Augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) in pediatric cochlear implant recipients with complex needs: A scoping review
Blair C Richlin,Kevin Chow,Maura K Cosetti
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2023.111610
Abstract:Introduction: Augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) encompasses all forms of unaided and aided modes of communication, but typically excludes codified language such as spoken words or American Sign Language (ASL). In pediatric patients with a documented additional disability (population of interest), deficits in communication may pose a barrier to language development. While forms of AAC are frequently mentioned in the literature, recent innovations have permitted the use of high-tech AAC in the rehabilitation process. Our objective was to review the implementation of AAC in pediatric cochlear implant recipients with a documented additional disability. Methods: A scoping review of existing literature examining the use of AAC in pediatric CI recipients was conducted in the PubMed/MEDLINE and Embase databases. Studies with pediatric cochlear implant recipients with a concomitant diagnosis requiring additional therapeutic intervention outside the scope of standard post-CI follow-up care and rehabilitation from 1985 to 2021 met inclusion criteria (population of interest). Studies limited to spoken or formal sign language (e.g., American Sign Language, ASL) as communication modalities were excluded. Results: Four hundred twenty studies were screened of which 29 were included. 13 were prospective, 10 were retrospective, 1 was cross-sectional, and 5 were case reports. Of these 29 studies, 378 patients met the inclusion criteria (age <18, CI user, additional disability, utilized AAC). Fewer studies (n = 7) utilized AAC as the primary intervention for investigation. Autism spectrum disorder, learning disorder, and cognitive delay were frequently mentioned as additional disabilities in conjunction with AAC. Unaided forms of AAC included gesture/behavior, informal sign, and signed exact English, while aided AAC included a Picture Exchange Communication System (PECS), Voice Output Communication Aids (VOCA), and touchscreen programs such as TouchChat® HD. Various audiometric and language development outcome measures were mentioned, most commonly the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT) (n = 4) and the Preschool Language Scale, Fourth Edition (PLS-4) (n = 4). Conclusion: There is a gap in the literature regarding the use of aided and high-tech AAC in pediatric CI users with a documented additional disability. Given the use of multiple different outcome measures, additional exploration of the intervention of AAC is warranted.