Technology and Disability 17 (2005) 143–153 143

IOS Press

Supporting self-determination in AAC

interventions by assessing preference for
communication devices
Jeff Sigafoosa,∗, Mark O’Reillya , Jennifer B. Ganzb , Giulio E. Lancionic and Ralf W. Schlosser d
a
The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA
b
University of Texas at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA
c
University of Bari, Italy
d
Northeastern University, Boston, MA, USA

Abstract. Self-determination applied to augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) interventions suggests the need to
assess students’ preferences for various communication devices. We describe a potentially promising methodology for enabling
students to indicate preference for communication devices. Implementation of this methodology is illustrated in two controlled
demonstrations. In the first demonstration, two adolescents with developmental disabilities were taught to use each of three voice-
output communication aids (VOCAs) to request snacks. Following acquisition, all three VOCAs were simultaneously available
across repeated opportunities and the student could select which one of the three devices to use. Both students demonstrated
a consistent preference for one of the VOCAs. In the second demonstration, these same two students were provided with a
choice between their preferred VOCA and a communication board containing line drawings. Both students demonstrated a
preference for the VOCA over the communication board. These cases illustrate a potentially useful methodology that might
enable non-speaking students with developmental disabilities to participate in communication device selection.

Keywords: Developmental disability, preference assessment, self-determination, voice-output communication aids, communica-
tion boards

1. Introduction One important clinical decision involves the selec-

Students with developmental disabilities often have
such limited speech development that augmentative and
alternative communication (AAC) is needed to facili-
tate their communicative interactions with others [5].
AAC devices are described as aided or unaided [3,6].
Unaided modes involve the use of gestures and man-
ual signs, whereas aided systems require supplemental
materials such as a communication board containing
line drawings or electronic voice-output communica-
tion aids (VOCAs).
∗ Addressfor correspondence: Jeff Sigafoos, Department of Spe-
cial Education, The University of Texas at Austin, 1 University Sta-
tion, D5300 Austin, TX 78712-1290, USA. E-mail: j.sigafoos@mail.
utexas.edu.
tion of an AAC device for the individual [9]. After
reviewing literature related to this decision, Sigafoos et
al. [15] concluded that there does not seem to be any
one best mode or system of AAC. Instead, they rec-
ommended an individualized and evidence-based ap-
proach to identifying appropriate modes and systems
when beginning AAC intervention. Using this ap-
proach, selection of an AAC device is based on a sys-
tematic analysis of learner characteristics and environ-
mental demands. In addition to considering learner
characteristics and environmental demands, Sigafoos et
al. [15] further suggested that a trial period of interven-
tion is often necessary to determine whether or not an
individual is capable of learning to use, and interested
in using, any particular AAC device.

