Tele-AAC Resolution


  • Kate Anderson University of Sydney, Australia
  • Michelle K. Boisvert University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA
  • Janis Doneski-Nicol University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA
  • Michelle L. Gutmann Department of Hearing and Speech Sciences, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN
  • Nerissa C. Hall University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA
  • Cynthia Morelock The Children’s Institute of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA
  • Richard Steele Lingraphica, Princeton, NJ
  • Ellen R. Cohn University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA



Approximately 1.3% of all people, or about 4 million Americans, cannot rely on their natural speech to meet their daily communication needs. Telepractice offers a potentially cost-effective service delivery mechanism to provide clinical AAC services at a distance to the benefit of underserved populations in the United States and worldwide.  Tele-AAC is a unique cross-disciplinary clinical service delivery model that requires expertise in both telepractice and augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) systems.  The Tele-AAC Working Group of the 2012 ISAAC Research Symposium therefore drafted a resolution underscoring the importance of identifying and characterizing the unique opportunities and constraints of Tele-AAC in all aspects of service delivery. These include, but are not limited to: needs assessments; implementation planning; device/system procurement, set-up and training; quality assurance, client progress monitoring, and follow-up service delivery. Tele-AAC, like other telepractice applications, requires adherence to the ASHA Code of Ethics and other policy documents, and state, federal, and international laws, as well as a competent technological infrastructure. The Working Group recommends that institutions of higher education and professional organizations provide training in Tele-AAC service provision. In addition, research and development are needed to create validity measures across Tele-AAC practices (i.e., assessment, implementation, and consultation); determine the communication competence levels achieved  by Tele-AAC users; discern stakeholders’  perceptions of Tele-AAC services (e.g., acceptability and viability); maximize Tele-AAC’s capacity to engage multiple team members in AAC assessment and ongoing service; identify the limitations and barriers of Tele-AAC provision; and develop potential solutions.




Binger, C & Light, J. (2006). Demographics of preschoolers who require AAC. Language, Speech, & Hearing Services in Schools, 37, 200-208. Vol.37 200-208.

Boisvert, M., Lang, R., Andrianopoulos, M., & Boscardin, M L. (2010). Telepractice in the assessment and treatment of individuals with autism spectrum disorders: A systematic review. Developmental Neurorehabilitation, 13, 423-432.

Beukelman, DR, & Mirenda, P. (2012). Augmentative & Alternative Communication: Supporting children and adults with complex communication needs. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Company.

Goldbart, J., & Marshall, J. (2004). ‘‘Pushes and pulls’’ on the parents of children who use AAC. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 20, 194-208.

Hirdes, J P., Ellis-Hale, K, & Pearson Hirdes, B. (1993). Prevalence and policy implications of communication disabilities among adults. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 9, 273-280.

Iacono, T. & Cameron, M. (2009). Australian speech-language pathologists’ perceptions and experiences of Augmentative and Alternative Communication in early childhood intervention. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 25, 236-249.

Kairy D., Lehoux, P., & Vincent, C. (2009). A systematic review of clinical outcomes, clinical process, healthcare utilization and costs associated with telerehabilitation. Disability Rehabilitation, 31, 427-447.

Marshall, J., & Goldbart, J. (2008). ‘Communication is everything I think.’ Parenting a child who needs Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC). International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 43, 77-98.

Mashima, P A., & Doarn, C R. (2008). Overview of telehealth activities in speech-language pathology. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 14, 1101-1117.

Iacono, T. & Cameron, M. (2009). Australian speech-language pathologists’ perceptions and experiences of Augmentative and Alternative Communication in early childhood intervention. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 25, 236-249.

Matas, J A., Mathy-Laikko, P., Beukelman, D R., & Legresley, K. (1985). Identifying the non-speaking population: A demographic study. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 1, 17-31.

McNaughton, D., Rackensperger, T., Benedek-Wood, E., Krezman, C., Williams, M. & Light, J. (2008). ‘‘A child needs to be given a chance to succeed’’: Parents of individuals who use AAC describe the benefits and challenges of learning AAC technologies. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 24, 43-55.

World Health Organization & World Bank. (2011). World report on disability. Available at:



How to Cite

Anderson, K., Boisvert, M. K., Doneski-Nicol, J., Gutmann, M. L., Hall, N. C., Morelock, C., Steele, R., & Cohn, E. R. (2012). Tele-AAC Resolution. International Journal of Telerehabilitation, 4(2).



Committee Report