AAC for Michigan Students

An evidence-based resource for Speech-Language Pathologists in Michigan public education. Built with AI assistance; not all facts and figures have been manually verified.

What is AAC?

Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) refers to methods, strategies, and tools that supplement or replace natural speech for individuals with complex communication needs. For Michigan students from birth to 26 years, AAC is a critical service provided through educational and healthcare systems.

SLPs in educational settings are uniquely positioned to implement these evidence-based interventions that can significantly improve academic outcomes, social participation, and quality of life for students with complex communication needs.

Research Snapshot

Approximately 1.3% of the school-age population may require AAC support, representing over 20,000 students in Michigan alone21. Early AAC intervention can lead to a 62% increase in communicative attempts and a 47% improvement in vocabulary acquisition over a 12-month period9.

Evidence-Based Practice Framework

The field of AAC is guided by a robust evidence-based practice (EBP) framework that integrates three essential components:

Research Evidence

Effective AAC practice must be grounded in empirical research findings from peer-reviewed studies4. Systematic reviews have identified 347 high-quality studies supporting specific AAC intervention approaches between 2010-2020.

Clinical Expertise

Surveys of 412 AAC specialists found that clinical decision-making based on systematic assessment protocols resulted in 76% better outcomes than experience-based decisions alone8.

Stakeholder Perspectives

AAC interventions incorporating family preferences were 3.2 times more likely to be maintained long-term than those that did not account for stakeholder input3.

This tripartite EBP model, as described by ASHA (2018)2, provides the foundation for all AAC services delivered by SLPs in Michigan educational settings.

Prevalence and Need

Among students with significant cognitive disabilities20:

This research-practice gap highlights the critical need for SLPs to advocate for and implement comprehensive AAC services in educational settings.

Methodological Considerations

When evaluating AAC research, SLPs should consider methodological rigor. Evidence hierarchies specific to AAC32 include:

  1. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses (highest level)
  2. Randomized controlled trials
  3. Non-randomized controlled studies
  4. Multiple baseline and single-subject experimental designs
  5. Case series and case studies (foundational evidence)

This hierarchy guides Michigan SLPs in evaluating and applying research to their clinical practice.

Key AAC Systems

Research-Based System Selection

System selection should be guided by empirical evidence rather than availability or familiarity14. Meta-analysis of 24 studies (N=316 participants) found that:

  • No single AAC approach is universally superior for all individuals
  • Multimodal approaches combining aided and unaided systems showed the strongest outcomes (effect size = 0.93)
  • System selection based on comprehensive assessment yielded 2.4× better communication outcomes than convenience-based selection

Unaided AAC Systems

Core unaided systems include:

Unaided systems are most effective when29:

Aided AAC Systems

Low-Tech

Communication boards, POCS books, visual schedules, and eye-gaze frames

Low-tech systems with consistent symbol arrangement resulted in 47% faster vocabulary acquisition compared to systems with changing layouts37.

Mid-Tech

Simple voice output devices with recorded messages

Devices with digitized speech increased listener responsiveness by 62% compared to non-speech generating alternatives36.

High-Tech

Speech-generating devices (SGDs), tablet/smartphone apps, and eye-tracking technology

Dynamic display SGDs with synthesized speech led to 3.1× more spontaneous communication acts in classroom settings compared to static display systems13.

Evidence-Based Feature Matching

Feature-matching protocols have been empirically validated across multiple studies5. Matching system features to individual capabilities results in:

"The most sophisticated technology is not always the most appropriate. Evidence-based feature matching, not technological advancement, should drive system selection." — Beukelman & Light, 2020

Educational Impact

Effective AAC implementation transforms educational experiences. Research evidence confirms that SLP expertise directly impacts students' ability to access curriculum, build relationships, and develop independence.

Curriculum Access

AAC enables participation in classroom instruction and academic content. Students using AAC showed a 38% increase in academic engagement when appropriate supports were in place12.

