'AAC Isn't a Take It or Leave It': The Augmentative and Alternative Communication Training Experiences of Australian Speech-Language Pathologists Working in Paediatrics.
Clancy Conlon, Robyn Preston, Barbra Zupan
PMID 40847900WHAT IT FOUND
Australian paediatric speech pathologists rated university AAC training inadequate and wanted practical, face-to-face training.
They said AAC is not optional because nearly all surveyed SLPs already support AAC users.
Key findings
01Survey respondents rated their pre-professional AAC training below adequate in all topics except evidence-based practice; assessment procedures and feature matching were rated lowest.
02Interview participants said university AAC training was insufficient, did not match workforce needs, and lacked practical placements; only two reported comprehensive stand-alone AAC training.
03SLPs wanted more training in all AAC topics and preferred mentoring from an AAC specialist and in-person workshops; journal articles, websites, books, in-person workshops, social media and live online workshops were the most common post-professional sources.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The survey was advertised as AAC-related and distributed through social media and professional networks, so SLPs interested in AAC may have been more likely to respond. Only 205 surveys were analysed, estimated to represent about 2.8% of paediatric SLPs in Australia, and partial responses were included. The interviews included 16 people, selected from survey volunteers to represent different locations and experience, not a random sample. The study looked only at SLPs with paediatric or mixed caseloads, so it does not describe training experiences of SLPs working only with adults. It reports self-rated training experiences and preferences, not observed clinical competence or patient outcomes. Only 3.9% of respondents did not work with AAC users, and most respondents had AAC users as less than 40% of their caseload, so experiences may vary by AAC exposure. The study did not directly examine what university programmes teach or ask about barriers and facilitators to accessing training.
Declared interests
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not conclude that face-to-face AAC training improves clinical outcomes. This study reports speech pathologists' ratings, experiences and preferences, not patient outcomes, and the interview sample was 16 people.
Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →