaffery M, Manworren R, Merkel S. Pain assessment in the patient unable to self-report: position statement with clinical practice recommendations. Pain Manag Nurs 2011; 12 (04) 230-250
• 36 Johnson E. An exploration of the common pain-related vocabulary typically-developing children use: implications for children who use AAC. Pretoria, South Africa: Centre for Augmentative and Alternative Communication, University of Pretoria; 2015
• 37 Braun V, Clarke V. Successful Qualitative Research: A Practical Guide for Beginners. London, UK: Sage; 2013
• 38 Belter RW, McIntosh JA, Finch Jr AJ, Saylor CF. Preschoolers' ability to differentiate levels of pain: relative efficacy of three self-report measures. J Clin Child Psychol 1988; 17 (04) 329-335
• 39 Hughes R, Huby M. The application of vignettes in social and nursing research. J Adv Nurs 2002; 37 (04) 382-386
• 40 Jenkins N, Bloor M, Fischer J, Berney L, Neale J. Putting it in context: the use of vignettes in qualitative interviewing. Qual Res 2010; 10 (02) 175-198
• 41 Schoenberg NE, Ravdal H. Using vignettes in awareness and attitudinal research. Int J Soc Res Methodol 2000; 3 (01) 63-74
• 42 Rahman N. Caregivers' sensitivity to conflict: the use of the vignette methodology. J Elder Abuse Negl 1996; 8 (01) 35-47
• 43 Chan KY, Yang Y, Zhang KL, Reidpath DD. Disentangling the stigma of HIV/AIDS from the stigmas of drugs use, commercial sex and commercial blood donation—a factorial survey of medical students in China. BMC Public Health 2007; 7 (01) 280
• 44 Hayward D, Schneider P. Effectiveness of teaching story grammar knowledge to pre-school children with language impairment. An exploratory study. Child Lang Teach Ther 2000; 16 (03) 255-284
• 45 Whaley JF. Story grammars and reading instruction. Read Teach 1981; 34 (07) 762-771
• 46 Montague M, Maddux CD, Dereshiwsky MI. Story grammar and comprehension and production of narrative prose by students with learning disabilities. J Learn Disabil 1990; 23 (03) 190-197
• 47 Azize PM, Endacott R, Cattani A, Humphreys A. Cultural responses to pain in UK children of primary school age: a mixed-methods study. Nurs Health Sci 2014; 16 (02) 186-192
• 48 Lollar DJ, Smits SJ, Patterson DL. Assessment of pediatric pain: an empirical perspective. J Pediatr Psychol 1982; 7 (03) 267-277
• 49 Roulstone S. Exploring the relationship between client perspectives, clinical expertise and research evidence. Int J Speech-Language Pathol 2015; 17 (03) 211-221
• 50 Beyer JE, Wells N. The assessment of pain in children. Pediatr Clin North Am 1989; 36 (04) 837-854
• 51 Nilsson S, Björkman B, Almqvist AL. , et al. Children's voices—differentiating a child perspective from a child's perspective. Dev Neurorehabil 2015; 18 (03) 162-168
• 52 Ely J. The experience of pain for school-age children: blood, band-aids, and feelings. Child Health Care 1992; 21 (04) 168-175
• 53 Schlosser RW, Raghavendra P. Evidence-based practice in augmentative and alternative communication. Augment Altern Commun 2004; 20 (01) 1-21
• 54 Kildea S, Wright J, Davies J. Making sense of ADHD in practice: a stakeholder review. Clin Child Psychol Psychiatry 2011; 16 (04) 599-619
• 55 Patak L, Gawlinski A, Fung NI, Doering L, Berg J, Henneman EA. Communication boards in critical care: patients' views. Appl Nurs Res 2006; 19 (04) 182-190
• 56 Bornman J, Nelson Bryen D, Kershaw P, Ledwaba G. Reducing the risk of being a victim of crime in South Africa: you can tell and be heard!. Augment Altern Commun 2011; 27 (02) 117-130
• 57 Brewster S. Putting words into their mouths? Interviewing people with learning disabilities and little/no speech. Br J Learn Disabil 2004; 32 (04) 166-169
• 58 Murphy J, Tester S, Hubbard G, Downs M, MacDonald C. Enabling frail older people with a communication difficulty to express their views: the use of Talking Mats as an interview tool. Health Soc Care Community 2005; 13 (02) 95-107
• 59 Murphy J, Cameron L. The effectiveness of Talking Mats™ with people with intellectual disability. Br J Learn Disabil 2008; 26 (04) 232-241
• 60 Murphy J, Boa S. Using the WHO-ICF with talking mats to enable adults with long-term communication difficulties to participate in goal setting. Augment Altern Commun 2012; 28 (01) 52-60
• 61 Donohue DK, Bornman J, Granlund M. Examining the rights of children with intellectual disability in South Africa: children's perspectives. J Intellect Dev Disabil 2014; 39 (01) 55-64
• 62 Erasmus A, Bornman J, Dada S. Afrikaans-speaking parents' perceptions of the rights of their children with mild to moderate intellectual disabilities: a descriptive investigation. J Child Health Care 2016; 20 (02) 234-242
• 63 Pettit LK, Tönsing KM, Dada S. The perspectives of adults with aphasia and their team members regarding the importance of nine life areas for rehabilitation: a pilot investigation. Top Stroke Rehabil 2017; 24 (02) 99-106
• 64 Kottner J, Audige L, Brorson S. , et al. Guidelines for reporting reliability and agreement studies (GRRAS) were proposed. Int J Nurs Stud 2011; 48 (06) 661-671
• 65 Schiavenato M, Craig KD. Pain assessment as a social transaction: beyond the “gold standard”. Clin J Pain 2010; 26 (08) 667-676