file · web viewipad, tablets, assistive technology ... however in a research study that...

Running head: MOBILE DEVICES AND SPEECH/LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY

Mobile Devices and Speech/Language Pathology

Otis Jones, Sarah King, Ruth Sholes

Liberty University

Dr. Courduff

December 2, 2012

MOBILE DEVICES AND SPEECH/LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY 2

Abstract

With the release of the iPad in April 2010, educators have started implementing it within their

classrooms. Due to its newness, there is little scientific research available indicating its degree

of success or failure into the classroom. This paper’s aim is to inform the reader and to provide

additional knowledge to studies showing successful integration as well as the challenges it faces.

Early research is indicating that educators are having success with the iPad and improved

learning. In Meer’s and et al. (2011) study of Autism Spectrum Disorders or a related

intellectual/development disability, with expressive language impairments shows efficient

teaching procedures using the iPod or similar speech generating device could be applied to

successfully help participants improve speech. However, knowledge of the device by educators

as well as effective technological leadership poses many challenges for proper implementation.

Implications of the research is indicating that with the current success and challenges of this new

technology, there is a critical demand to further research on the implementation of the iPad into

the classroom, and in particular into special education classes concentrating on students with

speech and language impairments.

Keywords: iPad, tablets, assistive technology, implementation, speech generating

devices, special education, speech-language pathology, mobile devices.


Introduction

The release of the iPad two years ago caused a marketing avalanche that caused

manufactures of technology tools to jump on board to create similar tablets specifically designed

to be implemented into all areas of education. Research, a slow, but steady mule is now starting

to release a few early results on these educational tools, which are indicating that tools such as

the iPad and iPod are assisting in improving student learning particularly in the areas of Special

Education, Speech/Language Pathology. However, due to the newness of the iPad and other

mobile devices being used by Speech and Language Pathologist research studies are very sparse.

In a study conducted on three participants who were diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorders

results show two of the three participants gained fast understanding of the SGD training (Meer,

et al, 2012). With the recent and rapid increase of the mobile device integration into the areas of

Speech/Language Pathology, we believe these tools play a huge part in the developing the

communication skills of students with speech and language impairments.

The Effects of Speech Generating Mobile Devices and Their Apps

Hailpern et al. (2012) argue children who use association syllables represent an important

progress innovatively in the ability to speak. This capability is often delayed or impaired in a

variety of clinical groups, like children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) and speech delays

(SPD). Previous work has proven successful use of computer-based voice visualizations to

facilitate speech production and vocalization with children that have ASD or SPD. Since prior

work focused on increasing frequency of speech, the authors believe there is a new potential

direction of research; exploring real time voice visualization system. VocSyl was designed using

the Task Centered User Interface Design (TCUID). ASD and SPD users of the software were


directly involved in the development process, allowed the group to focus on what the results of

the TCUID design cycle of VocSyl.

In alignment with Hailpern et al’s, argument that more research is needed in the areas of

voice software, McClanahan (2012) also argues that while iPads seem to have hundreds of Apps

that support and engage Speech-Language Impairments, lack of research delays to support their

effectiveness in grades 9-12. However in a research study that applied an iPad to a 5th grader

who was struggling with reading and suffered from ADHD, the iPad proved that students can

gain one year’s growth in reading within a six week time period. Allowing the student to read on

the iPad-novelized game formatting which promoted engagement, interest, and attention. The

student’s confidence increased and he felt he had a sense of control in his reading. While

commercially developed games, eBooks with text-to-speech, and computerized learning games

all have research to document their benefits and varying degrees of effectiveness, the iPad does

not. However, through this study, the iPad proved to have a great deal of functionality and needs

to be seriously considered and implemented appropriately. Even in this current article, the case

of iPad being used for further research lies from teachers trying them in their classrooms. The

purpose of this study is to provide pre-service for teachers identifying issues and concerns,

collecting appropriate action plan, and implementing the plan in a means to construct reading

and improve overall performance.

