SLPSystematic ReviewThe South African journal of communication disorders = Die Suid-Afrikaanse tydskrif vir Kommunikasieafwykings2025

Identifying and describing school-age children who would benefit from AAC: A scoping review of survey tools.

Bathobile C Ngcobo, Juan Bornman

PMID 41185917

WHAT IT FOUND

No standardised tools exist to identify school-age children needing AAC.

Existing surveys are custom-made, vary widely in definition and informants, and cannot be compared. Therapists must rely on clinical judgement and informal assessments until a validated tool is developed.

Key findings

01All seven included studies used custom-made surveys rather than standardised instruments.

02Definitions of the target population varied significantly, including terms like 'non-verbal', 'complex communication needs', and 'little or no functional speech' with different word-count thresholds.

03Informants varied by country, with high-income countries using agencies, principals, and clinicians, while low- and middle-income countries relied on teachers due to a lack of therapists.

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.

Already have one?

What it does not show

The review only included studies published in English. Only seven studies were found, which limits the breadth of the mapping. The included studies varied widely in design and quality, making direct comparison difficult. The review excluded systematic reviews and meta-analyses, so it may have missed some aggregated data. The search was limited to primary data, which might have excluded relevant descriptive reports published in non-academic formats.

Declared interests

The authors declared no conflicts of interest. The study was funded by the University of Pretoria.

The easy way to misread this

Do not assume that prevalence rates from different studies are comparable. The variation in reported rates (e.g., <2% vs >30%) is largely due to inconsistent definitions of who qualifies as needing AAC, not necessarily true differences in the population.

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 →