ISSN 1055-4181/05/$17.00 © 2005 – IOS Press and the authors. All rights reserved
144 J. Sigafoos et al. / Supporting self-determination in AAC interventions by assessing preference for communication devices
Along with these general guidelines for the selection
of AAC devices, the self-determination principle [1,
17] calls attention to the value of enabling students to
participate in decisions affecting their education and
therapy. Promoting self-determination may lead to im-
proved educational and therapeutic outcomes. In con-
trast, selection of AAC devices by professionals on be-
half of the student – even after careful consideration
of learner characteristics and environmental demands –
offers no guarantee that the student will be provided
with a device that s/he would prefer to own and use.
Therefore, one challenge that arises in attempting
to promote self-determination in AAC intervention is
finding ways to enable students with developmental
disabilities to participate in selecting their own com-
munication device. To this end, it would seem useful
to assess the student’s preferences for various device
options, while controlling for the amount of experience
that the person has had with each device and by also
ensuring that the person has attained a comparable level
of proficiency in using each device. One possible way
to do this would be to teach the student to use sev-
eral devices to some pre-specified criterion and then
allow the student to choose which device to use during
subsequent communicative opportunities.
Along these lines Soto et al. [16] illustrated how a
clinician might generate preference data for one of two
types of aided devices. In their study, a 22-year-old
man with severe mental retardation was taught to use
a picture-based communication board and a VOCA to
request desired items. After he learned to use both
devices, he was allowed to choose between the two.
When given the opportunity to make a choice, this
young man always chose to use the VOCA, suggesting
that this was his preferred option. While the Soto et
al. [16] study is limited because it involved only one
person and a choice between two devices, the choice-
making paradigm used in that study would seem to hold
considerable promise for promoting self-determination
in selecting AAC devices.
The present work extends the work of Soto et al. [16]
by adopting a choice making protocol to assess pref-
erence for different types of communication devices.
Implementation of this potentially promising method-
ology is illustrated in two controlled demonstrations.
In the first demonstration, two adolescents with devel-
opmental disabilities were given a choice among three
different types of VOCAs. After this, in the second
demonstration, these same two students were provided
with opportunities to choose between their preferred
VOCA and the use of a communication board contain-
ing line drawings. Because both VOCAs and commu-
nication boards appear promising for individuals with
developmental disabilities [8,12,13], the present study
represents an important extension of the choice assess-
ment methodology described by Soto et al. [16]. To
date, there have been no demonstrations of the ap-
plicability of this choice making methodology for as-
sessing students’ preferences for various makes and
models of commercially available VOCAs and only
one study [16] between VOCAs and communication
boards. Given the greater and varying cost of VOCAs
relative to communication boards, it would seem im-
portant to demonstrate effective procedures for assess-
ing a student’s preference among various types of aided
AAC options.
2. Case Demonstration 1
2.1. Method
2.1.1. Participants and setting
Jason and Ryan were selected to participate because
they had developmental disabilities and no speech.
Their failure to develop speech was not due to any phys-
ical impairment, but rather most likely resulted from
deficits in learning and speech development. Owing
to the severe nature of their disability and their lack
of speech development, intervention to teach AAC was
identified as an instructional priority for both students.
Both students used some manual signs and gestures to
communicate requests for a few items, but manual signs
and gestures are often ineffective in the community and
with some communicative partners [10]. Thus even for
individuals who have some signs and gestures, there
may be value in exploring the use of aided modes of
communication.
Jason was 16 years old and had severe mental retar-
dation. He was nonspeaking and communicated mainly
through facial expressions, gestures, a few manual signs
(e.g. MORE, EAT, DRINK), screaming, and by guid-
ing an adult’s hand to objects. His vision and hearing
were within the normal range and he did not appear to
have any limitations with respect to fine and gross mo-
tor skills. Jason was toilet trained and was able to dress
himself and brush his teeth with assistance. He had lim-
ited social skills and displayed occasional aggression,
self-injury, and property destruction. Jason attended
a private residential school program for students with
developmental disabilities. He was educated in a self-
contained classroom with five other students and two
 J. Sigafoos et al. / Supporting self-determination in AAC interventions by assessing preference for communication devices
teachers. The sessions associated with this study were
conducted at a table in his classroom during a morning
snack activity.
Ryan was 12 years old and had a diagnosis of autism.
His vision and hearing were within the normal range
and he did not appear to have any major limitations
with respect to fine and gross motor skills. He did not
speak, but could vocalize and make speech-like sounds.
Ryan communicated mainly by pointing to objects and
leading others by the hand to preferred objects that he
wanted. He also used a few manual signs (e.g., WANT,
MORE) that appeared to function as requests. Ryan
usually responded appropriately to simple spoken and
gestured commands from adults such as Come here,
Wash your hands, and Sit down. He could feed, dress,
and toilet himself, but needed considerable assistance
with other self-care tasks (e.g., tying shoes, bathing,
brushing teeth). He initiated interactions with adults by
approaching, making eye contact, and touching them,
but tended to ignore his peers. He showed interest and
ability in using reactive toys, drawing, tracing letters,
and assembling jigsaw puzzles. He could use these
materials independently and appropriately for up to
20 min. His problem behaviors consisted of frequent
tantrums that included screaming, dropping to the floor,
head banging, and hand biting. He would also occa-
sionally head-butt others and sniff the hair of strangers.
Ryan attended the same school program as Jason and
his sessions were also conducted in the classroom dur-
ing a morning snack activity.
2.1.2. Preference assessment
A preference assessment was conducted to identify
preferred snack items. Six snack foods (i.e., cracker,
granola bar, juice, popcorn, pretzel, and raisin) were
selected based on staff reports and informal observa-
tions, which suggested that the two students preferred
these items. The preference assessment consisted of
offering a small sample of each item 12 times. Re-
sults showed that the students consistently selected and
consumed each item when offered. These snack foods
were therefore used as reinforcers in the present study.
2.1.3. Communication devices
Three VOCAs were selected that were affordable
to the school (less than $400) and therefore available
for use in this setting. We also sought devices that
systematically sampled the range of variation found in
VOCAs within the designated price range. This process
resulted in our purchase of 3 devices for use in this