Meer, Kagohara, Achmadi et al’s (2011) empirical study was conducted to find which

individuals with developmental disabilities could use an iPod with speech generating software

successfully. The study involved three participants that included two adolescents and one adult

who were diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorders or a related intellectual/development

disability, had expressive language age equalivance of less than 2.5 years; no physical or sensory


that could prevent them using the speech generating device (SGD); no prior SGD training and a

nomination from their classroom teacher for SGD training. In the study with the iPod, the

participants never activated the iPod; the participants sporadically picked it up and held it for a

few moments. The training that was conducted was baseline, Acquisition Training, and Post-

training and follow-up. Results show two of the three participants gained fast understanding of

the SGD training with the chosen motivations and continued to grow as additional manipulations

were introduced. However, the third participant shows no progress in “40 training trials” (p.8).

The study also showed that systematic instructional procedures could be applied to successfully

teach individuals with developmental disabilities to use the iPod with Proloquo2 software for

assistive communication devices. The researchers indicate that implications include the iPod and

similar equipment (iPad or tablets) with SGD software can have an advantage over other types of

SGD, and compare to other SGDs are in relatively inexpensive. They also claim that due to the

portability of the iPod, it could be used by individuals who are ambulatory and the equipment

such as the iPod are “socially desirable,” which help individuals with developmental disabilities

overcome the stigma associated with SGDs (p.10). Another implication that is discussed is the

need for more individuals with developmental disabilities to use the SGD to ensure their partners

can be good listeners, which implies the need to support communicative partners to make sure

they are receptive and reactive.

Using iPads in a pilot study giving voice to students with autism or speech impediments,

Wisconsin Dells School District collaborated with two of its speech-language pathologists to test

pilot two of its classrooms. In the first pilot study, Shen Benson used Artik Pix to display images

and words to 30 students and record the students’ speech. The app allowed playback to students

in order to evaluate their own speech. The app also calculates the percentage of what was


performed correctly. The method gives the children a sense of accomplishment and encourages

them to work harder verses the old way of flipping flash cards. The students were unable to hear

him, which resulted in discouragement and non-interest. Now, the students are more engaged

and interested in their performance.

In the second pilot study, Betsy Schulz used Proloquo2go for her non-verbal autistic

students. The students were more engaged showing an initiative to pull up a photograph or

graphic to communicate with other students. In addition, the students would type a sentence that

speaks back what is typed. Autistic parents at the school are even praising its use. Kishah

Walters says, “For the first time ever I’ve been able to see and hear my son communicate”

(Krejci, 2011). The relationship that the iPad is forming giving students a voice has

revolutionized the way Wisconsin Dells School District teaches their students. In fact, in April

of 2011 they introduced seven new iPad2’s to their speech-language pathology program.

Another pilot research study conducted by De La Cruz (2011) at the Early Childhood and

Education and Life Skills (EC/ELS) Program in the Northern Suburban Special Education

District (NSSED) in Illinois, was conducted in the school year 2010-2011 to determine the

potential use of the iPod and iPad Touch mobile devices and evaluate potential issues

surrounding infrastructure/device management, policy, and curriculum integration to low

incidence disabled students between the ages of three and twenty-one. Meeting over a period of

four times to collect data through questions relating to classroom impact on the students, the

stakeholders implemented a method recruiting four teachers who had iTechnology (iTech)

experience in the classroom and several NSSED staff members to conduct the study.

Quantitative data was collected through sheets on student performance with both iTech and

traditional classroom tools being used, while qualitative data consisted of staff impressions and


feedback to the pilot study questions. In addition, time of day, size of class, goal of task, and

student performance in behavior, accuracy, motivation, and independence were all factored into

the study. Early Childhood rendered 42 percent of the study, while Primary was 28 percent and

High School and Transition Levels were only 5 percent of the study (De La Cruz, 2011). With

136 sheets completed over the pilot study to support instruction, 36 percent of traditional

classroom tools and 64 percent of iTech tools revealed that when iTech tools were used, students

engaged in appropriate behavior a greater percentage of the time, and accuracy of performance,

interest, motivation, and independence increased (De La Cruz, 2011). More importantly, the

study revealed that motivation and time had the greatest impact, nearly doubling when using

iTech tools.

Implementation of Mobile Devices

In Newton and Dell’s (2011) article, the authors discuss best practices of implementing

mobile devices with assistive technology capabilities. The writers state that after searching the

Achieves of the Quality Indicators of Assistive Technology (QIAT), found that within a 17-

month period over 2,000 messages and posts were related to the iPad’s apps, accessories, using

alternative input devices, printing, and experiences with students with disabilities using the iPad.

