Caregivers Acceptance of Using Semantic Communication Boards for teaching Children with Complex Communication Needs
Alternative Communication Boards (ACB) are used to compensate for the difficulties faced by people with complex communication needs. These boards facilitate the construction of telegraphic phrases through visual cues, using colors and pictograms to represent the grammatical class and the meaning of the words, respectively. In this paper, we present the combination of three essential materials to construct a semantic ACB. In this context, a Semantic ACB is a communication board that uses a semantic script to guide the message authoring. The proposal was evaluated using the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) as a basis. The results demonstrate that caregivers are more interested in a semantic ACB that is useful than in one that is easy to use.
Bacon, L. D. (1999). Using lisrel and pls to measure customer satisfaction. In Sawtooth Software Conference Proceedings, pages 2–5.
Bedwani, M.-A. N., Bruck, S., and Costley, D. (2015). Augmentative and alternative communication for children with autism spectrum disorder: An evidence-based evaluation of the language acquisition through motor planning (lamp) programme. Cogent Education, 2(1):1045807.
Bolderson, S., Dosanjh, C., Milligan, C., Pring, T., and Chiat, S. (2011). Colourful semantics: A clinical investigation. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 27(3):344–353.
Bryan, A. (1997). Colourful semantics: Thematic role therapy. Language disorders in children and adults: Psycholinguistic approaches to therapy, pages 143–161.
Burton, R. R. (1976). Semantic grammar: An engineering technique for constructing natural language understanding systems.
Chau, P. Y. and Hu, P. J. (2002a). Examining a model of information technology acceptance by individual professionals: An exploratory study. Journal of management information systems, 18(4):191–229.
Chau, P. Y. and Hu, P. J.-H. (2002b). Investigating healthcare professionals’ decisions to accept telemedicine technology: an empirical test of competing theories. Information & management, 39(4):297–311.
Chin, W. W. et al. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Modern methods for business research, 295(2):295–336.
Christopoulou, M., Voniati, L., Drosos, K., and Armostis, S. (2021). Colorful semantics in cypriot-greek-speaking children with autism spectrum disorder. Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica, 73(3):185–194.
Davis, F. D. (1985). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: Theory and results. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., and Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Management science, 35(8):982– 1003.
Davis, F. D. and Venkatesh, V. (1996). A critical assessment of potential measurement biases in the technology acceptance model: three experiments. International journal of human-computer studies, 45(1):19–45.
Dijksterhuis, A., Aarts, H., Bargh, J. A., and Van Knippenberg, A. (2000). On the relation between associative strength and automatic behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36(5):531–544.
Falk, R. F. and Miller, N. B. (1992). A primer for soft modeling. University of Akron Press.
Fornell, C. and Bookstein, F. L. (1982). Two structural equation models: Lisrel and pls applied to consumer exit-voice theory. Journal of Marketing research, 19(4):440–452.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of marketing research, 18(1):39–50.
Franco, N., Silva, E., Lima, R., and Fidalgo, R. (2018). Towards a reference architecture for augmentative and alternative communication systems. In Brazilian Symposium on Computers in Education (Simpósio Brasileiro de Informática na Educação-SBIE), volume 29, page 1073.
Ganz, J. B., Boles, M. B., Goodwyn, F. D., and Flores, M. M. (2014). Efficacy of handheld electronic visual supports to enhance vocabulary in children with asd. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 29(1):3–12.
Ganz, J. B. and Hong, E. R. (2014). Naturalistic aided aac instruction. In Aided augmentative communication for individuals with autism spectrum disorders, pages 55–75. Springer.
Hair Jr, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., and Sarstedt, M. (2016). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage publications.
Halloran, J. and Halloran, C. (2006). Lamp: Language acquisition through motor planning. Wooster (OH): Prentke Romich Company.
Hernández, S. S., Mancilla, D., Medina, J. M., and Iregui, M. (2014). User-centric recommendation model for aac based on multi-criteria planning. In International Conference on Advances in Human-oriented and Personalized Mechanisms, Technologies and Services.
Holden, R. J. and Karsh, B.-T. (2010). The technology acceptance model: its past and its future in health care. Journal of biomedical informatics, 43(1):159–172.
Hwang, H., Malhotra, N. K., Kim, Y., Tomiuk, M. A., and Hong, S. (2010). A comparative study on parameter recovery of three approaches to structural equation modeling. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(4):699–712.
Jöreskog, K. G. (1970). A general method for estimating a linear structural equation system. ETS Research Bulletin Series, 1970(2):i–41.
Jöreskog, K. G. and Sörbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8: User’s reference guide. Scientific Software International.
Koegel, L. K., Koegel, R. L., Harrower, J. K., and Carter, C. M. (1999). Pivotal response intervention i: Overview of approach. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 24(3):174–185.
Koegel, R. L., Koegel, L. K., and Brookman, L. I. (2003). Empirically supported pivotal response interventions for children with autism. Evidence-based psychotherapies for children and adolescents, 341357.
Law, J., Lee, W., Roulstone, S., Wren, Y., Zeng, B., and Lindsay, G. (2012). ’what works’: interventions for children and young people with speech, language and communication needs.
Nunnally, J. C. and Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. Tata McGraw-Hill Education.
Pereira, J., Franco, N., and Fidalgo, R. (2020). A semantic grammar for augmentative and alternative communication systems. In Sojka, P., Kopeček, I., Pala, K., and Horák, A., editors, Text, Speech, and Dialogue, pages 257–264, Cham. Springer International Publishing.
Peterson, R. A. (2000). A meta-analysis of variance accounted for and factor loadings in exploratory factor analysis. Marketing Letters, 11(3):261–275.
Ringle, C., Da Silva, D., and Bido, D. (2015). Structural equation modeling with the smartpls. Bido, D., da Silva, D., & Ringle, C.(2014). Structural Equation Modeling with the Smartpls. Brazilian Journal Of Marketing, 13(2).
Rivard, S. and Huff, S. L. (1988). Factors of success for end-user computing. Communi- cations of the ACM, 31(5):552–561.
Salmoni, A. W., Schmidt, R. A., and Walter, C. B. (1984). Knowledge of results and motor learning: a review and critical reappraisal. Psychological bulletin, 95(3):355.
Thompson, R., Barclay, D., and Higgins, C. A. (1995). The partial least squares approach to causal modeling: Personal computer adoption and use as an illustration. Technology studies: special issue on research methodology, 2(2):284–324.
Ullman, J. B. and Bentler, P. M. (2003). Structural equation modeling. Handbook of psychology, pages 607–634.
Wold, H. (1982). Systems under indirect observation using pls. A second generation of multivariate analysis: Methods.
Wong, K. (2010). Handling small survey sample size and skewed dataset with partial least square path modelling. Vue: the magazine of the Marketing Research and Intelligence Association, 20:20–23.