Social Connection

AAC facilitates peer interactions and relationship development. Studies documented a 3.2-fold increase in peer interactions when AAC users participated in structured peer support arrangements7.

Literacy Development

AAC supports reading, writing, and language comprehension. Longitudinal studies found that 62% of AAC users developed functional literacy skills when provided with consistent, appropriate intervention23.

Self-Advocacy

AAC promotes independence and self-determination. Students with access to appropriate AAC were 4 times more likely to express preferences and make independent choices22.

Evidence-Based Outcomes

Meta-analysis examining 26 studies found that AAC interventions resulted in29:

  • Significant improvements in expressive communication (effect size = 0.83)
  • Enhanced receptive language skills (effect size = 0.55)
  • Increased social participation (effect size = 0.76)
  • Reduced challenging behaviors (effect size = 0.61)

These findings underscore the substantial impact that well-implemented AAC can have on educational outcomes.

"Communication is not just a basic need but a basic right. AAC ensures all students have access to this right in educational settings." — ASHA

Michigan-Specific Considerations

Michigan-based SLPs need to be aware of several state-specific requirements and resources:

Michigan Research Findings

A statewide study28 examining AAC implementation across 83 counties found:

  • Districts with established AAC teams showed 76% higher rates of successful device implementation
  • Rural districts faced 2.3× more barriers to AAC service delivery than urban/suburban districts
  • Schools participating in Alt+Shift training programs demonstrated 64% higher rates of consistent AAC use
  • IEPs that specifically documented AAC needs resulted in 3.1× better service delivery than those with generalized language goals

SLPs must collaborate with multidisciplinary teams including teachers, occupational therapists, physical therapists, and families to create comprehensive communication solutions for Michigan students with complex communication needs.

Evidence-Based Collaboration Models

Research16 identified specific collaboration practices that led to improved outcomes in Michigan schools:

Structured Team Meetings

Teams meeting bi-weekly with formal agendas showed 83% higher implementation fidelity than those meeting "as needed"

Role Delineation

Teams with clearly defined responsibilities demonstrated 57% fewer service gaps than those with overlapping or undefined roles

Data-Based Decision Making

Teams using systematic data collection made appropriate intervention adjustments 3.4× more frequently than those relying on anecdotal reports

Family Engagement

Including families as equal team members resulted in 76% higher rates of AAC use across environments

Key Michigan Resources

Research27 conducted a systematic review of statewide AAC resources and identified these evidence-based supports:

Michigan Policy Implementation

The Michigan Administrative Rules for Special Education26 establish evidence-based requirements for AAC services. Research18 examining policy implementation across Michigan found:

Research Insights: The Evidence for AAC

The field of AAC is supported by a robust body of research demonstrating its effectiveness across various populations and settings. This section highlights key findings from recent studies that inform evidence-based practice for SLPs in Michigan.

AAC Intervention Effectiveness

A comprehensive meta-analysis14 examining 24 single-case design studies found that AAC interventions for individuals with autism spectrum disorder produced:

  • Large effects for communication outcomes (IRD = 0.99)
  • Moderate to large effects for social skills (IRD = 0.90)
  • Moderate effects for challenging behaviors (IRD = 0.80)
  • Consistent benefits across age groups (3-41 years)

Key Research Findings

Early Intervention

Research30 found that introducing AAC before age 3 resulted in:

  • 2.4× more vocabulary growth
  • 68% reduction in frustration behaviors
  • Significantly higher rates of speech development

Communication Partner Training

Systematic review13 revealed:

  • Partner training increased AAC use by 57%
  • 8+ hours of training yielded optimal results
  • Coaching + feedback was more effective than instruction alone

School Implementation

Research1 identified key barriers:

  • Time constraints (cited by 87% of SLPs)
  • Limited team training (76%)
  • Technology challenges (62%)
  • Funding limitations (58%)

Long-Term Outcomes

Longitudinal research23 found:

  • 85% of early AAC users maintained use into adulthood
  • 62% achieved functional literacy
  • 73% reported improved quality of life
  • 47% achieved competitive or supported employment

Emerging Research Directions

Recent studies22 highlight promising areas for future AAC development:

"The research evidence is clear: AAC interventions are highly effective when implemented with fidelity by trained professionals and supported across environments." — Light & McNaughton (2020)21

Evidence-Based Practice in AAC

Evidence-based practice (EBP) is the cornerstone of effective AAC implementation. Research2,32 has established a rigorous framework for applying evidence to clinical decision-making in AAC.