The authors are making the reader aware that technology is going through a “gee whiz” (p. 56)

stage where glitzy graphics, sounds, animations, and/or videos catch the attention of the users

rather than its intended outcome. They discuss the traditional reasons that have dampened

implementation of technology within classrooms, citing that training, technical support, and

equipment intimidation as the major barriers to implementation and argue that with the personal

use of iPads outside of school, most teachers are overcoming these traditional barriers and are

finding a need to use this technology used within classrooms. The writers claim that students


with disabilities take the stance against technology implementation into their classrooms have in

past refused to use it because technology making them “look different,” which will cause them to

be “singled out” (p. 47).

Newton and Dell warn that educators must not let all the propaganda of the assistive

technology available in mobile devices does not necessarily warrant “jumping on the mobile

technology bandwagon” (p. 48). They state that school districts across the United States are

purchasing the mobile technology without considering how to implement and use it. The authors

also caution that educators must consider the environment the technology will be used in, as well

as the students who will use it, along with the appropriate apps to match the student’s IEP goals.

Newton and Dell recommend that educators take advantage of the free trials offered by

manufactures, as well as reading consumer reviews before purchasing the equipment to ensure

there is an appropriate fit. Through collected data, the iPad has been proven an appropriate

device for students in general, but it is important for parents and educators to remember that

much more research must be done to prove its benefits to children with autism. It has been

proven to calm down autistic children, but too many parents and educators today use this device

as a babysitter and not what it is intended to. More importantly, it does not necessarily mean it

provides any developmental opportunity. Again, the students’ performance, participation, needs,

difficulties, expected benefits, and IEP goals must all be taken into consideration. Just because it

seems enthusiastic and is a social acceptance in our society today, does not mean it equates with

student success. The authors strongly argue and recommend that “good” research regarding this

technology is needed to determine the appropriate use of mobile technologies (p. 48).

Newton and Dell’s (2012) Assistive Technology article supports their previous argument

that appropriate use of mobile technology is imperative through the argument that careful


consideration must be given to the selection process in order to obtain the appropriate Apps for

the individual student. The authors stress that the individual student’s needs and what interests

them must be taken into consideration in order to meet the task needing to be completed. The

same App may not be appropriate for every student. While a teacher may be instructing on the

Westward Expansion, multiple Apps that intrigue and interest different styles of learning need to

be considered. Newton and Dell state that the instructor or user must also remember that the

App developer can be emailed with questions, comments, and concerns regarding an App. In

addition, Newton and Dell strongly argue that the need to study augmentative handheld devices

for students with severe disabilities must be conducted on Apps such as Prologue2Go and

TouchChat HD-AAC with WordPower.

The Need for Clarification and Further Research

The criticality and evident need for clarification in research studies for speech-language

pathologists (SLP) has mobilized into what Bothe and Richardson (2011) discuss as constructs

and methods related to assessing the magnitude and meaning of clinical outcomes with a focus

on applications. Bothe and Richardson reviewed and synthesized several issues resulting in

existing literature that addressed practical and clinical significance, social validity, patient

satisfaction, treatment effectiveness, and beyond-clinic or real-world treatment outcomes. To

clinical research and practice in speech-language pathology, it was critical for Bothe and

Richardson to label a construct that had been widely recognized but not previously named

“personal significance” (p. 235). While some patients are more aware of their values,

preferences, and needs with respect to their treatment plans and/or goals, it was pertinent for the

term to be introduced as a component to existing terms for future researchers to consider

specifying which types of significances their studies are attempting to address. The review


revealed that the findings could be better used to improve clinical research and clinical practice

where interventions are intended to help patients or clients.