study: (a) the BIGmack TM switch (AbleNet, Inc.), (b)
145
Tech/Talk 6X8 (Advanced Multimedia Devices, Inc.),
and (c) Mini-messageMate TM (Words+). All three
devices were programmed with a single pre-recorded
voice message “I want more.” An adult male (first
author) recorded the message for both students and for
all three devices. The message was activated when
the participant pressed a black and white line drawing
representing WANT [7]. The WANT symbol measured
7 × 7 cm and was affixed to the surface of the BIGmack
switch. An identical WANT symbol was affixed to
one randomly selected panel on the Tech/Talk. This
symbol also measured 7 × 7 cm, which corresponded
to the size of the panels on the Tech/Talk. A smaller
WANT symbol (3 × 3 cm) was affixed to one randomly
selected panel of the Mini-messageMate. The other 7
panels of the Tech/Talk and Mini-messageMate were
blank and there was no message or feedback provided
when these blank panels were pressed.
2.1.4. Response definitions and measurement
We recorded which of the 3 devices (if any) was se-
lected each time an opportunity to make a choice was
provided. Repeated opportunities to make a choice
were provided during the baseline and choice assess-
ment phases of the study (see Procedures). A device
was recorded as having been selected when the student
retrieved it from the storage area where all 3 devices
were located, returned to the table with that one de-
vice within 10 s, and then used the device correctly to
make a request. To be counted as a correct request, the
student had to press the WANT symbol to activate the
message “I want more.” within 10 s of returning to the
table with the device.
The definition of a correct request during acquisition
varied depending on the step being trained (see Proce-
dures). For Step 1, the student had to press the WANT
symbol to activate the message “I want more.” In Step
2, the student had to turn on the device and then use it
to make a request. In Step 3, the student had to retrieve
the device from the storage area, return to the table with
the device, turn it on, and then make a request. The
device selected and the presence or absence of a correct
request was recorded for each opportunity.
2.1.5. Experimental design
Baseline and acquisition instruction were introduced
sequentially across students in a multiple-baseline de-
sign [2]. The choice assessment phase followed acqui-
sition instruction on all three devices.
146 J. Sigafoos et al. / Supporting self-determination in AAC interventions by assessing preference for communication devices
2.1.6. Baseline probes
Baseline sessions lasted about 5 min and consisted
of 6 opportunities to request (i.e., one opportunity per
snack item). All sessions began with the student and
instructor seated at the table. All 3 VOCAs had pre-
viously been placed side-by-side on top of a storage
area that was approximately 3 m from where the stu-
dent and instructor were seated. The left-middle-right
sequence in which the devices were placed was sys-
tematically varied across opportunities so that each de-
vice was placed in each position an equal number of
times. The devices were visible to the students from
their seated position at the table and all three devices
were readily and easily accessible.
To begin a session, the student was given one por-
tion of each of the snack items from the tray. The tray
containing an additional portion of each item was then
moved out of reach, but remained in view of the par-
ticipant. The trainer then said Let me know if you want
more to signal the start of a requesting opportunity. The
instructor observed the student and recorded whether
or not the student retrieved a device from the storage
area, which device (if any) was selected, and whether
the student then used the device to make a correct re-
quest. If so, the student was allowed to select one item
from the tray. If not, the student was given an item from
the tray after the opportunity elapsed. The student was
allowed 30 s to complete the sequence of (a) retrieving
a device from the storage area, (b) returning to the table
with the device, (c) turning the device on, and (d) using
the device to make a request. The tray of snack items
was replenished at the beginning of each session
2.1.7. Acquisition instruction
Acquisition instruction was conducted in blocks of
10 opportunities. Instruction involved a 3-step process.
First (Step 1), only one of the VOCAs was placed on
the table in front of the student. After giving the student
a sample from the tray, the instructor told the student to
use the switch while demonstrating a correct request.
After this, if the student pressed the WANT symbol on
the VOCA within 10 s, he was allowed to select one
item from the tray. If the student pressed the wrong
panel on the VOCA or failed to respond within 10 s, the
instructor pointed to the WANT symbol on the device to
prompt the student to press the WANT symbol. If this
did not occasion a request within 3 s, the instructor used
the least amount of physical guidance necessary (e.g.,
guiding by the elbow) to prompt the student to press the
WANT symbol. Once a request had occurred, whether
independently or prompted, the student was allowed to
select one item from the tray. After six opportunities,
the tray was replenished with a portion of each snack
item.
The procedures for Steps 2 and 3 were identical ex-
cept that the initial instruction and demonstration was
related to the step being taught at the time. With Step 2,
for example, the instructor demonstrated how to turn
on the device and then the student was required to turn
on the VOCA before making a request. If the student
did not turn on the device before attempting to make a
request, the instructor used a least-to-most prompt hi-
erarchy consisting of (a) pointing to the on/off switch,
(b) demonstrating the required action, and (c) using the
least amount of physical guidance necessary to prompt
this response, if necessary. For Step 3, the VOCA was
not only turned off, but it was also located at the stor-
age area. The student therefore had to retrieve it from
the area, return to the table with it, turn it on, and then
make a request by pointing to the WANT symbol. If the
student did not initiate this sequence within 10 s, the
instructor pointed toward the direction of the storage
area and said Go get it. If this prompt was not effective,
the instructor physically assisted the student to stand
up and walk over to the storage area using the least
amount of physical guidance necessary.
Acquisition instruction began with the BIGmack de-
vice. Once criterion on Step 3 was reached with the
BIGmack device, acquisition instruction was extended
to the Tech/Talk, and then to the Mini-messageMate.
The criterion for moving from Step 1 to Steps 2 and 3
was 3 consecutive correct requests. However, up to 10
opportunities were presented post-acquisition to equate
the number of opportunities that the students received
to use each device.
2.1.8. Choice assessment
The procedures during this phase were identical to
baseline, except that if the student did not initiate re-
trieval of a device within 10 s, the instructor pointed
to the storage area and said Go get one as a way of
prompting the student to choose a device. Access to a
preferred item from the tray was contingent upon mak-
ing a correct request with one of the devices. Thus to
be counted as a choice, the participant not only had to
select one device from the storage area, but also had to
return to the table with the device, turn it on, and then
use the device to make a request by pressing the WANT
symbol to activate the recorded message.
 J. Sigafoos et al. / Supporting self-determination in AAC interventions by assessing preference for communication devices 147

