Attitudes Toward Nonspeaking Individuals Who Use Communication Boards In the February 1991 issue of JSHR, Gorenflo and Gorenfio reported that “. . . attitudes are significantly more favorable toward an individual using a technological augmentative communication technique such as a VOCA” (p. 23) than toward one using a communication board on which only the alphabet appears. This ... Letter to the Editor
Letter to the Editor  |   December 01, 1992
Attitudes Toward Nonspeaking Individuals Who Use Communication Boards
 
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Colleen Raney
    Marquette University Milwaukee, WI
  • Franklin H. Silverman
    Marquette University Milwaukee, WI
Article Information
Augmentative & Alternative Communication / Speech / Letters to the Editor
Letter to the Editor   |   December 01, 1992
Attitudes Toward Nonspeaking Individuals Who Use Communication Boards
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, December 1992, Vol. 35, 1269-1271. doi:10.1044/jshr.3506.1269b
History: Received May 26, 1992 , Accepted June 9, 1992
 
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, December 1992, Vol. 35, 1269-1271. doi:10.1044/jshr.3506.1269b
History: Received May 26, 1992; Accepted June 9, 1992
In the February 1991 issue of JSHR, Gorenflo and Gorenfio reported that “. . . attitudes are significantly more favorable toward an individual using a technological augmentative communication technique such as a VOCA” (p. 23) than toward one using a communication board on which only the alphabet appears. This result is not surprising considering the length of time it takes to communicate when only the alphabet is used. Most communication boards have common words and phrases on them in addition to the alphabet. Because communication with such a board would be less time-consuming than with a board with only an alphabet, we would expect attitudes of listeners toward individuals using the former type to be more favorable then toward those using the latter. To test this hypothesis, we evaluated the attitudes of 69 university students toward an individual using a communication board that had only the alphabet and one that had also had common words and phrases, using the scale in Appendix B of the Gorenflo and Gorenflo paper (see Table). The students were randomly assigned to two groups of approximately equal size. Both groups received the description of the individual from Appendix A of the Gorenflo and Gorenflo paper and a photograph of a communication board. Those in Group 1 received a photograph of a communication board that contained common words and phrases in addition to the alphabet (see Figure 5.6 in Silverman, 1989). Those in Group 2 received an enlarged photograph of the alphabet portion of this board.
First Page Preview
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview ×
View Large
Order a Subscription
Pay Per View
Entire Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research content & archive
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access