Augmentative and Alternative Communication · 1999 · 122 citations · 32 references
Social SciencesSpecial EducationHealth CommunicationOutcomes ResearchTherapeutic CommunicationCommunity InvolvementCultural Adaptation Of InterventionsAac InterventionAlternative Communication InterventionAugmentative Communication InterventionCommunication Aid EvaluationSocial Comparison BiasSocial Comparison OrientationSocial ValidationSocial Validity Assessment
Social validation evaluates the social significance of goals, methods, and outcomes, yet it remains uncommon in augmentative and alternative communication research. This paper introduces a conceptual framework to help interventionists conduct social validations of AAC interventions. Drawing on related fields and prior AAC efforts, the framework comprises three components—stakeholder perspectives (Who), intervention elements (What), and evaluation methods (How). Clinical examples and studies demonstrate the framework’s applicability, and interventionists may use it to guide planning of AAC social validations.
Social validation is the process of assessing the social significance of the goals, methods, and outcomes of interventions. Despite the increasing emphasis on stakeholder accountability, social validation is far from commonplace in our journal, Augmentative and Alternative Communication(AAC). This paper proposes a conceptual framework to assist interventionists to socially validate interventions in AAC. The author draws from related fields and existing social validation efforts in AAC to arrive at this framework. This framework includes three main components: (a) Who: stakeholder perspectives (direct, indirect, immediate community, extended community), (b) What: intervention components (goals, methods, outcomes), and (c) How: methods (subjective evaluation, social comparison). Clinical examples and studies that exemplify the intersections of this framework are presented or selectively reviewed. Interventionists may find it useful to consult this framework in planning social validations of AAC interventions.
32