Continuing with the Bothe and Richardson’s research, Wang and Paul (2011) researched the

effectiveness of the Cornerstones approach, which mixes technology with beginning reader

education for learners who are deaf or hard of hearing. Participants included five teachers that

consisted of all hearing females and 22 students age range of 7–11 years, and their “hearing

losses range from mild to profound” (p.57). The students are enrolled in a diverse program,

which included one oral, two simultaneous speaking and signing, and two American Sign

Language–English bilingual/bicultural classrooms. The research methods used in the study were

both quantitative and qualitative methods. The quantitative study involved examination of the

students’ performance on assessments involving recognition of “words in print, word knowledge,

and story comprehension” (p. 59). The qualitative study involved examination of “classroom

observation checklists, informal teacher debriefings, and teacher focus group interviews to gather

information regarding the use of Cornerstones,” the practicality for use in reading instruction and

the effect on the method used in the selected classrooms (p. 59). The results showed that there

were substantial advances from the Cornerstones instruction in all experiments of word

identification and the intervention indicated that students with hearing difficulties showed

dissimilarities in beginning literacy abilities in word identification, but no differences were found

in word knowledge, and mixed results were shown in comprehension. The study suggest that

more research is needed in the areas of “effectiveness and feasibility of integrating technology

and literacy instruction” because the researchers found there were some “carryover effects from

the Cornerstones method which they believe might have manipulated the findings (p. 67).


Dedicated to a life-long decision in making a difference in the lives of those who struggle

with speech and language disabilities, Barbara Fernandes, meets Newton and Dell’s argument

that apps must be individualized to meet the student’s needs. As the inventor to more than 21

apps for mobile devices for speech therapists, Fernandes, a Speech-Language Pathologist felt the

desire back in November 2009, to revolutionize speech therapy. The original creator of one of

the first apps for speech pathologists, Mobile Articulation Probes (now Smarty Speech), was

introduced followed by WhQuestions, Age-calculator, yes/no, ITakeTurns, and iPractice Verbs

all launched before the release of iPad in 2010. Fernandes states that from just the beginning of

research studies discussed, that iPad usage of parents with children who suffer from many forms

of speech-language disorders, the individual themselves, and therapists that mobile devices are

considered one of the most useful tools available. In fact, Fernandes states, “Today the iPad is

seen as the number one therapy box for many therapists” (2011).

The Speech/Language Pathology Role and the Barriers They Face

Houston and Perigoe (2010) argue that since the 16th century, specialists have dedicated

themselves both professionally and personally to cultivating the listening and spoken language

outcomes of children who were deaf or hard of hearing. The pioneers, intervention, and

treatment strategies have progressed to make available opportunities for children to obtain and

expand spoken communication skills. There have been considerable efforts to outline the

professional knowledge and skills that promote the achievement of spoken language by young

children. The authors argue that since the 21st century, children with hearing loss to accomplish

listening and spoken language outcomes that reflect their peers with typical hearing have never

been greater. There is a deficiency of well-trained professional in speech language pathology,

which could obstruct a child’s opportunity for success. Graduate training programs in speech-


language pathology recognized the need to better prepare SLPs for intervention and related

services. SLPs that possess the background, knowledge, and experience to help children with

hearing loss fully utilize audition for the acquisition of spoken language will continue to be

sought out by parents, early intervention systems, educational programs, and schools.

Since the growth of managing health care costs, speech-language pathologists (SLP) were

asked to prove the benefit and value of their treatment. Mullin and Schooling (2010)

summarized a case study that included both quantitative and qualitative methods to determine the

overall need for SLP services and their benefits. In response to the health care industries

concerns, the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) was called upon for

support in their evidence. A task force was created and a two-year effort began to collect

evidence that would detail the needs and value of the services provided. Three areas of focus

were identified: 1) Adults in medical care, 2) Pre-Kindergartners (3-5 years of age) in school and

health care environments, and 3) Children in school settings, only two areas were studied in this

case (p.41). Following the areas of focus, the National Outcomes Measurement System (NOMS)

was formed to effectively and efficiently collect data nationwide for ASHA. Next, a 7-point

rating scale was created to measure change over time in functional skills, including

communication and swallowing abilities. The scale ranged from least functional to most

functional. In addition, speech and language were separated in the study. The study was then

comprised of 14,852 students across 106 schools in 37 states in Grades K-12 having

specifications classified as having “speech or language impairment” or “specific learning

disabled” (p.42). It was found that 74 percent had speech or language impairment and 26 percent

had a specific learning disability. Pre-Kindergartners (3-5 years of age) did not have any

limitations in data collection and was comprised of 6,624 students across 47 schools in 25 states


(p. 42). Findings indicated that a number of limitations were apparent in the study to the

usefulness of the research. However after a 10 year study, evidence did support the need and

value of SLP but a lack of time spent on literacy and homogeneity of services delivered, ended in

an obvious conclusion that adjustments needed to be made to the study and new directions have

already been set into place.