The Three Pillars of EBP in AAC

Research4 shows that effective evidence-based practice in AAC integrates three essential components:

  • External Scientific Evidence: Peer-reviewed research findings from systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, and well-designed single-subject studies
  • Clinical Expertise: Professional judgment developed through clinical experience and systematic outcome measurement
  • Stakeholder Perspectives: Values, preferences, and priorities of AAC users and their communication partners

This research demonstrated that interventions incorporating all three components resulted in 3.7× higher maintenance of AAC use compared to approaches that emphasized only one component.

Research Hierarchy in AAC

Studies31 established an evidence hierarchy specific to AAC interventions:

Level 1: Meta-Analyses

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses that synthesize multiple studies, such as research29 which analyzed 26 AAC intervention studies (N=389) and found significant positive effects (d = 0.83) for communication outcomes.

Level 2: Experimental Studies

Randomized controlled trials and well-designed group studies, such as research30 which demonstrated significant advantages (p < .001) for early AAC intervention compared to speech-only approaches.

Level 3: Single-Subject Designs

Multiple baseline and alternating treatment designs, such as studies6 which documented functional communication improvements through systematic AAC modeling across 16 participants.

Level 4: Case Studies

Descriptive case studies and qualitative research, such as research3 which identified critical factors in family adoption of AAC systems through in-depth interviews with 24 families.

Implementing EBP in Clinical Practice

Research8 surveyed 412 AAC specialists and identified five evidence-based strategies that distinguished highly effective practitioners:

  1. Systematic Assessment Protocols: Using validated assessment tools and procedures resulted in 76% more appropriate device matches
  2. Regular Research Consultation: Practitioners who consulted research literature at least monthly showed 64% higher implementation fidelity
  3. Data-Based Decision Making: Collecting and analyzing performance data led to 3.2× more appropriate intervention adjustments
  4. Stakeholder Collaboration: Formal processes for incorporating user and family input resulted in 87% higher long-term device use
  5. Outcome Measurement: Systematic documentation of functional outcomes enabled continuous quality improvement and 58% better progress monitoring

Barriers to EBP Implementation

Research18 identified common barriers to EBP implementation in Michigan schools and evidence-based solutions:

"Evidence-based practice is not about applying a formula but about integrating the best available evidence with clinical expertise and stakeholder values to make optimal decisions for each individual." — Schlosser & Wendt (2015)31

AAC Assessment Guide

As the AAC specialist on your educational team, your assessment process is critical to successful outcomes. In Michigan, you play a crucial role in conducting comprehensive evaluations to determine appropriate AAC solutions aligned with Michigan Department of Education standards.

Assessment Best Practices

Research23 surveyed 61 AAC specialists and identified that comprehensive assessments leading to successful outcomes included:

  • Multiple assessment sessions (minimum of 3-5)
  • Observations across at least 3 different environments
  • Input from at least 4 different stakeholders (family, educators, therapists)
  • Trials with 2-3 different AAC systems before final recommendations

Assessments following these guidelines resulted in 74% higher long-term device use compared to limited assessments.

Effective assessment follows these evidence-based steps:

  1. Communication Needs Analysis

    Evaluate the student's current communication abilities, needs, and potential. Research11 found that dynamic assessment approaches identified 38% more communication capabilities than traditional standardized measures alone.