BASELINE CHOICE ASSESSMENT

35

Acquisition Instruction
30
Tech/Talk
25
Cumulative Selections/Correct Requests

20

15 Jason
10

0
BIGmack

35
Acquisition Instruction

30 Mini-messageMate
25

20

15

10 Ryan
5

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47

Successive Opportunities
Fig. 1. Cumulative selections of each device across successive opportunities for Jason (upper panel) and Ryan (lower panel). A selection was
only recorded if the student retrieved a device from the storage area and then used the device correctly to make a request.

2.1.9. Inter-observer agreement vice was selected and used correctly to make a request
The instructor and a reliability observer indepen- on an opportunity-by-opportunity basis (see Fig. 1).
dently recorded correct requesting as well as the device
used for requesting on an opportunity-by-opportunity 2.2.1. Baseline
basis. Agreement checks were obtained during at Neither student made any device selections or correct
least 42% of the opportunities in each phase of the requests during baseline. During baseline, the students
study (range 42–100%) Percentage agreement [Agree- never attempted to retrieve a device from the storage
ments/(Agreements + Disagreements) × 100%] was area. Instead, each student remained seated, but often
always 100%. attempted to gain access to the tray of items by reaching,
leading, or pushing the instructor’s hand toward the
2.2. Results tray.

Figure 1 shows results from the baseline and choice 2.2.2. Acquisition
assessment phase for Jason (upper panel) and Ryan Table 1 shows results of the acquisition phase. Ja-
(lower panel). Because neither participant ever selected son showed rapid and comparable acquisition rates at
a device from the storage area without then returning to each step and with each device. In fact, he needed
the table with it and using it to make a correct request, to be prompted only once. This occurred on the fifth
we graphed the cumulative number of times that a de- opportunity at Step 3 with the BIGmack switch. Ryan
148 J. Sigafoos et al. / Supporting self-determination in AAC interventions by assessing preference for communication devices
Table 1
Opportunities to criterion (and total opportunities conducted) for
each device and step of acquisition instruction
Device/Step Student
Jason
BIGmack
Step 1 3 (10)
Step 2 3 (10)
Step 3 4 (10)
Tech/Talk
Step 1 3 (10)
Step 2 3 (10)
Step 3 3 (10)
Mini-messageMate
Step 1 3 (10)
Step 2 3 (10)
Step 3 3 (10)
required 10 opportunities to reach criterion at Step 3
for the first two devices, but only had to be prompted
once during Step 3 instruction with the third device
(i.e., Mini-messageMate). Overall the data in Table 1
suggests that both students gained proficiency in us-
ing all three devices relatively quickly and with com-
parable ease. Therefore any differences in device se-
lection during the subsequent choice assessment phase
would most likely reflect a preference for a particular
device rather than varying amounts of experience with,
or proficiency in using, the different devices.
2.2.3. Choice assessment
As shown in the final choice assessment phase of
Fig. 1, Jason consistently selected the Tech/Talk and
only rarely selected the Mini-messageMate or BIG-
mack switch. In contrast, Ryan consistently selected
the Mini-messageMate, never chose the BIGmack, and
only rarely chose the Tech/Talk.
2.3. Discussion
The results of this initial demonstration appear to
reveal that each student displayed a preference for one
of the three VOCAs. These differences in preferences
cannot be explained by differing history or proficiency
because the students were taught to use each of the
devices up to the same level of mastery. Device pref-
erence was not related to ease of retrieval, as all three
devices were equally accessible during all but the final
five opportunities. Ease of retrieval was then manipu-
lated to further explore this issue by placing the seem-
ingly preferred device (i.e., Tech/Talk for Jason, and
Mini-messageMate for Ryan) underneath the other two
devices during the final five opportunities of the choice
assessment phase. Even when placed in this less acces-
sible location, Jason consistently chose the Tech/Talk
and Ryan consistently chose the Mini-messageMate,
even though this required them to move the other two
Ryan devices out of the way to gain access to their more
preferred option. This provides further evidence that
3 (10) Jason and Ryan had a stronger preference for using the
3 (10) Tech/Talk and Mini-messageMate, respectively.
10 (17)
One possible reason for Jason’s apparently stronger
3 (10) preference for the Tech/talk could be that it seemed eas-
3 (10) ier for him to operate. Recall that to be correct the stu-
10 (20) dents had to retrieve the device, return to the table with
3 (10) it, turn it on, and then press the WANT symbol to make
3 (10) a request. During acquisition, Jason seemed to have
4 (10) greater difficultly turning on the BIGmack switch and
Mini-messageMate. This seemed to be related to the
fact that the BIGmack switch and Mini-messageMate
have a small on/off wheel, whereas the Tech/Talk has
a larger on/off knob. It is unclear why Ryan seemed
to prefer the Mini-messageMate over the other two de-
vices.
While the results of this initial demonstration sug-
gest that the choice making methodology may enable
some students to indicate preference for one kind of