Since speech and language pathologists have increasingly attempted to provide a clear

description of the importance of their roles and responsibilities, researchers have continuously

studied and advocated for family knowledge in early intervention (EI). Paul and Roth (2011)

discuss a method based on four principles that are specific in need and that guide the

implementation of speech-language pathologists (SLP). In their discussion, Paul and Roth detail

EI supported by an overview of the Federal Legislation for EI services through the Individuals

with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) of 2004. In addition, Paul and Roth offer

scenarios that provides a clear understanding of the values, beliefs, expectations, attitudes, and

perceptions that families take toward the degree of acceptance to their child’s “disability” (p.

324). Though the family must be involved in the process for an Individualized Family Service

Plan (IFSP) to be implemented, Paul and Roth’s findings stress the importance for families

becoming familiar with state policies, procedures, and resources that are available because

ultimately, EI is voluntary.

In alignment with Paul and Roth’s findings, and according to the Virginia Department of

Education, the school based speech language pathologist (SLP) plays an import role in education

and many serve on both the special education and general education teams. Virginia Department

of Education, Office of Special Education and Student Service (2011) advocates that the

development of communication skills are important for all students and can impact school


success. The school based speech language pathologist may serve as a member of a variety of

teams that make decisions regarding evaluation, eligibility, and services. The speech language

pathologist does not make decisions in isolation regarding the needed evaluation components,

the child’s eligibility for special education and related services or the goals and objectives of

intervention. Virginia’s Department of Education maintains that a speech-language pathologist

must stay to date in his/her knowledge of both general and special education, including education

standards, curriculum, state and local assessments, parental rights and responsibilities, and

special education requirements and procedure. However, some school divisions have found it

beneficial to offer a course on communication skills and offer these communication skills at the

middle or secondary level. These classes provide direct instruction to general and special

education students, addressing communication skills in home, school and community, and work

settings.

In 2007, Chmiliar conducted a study to address the limitations of assistive technologies

(AT) in the areas of levels of and satisfaction with training, funding of assistive technology,

barriers of assistive technology and the importance of and availability of support strategies.

Chmiliar used three separate surveys that contained demographic questions, questions pertaining

to field training, question regarding the type of training, question about participants skill and

knowledge of assistive technology, a question regarding the identity of the funding, a rating list

of barriers, rating list of AT importance’s and a comment section. The surveys were sent to

2,000 teachers, 800 health professionals, and 500 speech and language pathologists. Four

percent of the teachers returned the surveys, along with eight percent of the speech and language

pathologist and 16 percent of health professionals (Chmiliar, 2007). The results showed two of

the professional groups that included health professionals and speech and language pathologists


received training at the undergrad level, but with teachers, there are severe inadequacies in

training at the undergrad level. The results also showed inadequacies in continuing training in all

three professional groups. All three groups showed funding was the greatest barrier to

implementing assistive technology along with two groups indicating equipment availability as

another barrier because of funding. Another significant barrier reported was lack of time for

training as well as access to expert support, but the groups felt this would increase with training

opportunities. Implications from the research shows that the professional groups all feel that

funding is the major reason for lack of assistive technologies being purchased and implement.

All groups indicated that must funding was provided by families, school districts, communities

and charities, and there was little evidence provided to support funding made through

government sources and this needed to be addressed. All groups feel dissatisfied with the current

skill and knowledge levels, but believe training could improve with expose to expert support

(Chmiliar, 2007).

In a study to determine if new graduates of speech-language pathology (SLP) were well

prepared for professional practice, Tillard, Lawson, and Emmerson (2011) surveyed and

statistically analyzed 19 new graduates and 16 employers for adequacy in the program at a

university in New Zealand three months after commencement of employment. While employer

assessments of the performance level of new graduates were solicited, new graduates determined

impressions of their universities preparation against actual requirements as a clinician in the

workplace. The survey focused on core competencies including theoretical knowledge, clinical

skills and professionalism. Variables in the study consisted of overall performance, clinical

experience, caseload management, teamwork, theory, writing, assessment, therapy, and

professionalism. The survey consisted of 15 questions, 11 of which employed a Likert 5-point


scale and four were open-ended requiring short answer. A mean rating was established for each

skill area with a series of Mann-Whitney Rank Sum Tests (one-tailed) that was used. In this

study, it was employed to determine whether there was a statistically significant difference

between employer and graduate groups across eight common areas. Findings in the study

revealed that neither group varied on their perception of new graduates being well prepared for

the professional environment except in the area of writing skills, something of which can be

improved over time. Tillard, Lawson, and Emmerson believe that studies such as these are

necessary in providing evidence of new SLP graduates and their preparedness that ultimately can

make the universities aware if the need arises to address the scope of the program (Tillard,