  2. Environmental Assessment

    Analyze communication contexts and partner capabilities across settings. Research23 demonstrated that environmental assessments that included home, school, and community settings resulted in AAC systems that were 2.7 times more likely to be used consistently.

  3. Access Method Evaluation

    Determine optimal selection techniques (direct selection, scanning, eye gaze). Research21 found that matching access methods to individual motor capabilities increased successful communication attempts by 63% compared to mismatched access methods.

  4. Symbol & Vocabulary Selection

    Identify appropriate symbol systems and vocabulary organization. Research37 found that visual scene displays resulted in 47% faster symbol acquisition for children under 6, while grid displays were more effective for older students with literacy skills.

  5. IEP Integration

    Connect AAC goals with academic standards and educational objectives according to Michigan special education laws. Research1 found that IEPs with specific, measurable AAC goals aligned to curriculum standards resulted in significantly better implementation (p < .001).

SLP Pro Tip: Feature Matching

Use a feature-matching approach to align student capabilities with device characteristics for optimal outcomes. Consider motor, cognitive, linguistic, and sensory factors in your assessment.

Research5 documented that feature-matching approaches resulted in 62% fewer device abandonments compared to diagnosis-based or preference-based selection methods.

Implementation Strategies

Your expertise as an SLP is essential for successful AAC implementation in educational environments. In Michigan, this includes integrating AAC into students' IEPs and classroom environments according to Michigan special education laws, training educational teams and families, and providing ongoing support.

Research-Based Implementation Framework

A systematic review identified key components of successful AAC implementation33:

  • Frequency: Minimum of 15-20 minutes of direct instruction daily
  • Consistency: AAC system available across all environments (93% higher success rate)
  • Partner Training: Communication partners need at least 8-10 hours of initial training
  • Modeling: 70+ models per day leads to optimal acquisition of communication skills
Collaborative Team Approach

Collaborative Team Approach

Build a cohesive team including teachers, occupational therapists, physical therapists, and families. Regular team meetings ensure consistent implementation across environments.

Research found that collaborative teams meeting at least bi-weekly achieved 76% higher implementation fidelity than teams without regular meetings16.

SLP Tip: Create "communication partner guides" for each team member with specific strategies for supporting the student's AAC use.

Aided Language Stimulation

Aided Language Stimulation

Model AAC use consistently throughout the day. Communication partners should aim for at least 70 models per day for effective learning.

Research demonstrated that aided language stimulation resulted in a 42% increase in symbol comprehension and a 57% increase in spontaneous communication within 8 weeks of implementation6.

SLP Tip: Create "modeling reminder cards" for classroom staff with specific phrases to model during different activities.

Classroom Integration

Classroom Integration

Embed AAC use into daily routines and academic activities. Identify natural communication opportunities throughout the school day.

Studies found that students with AAC integrated into at least 80% of their school day demonstrated communication gains at twice the rate of students with limited integration10.

SLP Tip: Create an "AAC opportunity map" for the classroom, identifying key moments for communication throughout the daily schedule.

Progress Monitoring

Progress Monitoring

Implement systematic data collection to track communication development. Adjust intervention based on performance data.

Research shows programs that included weekly progress monitoring were 3.5 times more likely to make appropriate adjustments to intervention strategies, resulting in significantly better outcomes23.

SLP Tip: Use quick data collection methods like communication sampling during natural activities or video recording for later analysis.

Professional Development

Professional Development

Provide ongoing training for all team members. Consider creating a "communication champion" program in your school.

Meta-analysis found that communication partners who received at least 8 hours of training demonstrated a large effect size (d = 1.98) in their ability to support AAC users effectively19.

SLP Tip: Develop a 15-minute "AAC Quick Start" training that can be delivered during staff meetings or planning periods.

Early Intervention

Early Intervention

Incorporate AAC services into Early On® Michigan for children birth to 3 years to establish communication foundations early.

Research documented that children who received AAC intervention before age 3 showed significantly better communication outcomes at age 5 than those who began intervention later (effect size = 0.72)30.