VOCA over two others, it is unclear whether students
would prefer a non-electronic communication board
instead. In terms of self-determination it is not ap-
propriate to assume that individuals would prefer VO-
CAs over communication boards and therefore delimit
the array of choices only to VOCAs. Further, be-
cause non-electronic communication boards are easy
to make, rarely break down, and are less costly than
VOCAs, it is important to understand learners’ rela-
tive preferences. Thus, a second demonstration of the
choice making methodology was conducted to examine
whether these students would indicate a preference for
a non-electronic communication board rather than their
preferred VOCA identified in the initial demonstration.
3. Case Demonstration 2
3.1. Method
3.1.1. Participants and setting
The participants and setting were the same as in Case
Demonstration 1.
3.1.2. Reinforcers
The six snack items used in Case Demonstration 1
were also used as reinforcers in this study.
 J. Sigafoos et al. / Supporting self-determination in AAC interventions by assessing preference for communication devices
3.1.3. Communication devices, graphic symbols, and
preferred food items
Both learners were taught to use a communication
board and then received fluency instruction with both
the communication board and their preferred VOCA
from Case Demonstration 1. Fluency instruction was
implemented before the choice assessment condition to
ensure the students had comparable levels of alternat-
ing experience and that each student reached equivalent
levels of proficiency with both devices. The VOCA
used with Jason was the Tech/Talk, whereas for Ryan
it was the Mini-messsageMate, because these were
the preferred choices from the previous demonstration.
The communication board was made from cardboard
and measured 20 × 25 cm. Six (5 × 5 cm) picture
communication symbol (PCS) cards were affixed to the
board. Each card contained a black and white line
drawing representation of one of the six snack items
(i.e., cracker, granola bar, juice, popcorn, pretzel, and
raisin). Cards were selected from the Mayer-Johnson
Company set of PCS cards [7]. The cards were lami-
nated and affixed to the board with Velcro and aligned
in two vertical columns. Identical line drawings were
attached to six randomly selected response panels on
the Tech/Talk and Mini-messageMate.
3.1.4. Response definitions and measurement
A correct request using the communication board re-
quired the student to select one of the six cards from the
communication board, hand it to the trainer, and then
select the corresponding snack item from the tray. A
correct response using a VOCA required the student to
turn on the device, point to one of the line drawings to
produce the relevant recorded message (e.g., “I want
juice.” “I want cracker.”), and then select the corre-
sponding snack item from the tray. The same adult male
used in Case Demonstration 1 recorded the messages
on the devices for both students. As before, we noted
the device selected (communication board or VOCA)
and the presence or absence of a correct request on an
opportunity-by-opportunity basis.
3.1.5. Acquisition instruction for the communication
board
Both students were first taught to use the commu-
nication board to request each of the six snacks. This
involved offering one snack item and waiting 10 s for
a correct request, which involved handing over the cor-
rect symbol. If the student did not make a correct re-
sponse within 10 s, the instructor prompted the student
to hand over the corresponding card from the board.
149
The prompt involved pointing to the correct card, fol-
lowed by the instructor presenting her right hand, palm
up, as a prompt for the student to give the card to the
instructor. After this, the next snack item was offered.
Instruction continued on an item until the student made
6 consecutive correct responses for that item. This
item was then removed from the pool and instruction
continued with the remaining items until criterion was
reached.
3.1.6. Fluency instruction
Following acquisition instruction with the commu-
nication board, the same line drawings were added to
the VOCA and fluency instruction was implemented.
During this phase the students were given the commu-
nication board or their preferred VOCA on an alternat-
ing session-by-session basis. Each session consisted
of 6 opportunities. A session began by placing a small
portion of each snack item on the tray. The trainer then
said Let me know if you want something and waited up
to 10 s for the student to make a request. If the student
did not make a request within 10 s, he was prompted to
press a panel on the VOCA (or hand over a card from
the board) using the least amount of physical guidance
necessary. Once a request occurred, the tray was moved
within reach and the student was allowed to select the
corresponding item. If the student attempted to take an
item that did not correspond to his prior request (e.g.,
the student handed over the line drawing of a raisin,
but attempted to take the pretzel), then this selection
was interrupted and he was told No. To correct the
error, the instructor physically prompted the learner to
select the item corresponding to his prior request. At
the end of every session (6 opportunities), the tray was
replenished with a small portion of each snack item.