Lawson, and Emmerson, 2011). .

In Dodd’s (2007) article, the author addresses critical questions about speech language

pathology: what is meant by evidence-based practice and the type of knowledge it include; what

assumptions do definitions of evidence-based practice rely; in what way can speech language

pathology go about basing their evidence; and what are the advantages and disadvantages for

speech language pathology? Can workplace constraints limit how many clients with

communication disorders can access intervention, the amount of intervention received and how it

is delivered? Clinical practice has a vital part in the development of theory and evidence based

practice research. Therapy for speech and language disorders, seem predominantly reliant on

theory for the development of ways of establishing differential diagnostic categories and linking

each category to cost effective intervention.

Conclusion

The articles discussed in this review gives the realization that in a regular classroom

environment, special education, or speech-language environments, mobile devices, especially the


iPad, are beginning to prove its relevance and need to surpass the “old” and be introduced as the

“new”. In a world geared toward technological advances, it is imperative to engage students to

strive to want to learn. Living within an era where electronic gadgets are normal to the 21st

century, it is critical to connect with what feels right to the learner while promoting interest and

engaging their level of mobility to overcome their disability or to eliminate the disability by the

use of mobile devices. Mobile devices are normalcy to students today because that is what they

have been raised on today. While technology continues to change daily, educators are at a

critical state in catering to the population of special needs.

To date, more than 600 school districts have adopted the iPad program (Bonnington,

2012). However, the implementation into speech-language pathology gives little evidence

indicating the degree of practice and research to determine what methods or treatments will aid

in the student’s success academically and socially. Though very few recommendations have

been made with assistive technology in speech-language pathology, we believe in just the few

studies discussed, individuals with speech-language impairments will begin to engage in

communication skills never before thought possible. Nevertheless, the world of mobile devices

face potential challenges with the proper integration of usage into the environment, the power to

act effectively and improve learning far surpasses any challenge faced.

Although there is still a significant gap in research in the study of the implementation of

mobile devices in the speech-language environment and usage, the opportunity and significance

of its outcome seems too far out-weigh any negative study thus far. Just as Newton and Dell

recommend that educators need to consider the environment and student usage, they too do not

offer any scientific research to show readers the appropriate environment for usage or how to

determine the right equipment/apps for the individual students. While a student’s intelligibility,


articulation, spoken language production and comprehension, pragmatics, cognitive orientation,

fluency, practical and clinical significance, social validity, treatment effectiveness, and beyond-

clinic or real-world treatment outcomes have to be addressed upon introduction of the proper

mobile device and app, this review is believed to have proven the significance of mobile devices

in all areas of speech and language impairments. More importantly, we are at a critical and

exciting time in education where learning is becoming more remote. Mobile devices give even

those with speech and language impairments the opportunity to approach individual needs and

goals, as well as curriculum and social learning, a unique way to engage and communicate more

personally. The National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities reported that

according to the U. S. Department of Education in 2006, out of the 6.1 million children with

disabilities receiving special education in public schools under IDEA, over 1 million students

were educated in the areas of speech and/or language. However, children with speech and

language impairments associated with disorders such as autism or hearing impairments are not

included in this count of students with speech and language impairments. Since 2006, mobile

devices such as the iPod and iPad have opened communication doors for the student who once

did not have many options for inexpensive and effective manners to verbally communicate.

With the early research results exhibiting improved student learning in all areas of education,

including in speech and language pathology, we as educators cannot afford to ignore these initial

and impressive results as show in this literature; the need to do more involved and detail research

on these technology tools must take priority in educational research.


References

Bonnington, C. (2012). iPad a solid education tool, study reports. Wired Gadget Lab.