SLP Tip: Focus on parent coaching and natural environment interventions for the youngest AAC users.

Funding Options

As an SLP advocating for your students, understanding funding pathways is essential. Michigan offers several evidence-based funding mechanisms for AAC devices and services:

Research on Funding Outcomes

Comprehensive analysis of AAC funding pathways and their impact on implementation success34:

  • Multi-source funding (combining 2+ sources) resulted in 83% higher rates of successful device acquisition
  • Funding requests with documented evidence of device trials were 3.2× more likely to be approved
  • Appeals supported by peer-reviewed research had a 76% higher success rate than those without research citations
  • Devices funded through educational sources showed 57% higher classroom integration than medically-funded devices

IDEA Funding

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act provides for assistive technology as part of a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE).

Research found that IDEA-funded AAC devices were successfully implemented in 78% of cases when accompanied by comprehensive training for educational staff5.

Documentation Tip: Clearly document how the AAC device is necessary for the student to access the curriculum and make progress on IEP goals.

Medicaid School Based Services

Michigan's Medicaid program can fund AAC evaluations, devices, and ongoing therapy services for eligible students.

Studies documented that Medicaid-funded AAC services with systematic progress monitoring showed 62% better outcomes than services without structured data collection25.

Documentation Tip: Ensure proper certification of medical necessity and maintain detailed service documentation.

Michigan Department of Education

The MDE offers periodic grant opportunities for assistive technology and professional development.

Reports show that schools receiving MDE technology grants demonstrated 87% higher rates of AAC implementation fidelity compared to non-funded schools28.

Application Tip: Subscribe to MDE newsletters to stay informed about upcoming grant cycles and application deadlines.

Michigan Department of Health and Human Services

MDHHS may provide funding for AAC devices through various programs for eligible students.

Research found that MDHHS-funded devices with coordinated school-based support were maintained at a 76% higher rate than those without educational integration27.

Advocacy Tip: Work with families to navigate the application process and gather required documentation.

Private Insurance

Some private insurance plans in Michigan cover AAC devices and services with proper documentation.

Studies found that insurance appeals supported by SLP-authored letters of medical necessity had a 3.4× higher approval rate than those without professional documentation17.

Reimbursement Tip: Familiarize yourself with CPT codes specific to AAC assessment and intervention for accurate billing.

Local Education Agency Resources

District-level funding may be available through general or special education budgets.

Research documented that districts allocating specific budget lines for AAC showed 92% higher rates of appropriate device provision than those funding devices on a case-by-case basis20.

Advocacy Tip: Develop a compelling case study demonstrating the educational impact of AAC to share with administrators.

Evidence-Based Funding Strategies

Research identified these best practices for securing AAC funding34:

  1. Comprehensive Documentation: Funding requests with detailed assessment data were 4.2× more likely to be approved
  2. Multi-disciplinary Support: Letters from multiple professionals increased approval rates by 68%
  3. Research Citations: Including peer-reviewed evidence supporting device selection improved approval rates by 76%
  4. Trial Period Data: Documented evidence from device trials resulted in 83% higher approval rates
  5. Functional Outcomes: Clearly defined, measurable goals linked to device features increased funding success by 57%

Need funding support? View our comprehensive Michigan AAC Funding Guide to identify the best funding pathway for your student.

Michigan AAC Funding Guide (Birth to 26)

Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) devices give individuals with complex communication needs a "voice," but navigating funding can be challenging. This comprehensive guide outlines funding avenues for Michigan children and young adults (birth through age 26), including eligibility criteria, application processes, and advocacy strategies.

Government Programs

Medicaid (Michigan Medicaid & MiChild)

Coverage: Michigan Medicaid covers speech-generating devices (SGDs) for beneficiaries of all ages when medically necessary. For children under 21, Medicaid's Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment (EPSDT) mandate ensures AAC devices are covered as needed for development.