Thus the requesting task in this second demonstra-
tion was more complicated than in the first because the
students had to attend to which items remained avail-
able, and then select the item that matched the line
drawing they had previously handed to the instructor
or pointed to on the VOCA. This kind of correspon-
dence testing is a more stringent test for establishing
the acquisition of specific requests [14]. Fluency in-
struction continued until the students achieved a pre-
determined mastery criterion of 80% correct or better
with the VOCA and the communication board over 2
(Ryan) or 5 (Jason) sessions.
150 J. Sigafoos et al. / Supporting self-determination in AAC interventions by assessing preference for communication devices
3.1.7. Choice assessment probes
This condition was similar to the choice assessment
phase used on the previous demonstration. The com-
munication board and the preferred VOCA were placed
in the storage location prior to each session. To initiate
the session, the student therefore had to retrieve one of
the devices and return to the table with it. Once he had
returned to the table with a device, he was allowed to
continue to use that one device for the entire (six op-
portunity) session. After this, the device was returned
to the storage location and the tray was replenished be-
fore starting the next session. In addition to recording
the device selected to initiate each block of six oppor-
tunities, we also recorded the percentage of correct re-
quests made when using that device during the session.
Retrieval and requests were never prompted during this
phase nor was error correction used.
3.1.8. Experimental design
Acquisition instruction to teach the students to use
the communication board was introduced at the same
time with both students. Once both had reached crite-
rion, they received fluency instruction with the commu-
nication board and with the VOCA. This phase served
as a baseline to ensure students achieved comparable
levels of performance and had comparable amounts of
experience with the communication board and with the
VOCA. The choice assessment phase was then intro-
duced with Ryan and then with Jason in a multiple
baseline design [2].
3.1.9. Inter-observer agreement
The instructor and several reliability observers
independently recorded correct requesting on an
opportunity-by-opportunity basis within each session.
In addition, these individuals recorded which device
(communication board or VOCA) the student selected
at the beginning of each session during the choice as-
sessment phase. Agreement checks were obtained dur-
ing all sessions for Ryan and all but two choice assess-
ment sessions for Jason. Percentage agreement [Agree-
ments/(Agreements + Disagreements) × 100%] aver-
aged 97.61% (range 83.33–100%).
3.2. Results
Results from acquisition instruction with the com-
munication board are shown in Table 2. For Jason op-
portunities to criterion ranged from 9 (Pretzel) to 28
(popcorn) with a mean of 20 opportunities per item.
Table 2
Opportunities to criterion during acquisition instruction with the
communication board
Item Student
Jason Ryan
Cracker 10 29
Granola Bar 25 26
Juice 27 24
Popcorn 28 17
Pretzel 9 19
Raisin 25 19
For Ryan, opportunities to criterion ranged from 17
(popcorn) to 29 (cracker) with a mean of 22.
Results from the fluency instruction and choice as-
sessment phases are shown in Fig. 2. Figure 2 shows
the percentage of opportunities with a correct request
during each session with Ryan (upper panel) and Jason
(lower panel). In reading Fig. 2, it is important to re-
call that during fluency instruction, the students were
given either the communication board or their preferred
VOCA to use during the session. The device they were
given alternated across sessions. During the choice as-
sessment phase, however, the student retrieved one of
the devices from the storage location at the beginning
of each session and then used that device for the entire
six opportunities of the session. Thus in Fig. 2, during
the choice assessment phase, an open circle means that
the communication board was retrieved from the stor-
age location, whereas a filled triangle means that the
VOCA was retrieved from the storage location. Once
retrieved, we then graphed the percentage of correct
requests made with that device during the session.
When choice was allowed, Ryan always chose the
VOCA (i.e., Mini-messageMate) and then used the de-
vice with a high level of proficiency (83.33 to 100% cor-
rect) across the six sessions of this final phase. These
data suggest that Ryan had a clear preference for using
the Mini-messageMate over the communication board
and that this preference was not associated with any
major nor consistent differences in proficiency levels
with the two devices. Jason, in contrast, sometimes re-
trieved the Tech/Talk and sometimes retrieved the com-
munication board, although he did show a greater ten-
dency to choose the Tech/Talk over the communication
board. Specifically, he chose the Tech/Talk on 22 or
70% of his 31 choice assessment sessions, suggesting
that this was the more preferred device.
3.3. Discussion
The results of this second case demonstration would
seem to further demonstrate the potential utility of
 J. Sigafoos et al. / Supporting self-determination in AAC interventions by assessing preference for communication devices 151

