Self-Assessment Instruments Related to Functional Ability for People Who Use Augmentative and Alternative Communication-A Scoping Review.
Irina Savolainen, Maja Sigurd Pilesjö
PMID 41379286WHAT IT FOUND
Most self-assessment tools for people who use AAC focus on thoughts and beliefs, not feelings or goals.
Many lack validation data and are English-only. Clinicians should adapt existing tools with symbols and plain language rather than assuming standard questionnaires are accessible.
Key findings
01The review identified 22 self-assessment instruments, but most focused on thoughts and beliefs, with few addressing feelings or personal motives.
02Psychometric properties were poor or unreported for many instruments, with eight lacking any psychometric data and five reporting neither reliability nor validity.
03Existing tools often require language skills that exclude some users, as plain language was not used in development and creative methods like photography were rare.
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 review excluded studies using Talking Mats, a common AAC assessment method, to avoid duplication with previous reviews. Only English-language articles were included, limiting the findings for non-English speaking populations. Study quality and risk of bias were not assessed, which is standard for scoping reviews but means the reliability of the included studies' findings is unknown. Many instruments were used in research contexts rather than clinical practice, so their real-world usability may differ from reported data.
Declared interests
The authors declared no conflicts of interest and reported no specific funding sources for the work.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret the lack of validated instruments as evidence that self-assessment is impossible for AAC users. The review shows a gap in development and reporting, not a lack of clinical value. Clinicians can still use existing tools by adapting them with symbols and support, but must carefully document these adaptations.
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 →