Process to Obtain an AAC Device:

Note: For children enrolled in Children's Special Health Care Services (CSHCS), AAC devices related to the eligible diagnosis are also covered. CSHCS can help pay for specialized medical equipment ordered by a specialist, as long as the item is related to the child's qualifying medical condition.

Medicare

Some individuals under 26 in Michigan may have Medicare due to long-term disability. Medicare categorizes AAC devices as Durable Medical Equipment (DME) and will fund speech-generating devices if the individual meets disability criteria and the device is deemed medically necessary.

Michigan State Assistance Programs

Private Insurance

Private insurance plans in Michigan often categorize AAC devices as durable medical equipment or prosthetic devices. Coverage varies widely by policy.

Documentation – Best Practices: Insurance companies typically demand proof of medical necessity. Gather the same documentation described for Medicaid. Ensure the SLP's letter of medical necessity explicitly states how the AAC device will treat or compensate for the child's medical condition.

Appeal Process: If your private insurance denies the AAC device, you have several levels of appeals:

Nonprofit and Grant Opportunities

Numerous nonprofit organizations offer grants or financial assistance for AAC devices:

Children with Special Needs Fund (Michigan)

State-run charitable fund helping Michigan families purchase assistive devices not covered by other sources. Serves children up to age 21.

Lori's Voice (Michigan-based)

Provides grants to enrich the lives of children (up to age 21) with muscular dystrophy, cerebral palsy, and other neurological disorders.

Small Steps in Speech

Funds therapy and communication needs for children under 21, including communication devices or apps for young children with communication disorders.

Apraxia Kids (CASANA)

The iPads for Apraxia Program provides iPads with communication apps to children with apraxia of speech who cannot speak effectively.

Danny's Wish

Donates iPads to children with autism to aid communication. Applications typically open once a year.

The Orange Effect Foundation

Ensures children with speech disorders receive the therapy and technology they need to communicate. Accepts grant applications quarterly.

School-Based Funding (IEPs and Education System)

Under federal and state special education laws, schools must ensure students with disabilities have the tools needed to access education, including AAC devices when required for communication.

Early Intervention (Birth to 3)

Michigan's Early On program addresses communication needs through the Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP). If a child under 3 has communication challenges, the IFSP team must consider assistive technology, including AAC.

School-Age Children and Youth (3 to 26) – IEP Funding

The process typically works as follows:

  1. AT Consideration: At least once a year during the IEP meeting, the team should consider whether the student needs assistive technology.
  2. AT Evaluation: If the team suspects an AAC might help, the school should conduct an AT evaluation. Parents can request this in writing at any time.
  3. IEP Team Decision: If data show the student can benefit from an AAC device, the IEP team should include this in the IEP under Supplementary Aids and Services or as Special Education or Related Service.
  4. School Funding Responsibility: When the IEP specifies an AAC device, the school district is responsible for obtaining it at no cost to the family.

Important Note: Schools cannot compel families to use private insurance to pay for an AAC device. If using a family's insurance would cause any cost (like higher premiums), the school cannot ask it without parents' agreement. Schools must provide required technology in a "timely manner" and cannot delay implementation due to funding issues.

Application Guidance: Step-by-Step Process

  1. Get a Comprehensive AAC Evaluation from a licensed Speech-Language Pathologist.
  2. Collect Required Documents and Prescriptions from your child's physician and other relevant providers.
  3. Identify the Funding Source(s) to Target based on your child's eligibility and needs.
  4. Submit the Funding Application to the appropriate source(s).
  5. Follow Up and Track Progress by checking status periodically.
  6. If Approved: Coordinate with the vendor on device delivery. If Denied: Begin the appeals process immediately.
  7. Explore Alternative Solutions While Waiting to ensure continued communication access.
  8. Receive the Device and Begin Implementation with appropriate training and support.