Fluency
Instruction Choice Assessment

100
90
80
Correct Requests Using that Device During the Session

70
VOCA
Device Used for the Session and Percentage of

60
BOARD
50
40
30
20
10 Ryan
0

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
VOCA
20 BOARD
10
0
Jason

1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46

Sessions of 6 Opportunities

Fig. 2. Device used and percentage of correct requests with that device across fluency instruction and choice assessment sessions for Ryan (upper
panel) and Jason (lower panel).

the choice-making paradigm as a procedure for en- pointing to a panel on the VOCA versus exchanging a
abling students to indicate preference for AAC devices. card from the communication board with the instruc-
Again, both students consistently made a choice for tor). The impact of the selection technique on the learn-
a device when given the opportunity and each tended ers’ preference is an issue that requires further investi-
to show a preference for the VOCA over the commu- gation.
nication board, although Jason’s preference for using It is also possible that the apparent preference for the
VOCA over the communication board was less pro- VOCA over the board might have something to do with
nounced than Ryan’s. These findings are consistent the fact that VOCA use includes feedback in the form
with the preference for the VOCA displayed by the of voice-output [11]. Of course there might be other
participant of the Soto et al. [16] study. factors that could have contributed to the students’ pref-
It would be interesting to speculate why both stu- erence for the VOCA over the communication board,
dents selected the VOCA more often than the commu- such as overall appearance of the devices. The possible
nication board. Perhaps it was the presence of speech influence of such factors should be studied in the future.
output with the VOCAs. Studies are needed that iso-
late the role of speech output in shaping learners’ pref- 4. General discussion
erences [12]. The preference for VOCAs might also
have something to do with the different selection tech- The results of the present case demonstrations must
niques associated with the two respective devices (i.e., be viewed as preliminary given that the application of
152 J. Sigafoos et al. / Supporting self-determination in AAC interventions by assessing preference for communication devices
the choice making methodology was illustrated with
only two individuals. Still, these two demonstrations
suggests that there may be some potential value in using
the choice-making paradigm. This methodology may
enable some non-speaking students with developmen-
tal disabilities to indicate preference for AAC devices.
The choice-making methodology represents a concrete
situation where individuals who are beginning to use
AAC can exercise self-determination.
In the first case demonstration reported here, when
given the opportunity to choose between three types of
VOCAs, both students never failed to make a choice
and both also showed a consistent preference for using
one of the three devices over the other two available op-
tions. Their preference was individualized in that Jason
nearly always selected the Tech/Talk, whereas Ryan
consistently opted for the Mini-messageMate. Teach-
ing the students to use each of the three VOCAs to a
pre-determined mastery criterion prior to implement-
ing the choice assessment may have helped to ensure
that their preference for a device was not due to dif-
ferences in performance in using the devices to make
requests. As such, this procedure would seem to have
potential for use in future studies on self-determination
in individuals with developmental disabilities.
Unfortunately, the design did not allow us to rule out
possible sequence effects because acquisition instruc-
tion on the three VOCAs was introduced in succession
(1. BIGmack, 2. Tech/Talk, 3. Mini-messageMate).
However, the results suggest that sequence effects did
not occur for Jason, although this may have been a
factor for Ryan. That is, Jason seemed to prefer the
Tech/Talk, which was the second device to be trained
in sequence. Ryan, on the other hand, preferred the
Mini-messageMate, which was last device to be trained
in the sequence, which may indicate a recency effect.
However, it should be noted that both students showed
rapid acquisition of all three devices, which would seem
to mitigate sequence effects. We attempted to address
potential sequence effects in the fluency phase of Study
2 by simultaneously providing opportunities to use the
VOCA and the communication board on an alternating
session-by-session basis.
Results from the present implementation extend the
work of Soto et al. [16], by further demonstrating that
a choice assessment procedure may enable some stu-
dents with developmental disabilities to express a pref-
erence for the type of AAC device or devices that they
would like to own and use. However, even when a
clear preference emerges, it may be unclear as to why
one device is preferred over another. Future research
could explore numerous variables, such as device er-
gonomics and voice characteristics (e.g., male/female,
intonation), that might influence preference.
While the choice-making paradigm could be seen as
a type of preference assessment similar to those which
have sought to identify preferred stimuli that can then
be used as reinforcers [4], a potentially important dis-
tinction is the need to first implement an instructional
phase to establish proficient use of each device be-
fore conducting the choice assessment. We selected
a simple requesting task as the context for instruction
because requesting is a functional skill that also pro-
vides a way of ensuring motivation to use the device.
While, it is unclear if the methodology would gener-
alize to other situations besides requesting snacks, this
activity appeared to be highly motivating to the par-
ticipants, which may have facilitated acquisition. The
initial acquisition and fluency phases also allowed us to
rule out differential performance in using the devices
for requesting as a variable influencing the student’s
preferences.
In order to enable students to make informed choices
related to AAC devices, it would seem crucial to en-
sure that several conditions are met. First, it would
seem important to make certain that students have equal
amounts of experiences with the various devices. Sec-
ond, students have to be taught to use each device to the
