A number of different types of disabilities are associated with communication difficulties. One of the most common is cerebral palsy, or CP, which occurs prior to or at birth and results in mild to severe motor problems. Another disorder associated with communication difficulties is being hard of hearing or deaf. Head Injuries, trauma, diseases and medical conditions may also result in a need for a communication device.
An augmentative communication evaluation is typically completed by a Speech-Language Pathologist. If the student has motor or cognitive difficulties, an interdisciplinary team evaluation is conducted, usually with professionals such as an occupational or physical therapist, a special education teacher and a physician. The evaluation gathers information about the student's ability to make comprehensible sounds and understand language. It determines the present level and kind of communication used. It considers the student's types of communicative interactions and the need for communication.
The evaluation information leads the team to make recommendations about devices which could meet the needs of the student and be affordable, portable, require least amount of training and not hamper the student's involvement in life. Devices ranging from no tech to high tech are considered. Students use the recommended devices over a period of time to determine which device works best for them and meets all or most of their needs.
Types of no tech communication devices include choice and communication boards, signing, gesturing, and communication books and wallets. The key feature of no tech is no power source. Low tech devices use a power source and are simple to program. Mid tech devices use power and require someone be trained in the device and how to maintain it. High tech devices use power, are complex, and require someone to have a great deal of training to adequately program and maintain.
Students sometimes receive communication devices they are never able to use easily or consistently. One reason for this is the evaluation team over- or underestimated the student's ability to use the device or recommended a device that was too low or high tech. It could also be that no school personnel have training to program the device nor understands how to grow the device with the child (i.e., reprogram it when new needs arise).