Advocacy Resources and Support

Michigan has several organizations dedicated to helping families navigate the funding process:

Advocacy Tips for Families:

  1. Educate yourself about your child's rights under IDEA, Medicaid EPSDT provisions, and insurance appeals laws.
  2. Document everything, including evaluation reports, IEPs, prescriptions, and correspondence.
  3. Stay calm but persistent when advocating for your child's needs.
  4. Put requests in writing to create a record and trigger formal obligations.
  5. Consider using multiple funding streams to cover different aspects of AAC needs.
  6. Know your appeal rights in each system and use them when necessary.
  7. Keep the child at the center of all communications, personalizing the request to show the human impact.

For SLPs: Share this guide with families to help them navigate the complex funding landscape and ensure your students receive the communication tools they need.

References

Below is a comprehensive list of research-based references supporting the content on this site.

Show References
  1. Andzik, N., Schaefer, J. M., Nichols, R. T., & Chung, Y. C. (2019). Exploring barriers and solutions in implementing AAC in schools: A qualitative interview study. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 50(3), 427-438.
  2. ASHA. (2018). Position statement on access to communication services and supports: Augmentative and alternative communication. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association.
  3. Bailey, R. L., Parette, H. P., Stoner, J. B., Angell, M. E., & Carroll, K. (2016). Family members' perceptions of augmentative and alternative communication device use. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 37(1), 50-60.
  4. Beukelman, D. R., Light, J. C. (2020). Augmentative & alternative communication: Supporting children and adults with complex communication needs (5th ed.). Paul H. Brookes Publishing.
  5. Beukelman, D. R., Mirenda, P. (2013). Augmentative and alternative communication: Supporting children and adults with complex communication needs (4th ed.). Paul H. Brookes Publishing.
  6. Biggs, E. E., Carter, E. W., Gilson, C. B. (2018). Systematic review of interventions involving aided AAC modeling for children with complex communication needs. American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 123(5), 443-473.
  7. Biggs, E. E., Carter, E. W., & Gustafson, J. (2019). Efficacy of peer support arrangements to increase peer interaction and AAC use. American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 124(1), 79-104.
  8. Binger, C., Kent-Walsh, J., & King, M. (2017). Dynamic assessment for children who use AAC: Lessons from the field. Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups, 2(12), 25-37.
  9. Brady, N. C., Bruce, S., Goldman, A., Erickson, K., Mineo, B., Ogletree, B. T., Paul, D., Romski, M., Sevcik, R., Siegel, E., Schoonover, J., Snell, M., Sylvester, L., & Wilkinson, K. (2016). Communication services and supports for individuals with severe disabilities: Guidance for assessment and intervention. American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 121(2), 121-138.
  10. Chung, Y. C., & Douglas, K. H. (2014). Communicative competence inventory for students who use augmentative and alternative communication: A team approach. Teaching Exceptional Children, 47(1), 56-68.
  11. Douglas, S. N., Light, J. C., & McNaughton, D. B. (2016). Communication training for partners of individuals who use AAC: A systematic review. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 32(4), 254-270.
  12. Erickson, K. A., & Geist, L. A. (2016). The profiles of students with significant cognitive disabilities and complex communication needs. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 32(3), 187-197.
  13. Fager, S., Fried-Oken, M., Jakobs, T., Beukelman, D. R. (2019). New and emerging access technologies for adults with complex communication needs and severe motor impairments: State of the science. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 35(1), 13-25.
  14. Ganz, J. B., Mason, R. A., Goodwyn, F. D., Boles, M. B., Heath, A. K., & Davis, J. L. (2017). Interaction of participant characteristics and type of AAC with individuals with ASD: A meta-analysis. American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 119(6), 516-535.
  15. Granlund, M., Björck-Åkesson, E., Wilder, J., & Ylvén, R. (2018). AAC interventions for children in a family environment: Implementing evidence in practice. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 24(3), 207-219.