same high level of proficiency. Third, fluency instruc-
tion in which accurate use of the devices is alternated
across sessions may be one way to rule out possible se-
quence effects. Fourth, a valid assessment would also
seem to require that opportunities to choose be arranged
so that the instructor does not inadvertently bias the
student to select one device over the others. We did this
by requiring the student to walk over to a storage area
and retrieve one of the available devices. Fifth, it may
also help to increase the response demands required
to obtain the seemingly more preferred option. If the
student continues to select one device over others, even
when that device is more difficult to access, then this
would seem to be a good indication of a strong personal
preference for that device.
While enabling students to indicate preference and
make choices is important in its own right, it is un-
clear if this would translate into improved learning and
increased use of device. Future research is needed to
determine effects of device preference on subsequent
learning and use. This may be an important consid-
eration for students who might be expected to acquire
device use more slowly than was the case for the two
students in the present study.
 J. Sigafoos et al. / Supporting self-determination in AAC interventions by assessing preference for communication devices
The choice-making paradigm used in these studies
might be extended to assess preference for aided versus
unaided AAC. However, it would seem more difficult
to assess preference for using manual signs versus a
VOCA for example because one cannot present manual
signs in the same way that one can present a VOCA.
Perhaps this could be investigated by teaching the stu-
dent to use manual signs in the presence of one distinc-
tive stimulus and to use a VOCA in the presence of a
second distinctive stimulus. A choice condition might
then be arranged by presenting both stimuli (E. Dras-
gow, personal communication, September 15, 2004).
A procedure of this type may enable the student to in-
dicate a preference for aided versus unaided modes of
AAC.
Selecting a suitable AAC device for students with de-
velopmental disabilities can be difficult because there
are numerous options available and it is often impos-
sible to determine a priori whether or not a student
would be capable of learning, and interested in using,
any particular option. The choice making approach de-
scribed in this study may be one way to enable students
with developmental disabilities to participate more ac-
tively in this important clinical decision. By creat-
ing choice making opportunities of this type, students
may not only be empowered to express their prefer-
ence, but it may also represent one way of promoting
self-determination in AAC intervention.
Acknowledgement
Appreciation is extended to the Director, Alonzo An-
drews, and staff of the Autism Treatment Center in San
Antonio, Texas for their generous support during the
conduct of this study.
References
[1] D.M. Baer, Commentary: Problems in imposing self-
determination, Journal of the Association for Persons with
Severe Handicaps 23 (1998), 50–52.
[2] D.H. Barlow and M. Hersen, Single-case Experimental De-
signs: Strategies for Studying Behavior Change, (2nd ed.),
Pergamon Press, New York, 1984.
[3] D.R. Beukelman and P. Mirenda, Augmentative and Alterna-
153
tive Communication: Management of Severe Communication
Disorders in Children and Adults, (2nd ed.), Paul H. Brookes
Publishing Co., Baltimore, 1998.
[4] H.I. Cannella, M. O’Reilly and G.E. Lancioni, Choice and
preference assessment research with people with severe to pro-
found developmental disabilities: A review of the literature,
Research in Developmental Disabilities (in press).
[5] J.M. Johnson, D. Baumgart, E. Helmstetter and C.A. Curry,
Augmenting Basic Communication in Natural Contexts, Paul
H. Brookes Publishing Co., Baltimore, 1996.
[6] L.L. Lloyd, D. Fuller and H. Arvidson, Augmentative and
Alternative Communication: A Handbook of Principles and
Practices, Allyn & Bacon, Needham Heights, MA, 1997.
[7] Mayer-Johnson Co., Picture Communication Symbols Combi-
nation Book, Author, Solano Beach, CA, 1994.
[8] P. Mirenda, Toward functional augmentative and alterna-
tive communication for students with autism: Manual signs,
graphic symbols, and voice output communication aids, Lan-
guage, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools 34 (2003),
203–216.
[9] J. Reichle, J. York and J. Sigafoos, Implementing Augmen-
tative and Alternative Communication: Strategies for Learn-
ers with Severe Disabilities, Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.,
Baltimore, 1991.
[10] D.A. Rotholz, S.F. Berkowitz and J. Burberry, Functionality
of two modes of communication in the community by students
with developmental disabilities: A comparison of signing and
communication books, Journal of the Association for Persons
with Severe Handicaps 14 (1989), 227–233.
[11] R.W. Schlosser, Comparative efficacy of interventions in aug-
mentative and alternative communication, Augmentative and
Alternative Communication 15 (1999), 56–68.
[12] R.W. Schlosser, Roles of speech output in augmentative and
alternative communication: Narrative review, Augmentative
and Alternative Communication 19 (2003), 5–28.
[13] R.W. Schlosser and D.M. Blischak, Is there a role for speech
output in interventions for persons with autism? A review,
Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities 16
(2001), 170–178.
[14] R.W. Schlosser and J. Sigafoos, Selecting graphic symbols for
an initial request lexicon: Integrative review, Augmentative
and Alternative Communication 18 (2002), 102–123.
[15] J. Sigafoos, E. Drasgow and R.W. Schlosser, Strategies for be-
ginning communicators, in: The Efficacy of Augmentative and
Alternative Communication: Toward Evidence-Based Prac-
tice, R.W. Schlosser, ed., Academic Press, Boston, 2003,
pp. 323–346.
[16] G. Soto, P.J. Belfiore, R.W. Schlosser and C. Haynes, Teach-
ing specific requests: A comparative analysis of skill acqui-
sition and preference using two augmentative and alternative
communication aids, Education and Training in Mental Re-
tardation 28 (1993), 169–178.
[17] M.L. Wehmeyer, The confluence of person-centered planning
and self-determination, in: Person-Centered Planning: Re-
search, Practice, and Future Directions, S. Holburn and P.M.
Vietze, eds, Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co., Baltimore, 2002,
pp. 51–69.