Bothe, A. & Richardson, J. (2011). Statistical, practical, clinical, and personal significance:

Definitions and applications in speech-language pathology. American Journal of Speech-

Language Pathology. 20(3), 233-242.

Chmiliar, L. (2007). Perspectives on assistive technology: What teachers, health professionals,

and speech and language pathologists have to say. Developmental Disabilities Bulletin,

35(1), 1-17. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/232461912?

accountid=12085

De La Cruz, C. (2011). iTechnology pilot study outcomes. Northern Suburban Special Education

District. Highland Park, Illinois. Retrieved from

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/20124718/iTechnology%20Pilot%20Study%20Outcomes

%20Final.pdf

Dodd, B. (2007). Evidence-based practice and speech-language pathology: Strengths,

weaknesses, opportunities and threats. Folia Phoniatr Logop, 2007 (59), 118-129.

Fernandes, B. (2011). Is the iPad revolutionizing speech therapy? From an SLP & APP

developer. http://blog.asha.org/2011/06/07/is-the-ipad-revolutionizing-speech-therapy-

from-an-slp-app-developer/

Hailpern, J., Harris, A., Boltz, R., Birman, B., & Karahalios, K., (2012). Designing

Visualizations to Facilitate Multisyllabic Speech with Children with Autism and Speech

Delays. Department of Computer Science, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign.

Retrieved from http://liberty.summon.serialssolutions.com/search?

s.q=Designing+Visualizations+to+Facilitate+Multisyllabic+Speech+with+Children+with


+Autism+and+Speech+Delays.+Department+of+Computer+Science

%2C+University+of+Illinois+at+Urbana+Champaign

Houston, T.K., & Perigoe, C.B. (2010). Speech-language pathologists: Vital listening and spoken

language professionals. The Volta Review. 110(2), 219-230. Retrieved from

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?

_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ930674&ERICExtSearch_SearchTy

pe_0=no&accno=EJ93067

Krejci, A. (2011). iPads come to aid of autistic, speech students. Wisconsin Dells Events.

http://www.wiscnews.com/wisconsindellsevents/news/local/education/article_399b0484-

6222-11e0-b05d-001cc4c002e0.html

McClanahan, B. (2012). A breakthrough for Josh: How use of an iPad facilitated reading

improvement. TechTrends. 56(3), 20-28. Retrieved from

http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?

sid=165f64be-e724-4916-82f4-b647604cc098%40sessionmgr111&vid=1&hid=112

Meer, L., Kagohara, D., Achmadi, D., Green, V., Herrington, C., Sigafoos, J., . . . Rispoli, M.,

(2011). Teaching functional use of an iPod-based speech-generating device to individuals

with developmental disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 26(3), 1-11.

Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/910326286?accountid=12085

Mullen, R. & Schooling, T. (2010). The national outcomes measurement system for pediatric

speech-language pathology. Language, Speech & Hearing Services in Schools. 41(1), 41-

60.

National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities (2011). Speech & Language

Impairments. Retrieved from http://nichcy.org/disability/specific/speechlanguage#freq


Newton, D. & Dell, Amy. (2012). Assistive technology. Journal of Special Education

Technology. 26(2), 55-60. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/docview/876017159

Newton, D. N., & Dell, A. (2011). Mobile devices and students with disabilities: What do best

practices tell us? Journal of Special Education Technology, 26(3), 47-49. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/docview/910326626?accountid=12085

Paul, D. & Roth, F. (2011). Guiding principles and clinical applications for speech-language

pathology practice in early intervention. Language, Speech & Hearing Services in

School. 42(3), 320-330.

Tillard, G., Lawson, K. & Emmerson, S. (2011). Perceptions of the clinical competence of new

speech-language pathology graduates in New Zealand: A research note. Open

Rehabilitation Journal. 4, 23-27.

Virginia Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Student Service. (2011).

Speech-language pathology services in schools: Guidelines for best practice. Virginia

Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Student Services (2011).

Wang, Y., & Paul, P. V. (2011). Integrating technology and reading instruction with children

who are deaf or hard of hearing: The effectiveness of the cornerstones project. American

Annals of the Deaf, 156(1), 56-68. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/docview/874488909?accountid=12085

file · web viewipad, tablets, assistive technology ... however in a research study that...

Documents