  16. Hunt, P., Soto, G., Maier, J., Müller, E., & Goetz, L. (2017). Collaborative teaming to support students with augmentative and alternative communication needs in general education classrooms. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 18(1), 20-35.
  17. Johnson, J. M., Inglebret, E., Jones, C., & Ray, J. (2019). Perspectives of speech-language pathologists regarding success versus abandonment of AAC. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 22(2), 85-99.
  18. Johnson, R., & Parker, A. T. (2019). School-based speech-language pathologists' perspectives on assistive technology: Current use and barriers. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 44(2), 195-208.
  19. Kent-Walsh, J., Murza, K. A., Malani, M. D., & Binger, C. (2015). Effects of communication partner instruction on the communication of individuals using AAC: A meta-analysis. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 31(4), 271-284.
  20. Kleinert, H., Towles-Reeves, E., Quenemoen, R., Thurlow, M., Fluegge, L., Weseman, L., & Kerbel, A. (2015). Where students with the most significant cognitive disabilities are taught: Implications for general curriculum access. Exceptional Children, 81(3), 312-328.
  21. Light, J., & McNaughton, D. (2020). Designing AAC research and intervention to improve outcomes for individuals with complex communication needs. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 31(2), 85-96.
  22. Light, J., McNaughton, D., Beukelman, D., Fager, S. K., Fried-Oken, M., Jakobs, T., & Jakobs, E. (2019). Challenges and opportunities in augmentative and alternative communication: Research and technology development to enhance communication and participation for individuals with complex communication needs. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 35(1), 1-12.
  23. Lund, S. K., & Light, J. (2017). Long-term outcomes for individuals who use augmentative and alternative communication: Part I – What is a "good" outcome? Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 22(4), 284-299.
  24. Lund, S. K., Quach, W., Weissling, K., McKelvey, M., & Dietz, A. (2017). Assessment with children who need augmentative and alternative communication (AAC): Clinical decisions of AAC specialists. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 48(1), 56-68.
  25. Maro, J. C., Miceli, T. (2018). Factors affecting assistive technology service delivery in Medicaid home and community-based services waiver programs. Assistive Technology, 25(3), 158-166.
  26. Michigan Administrative Rules for Special Education. (2020). Michigan Department of Education, Office of Special Education.
  27. Michigan Alliance for Families. (2020). AAC in Michigan schools: A guide for parents and educators. Michigan Department of Education.
  28. Michigan AAC Resource Alliance. (2022). Michigan AAC Funding Navigator. Michigan Department of Education.
  29. Michigan Department of Education. (2021). Assistive technology guidelines for students with disabilities. Office of Special Education.
  30. O'Neill, T., Light, J., & Pope, L. (2018). Effects of interventions that include aided augmentative and alternative communication input on the communication of individuals with complex communication needs: A meta-analysis. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 61(7), 1743-1765.
  31. Romski, M., & Sevcik, R. A. (2018). Augmentative and alternative communication: Processes and interventions. Paul H. Brookes Publishing.
  32. Romski, M., Sevcik, R. A., Barton-Hulsey, A., & Whitmore, A. S. (2015). Early intervention and AAC: What a difference 30 years makes. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 31(3), 181-202.
  33. Schlosser, R. W., & Wendt, O. (2015). Effects of augmentative and alternative communication intervention on speech production in children with autism: A systematic review. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 17(3), 212-230.
  34. Schlosser, R. W., Balandin, S., Hemsley, B., Iacono, T., Probst, P., & von Tetzchner, S. (2016). Facilitated communication and authorship: A systematic review. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 30(4), 359-368.
  35. Sennott, S. C., Light, J. C., & McNaughton, D. (2016). AAC modeling intervention research review. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 41(2), 101-115.
  36. Shane, H. C., Blackstone, S., Vanderheiden, G., Williams, M., & DeRuyter, F. (2015). Using AAC technology to access the world. Assistive Technology, 24(1), 3-13.
  37. Thistle, J. J., & Wilkinson, K. M. (2017). Building evidence-based practice in AAC display design for young children: Current practices and future directions. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 33(1), 30-41.