Augmentative and Alternative Communication

ISSN: 0743-4618 (Print) 1477-3848 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/iaac20

Vocabulary selection in augmentative and

alternative communication

David Beukelman, Jackie McGinnis & Deanna Morrow

To cite this article: David Beukelman, Jackie McGinnis & Deanna Morrow (1991) Vocabulary
selection in augmentative and alternative communication, Augmentative and Alternative
Communication, 7:3, 171-185

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07434619112331275883

Published online: 12 Jul 2009.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 366

View related articles

Citing articles: 22 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=iaac20

Download by: [University of Otago] Date: 01 November 2015, At: 06:26

 0743-4618/91/0703-0171$3.00/0; Volume 7, September 1991
AAC Augmentative and Alternative Communication
Copyright © 1991 by ISAAC

Vocabulary Selection in Augmentative and

Alternative Communication
David R. Beukelman, Jackie McGinnis, and Deanna Morrow
Barkley Memonal Center, University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Meyer Rehabilitation Institute, University of Nebraska Medical Center-Omaha, USA
(D. R. B.), Augmentative Communication Service, Hugh MacMillan Medical Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (J. M.), and Madonna Rehabilitation
Hospital-Lincoln, Lincoln, Nebraska, USA (D. M.)

The purpose of this article is to review those factors influencing vocabulary selection and
retention for persons who use augmentative and alternative communication systems. The vocab-
ulary needs of literate individuals who are able to spell their messages are discussed separately
from the needs of preliterate or nonliterate individuals who are unable to spell and must be supplied
Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 06:26 01 November 2015

with extensive vocabularies to cover their communication requirements. Research regarding

informants and informant tools in the vocabulary selection process is reviewed.

KEY WORDS: augmentative and alternative communication, vocabulary

“Warning, if you expect to see it, you will probably
find it — whether or not it is there.”
(Sign posted in the viewing room of a Radiology
Department).
In vocabulary studies we often find what we are
looking for. If we look for patterns of frequently occurring
words that could be included in an augmentative and
alternative communication (AAC) device to enhance
communication efficiency, we will surely find them. If we
are sensitive to the uniqueness of the individual, we will
find words that are infrequently used, but are essential
to the accurate communication of the particular mes-
sage. If we search for whole messages that are com-
municated repeatedly with precise timing requirements,
we will find at least a few of them. If we assume that
vocabulary selection is too difficult for persons who use
AAC systems to participate actively in the process, we
will indeed observe how difficult vocabulary selection is.
In order to protect ourselves from only “seeing the
expected” as we review issues in the vocabulary selec-
tion and use of persons who use AAC systems, we must
accept several assumptions:
1. that vocabulary selection is a dynamic process that
attempts to capture the changing experiences, inter-
ests, and knowledge of the person who uses an AAC
system ;
2. that vocabulary items are included in AAC systems
to serve different purposes depending upon many dif-
ferent variables, including literacy skills, communicative
context, or interactive purpose;
3. that persons who use AAC systems should be
involved extensively in the selection and retention of
vocabulary for their system and they should be given
the consultative support that will make this task positive
and efficient;
4. that the role of some clients in the selection of their
own vocabulary will vary depending upon several fac-
tors such as cognitive limitations (e.g., severe brain
injury), lack of familiarity with a new communicative
situation (e.g., geography class), or lack of understand-
ing and acceptance of their communicative impairment;
5. that multiple informants including peers are re-
quired to ensure appropriate and efficient vocabulary
selection;
6. that the size of the vocabulary that is selected must
often be limited by physical access, learning, or techni-
cal constraints; and
7. that the selection and retention of vocabulary
(words and more complete messages) is a critical ele-
ment of each AAC intervention and cannot be ignored
because it is difficult or frustrating.
The general purpose of this article is to review those
factors that influence vocabulary selection for and vo-
cabulary use by persons who use AAC systems. We
begin with a discussion of the most linguistically capable
individuals, those who are able to spell their messages
and for whom vocabulary is selected to enhance and
supplement their spelling ability. Next, we discuss those
individuals who are unable to spell and must be supplied
with extensive coverage vocabularies if they are to
communicate at all. These individuals may be preliter-
ate children or individuals who are unable to develop
literacy skills. This article also contains a review of
information about informants and tools used in the
selection of vocabulary specific to the needs of a given
individual. Finally, several future research directions are
 172 Beukelman, McGinnis, and Morrow
provided. Throughout the article, we attempt to describe
some of the tools that have been developed by re-
searchers to support their vocabulary studies.
VOCABULARY SELECTION FOR PERSONS
WHO ARE LITERATE
Goals and Guidelines for Vocabulary Selection
During written or spoken communication, words are
selected by the natural speaker from a vast vocabulary
store. During the elementary years, children’s spoken
vocabularies grow by about 3,000 words per year (Nagy
& Anderson, 1984). The primary task of the speaker is
to select those words that best convey intended mean-
ings while being sensitive to a variety of personal,
listener, and style issues. Considering that an adult
speaks at a rate of 150 to 250 words per minute during
Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 06:26 01 November 2015
conversation (Goldman-Eisler, 1968) the selection of
vocabulary is a remarkably efficient process. Only oc-
casionally does the speaker experience the “tip of the
tongue” phenomenon during which the preferred word
is momentarily illusive. At those times, most speakers
are able to circumvent the communication breakdown
by drawing on a store of synonyms that, while not
preferred, allow the speaker to communicate effectively.
For the severely communicatively impaired person
who utilizes AAC techniques, the goal of accurate,
efficient communication is the same as for the natural
speaker with similar interests, abilities, and constraints.
For all communicators, vocabulary selection is the pro-
cess of selecting the word options that are appropriate
for a particular circumstance (Richards, 1974). How-
ever, the vocabulary use patterns of persons who use
AAC systems may be very different from those de-
scribed above for the natural speaker. Given their slow
communication rate, many persons who use AAC sys-
tems purposely produce telegraphic messages in order
to reduce communication time and fatigue.
Ideally, persons who are able to spell spontaneously
are capable of covering their unique communication
needs through letter-by-letter spelling, provided they
have sufficient time to formulate their messages. While
letter-by-letter spelling allows for excellent message
coverage and permits the use of unique and personal
communication forms, letter-by-letter spelling results in
a written and face-to-face communication process that
usually is very slow and may be very fatiguing. During
conversation, these individuals often have difficulty
meeting the timing demands of group and dyadic inter-
action in terms of information sharing and discourse turn
taking. For these individuals, “acceleration/timing” vo-
cabulary is included in their AAC systems in order to
accelerate their communication rate and enhance their
communication timing by reducing the number of acti-
vations (keystrokes) required as portions of words, en-
tire words, or complete messages are retrieved with a
brief code. This reduction in keystrokes also serves to
reduce fatigue for persons with reduced strength and
endurance.
The vocabulary selection strategies used to select
acceleration/timing vocabularies are quite different than
those used to select coverage vocabularies, that is
vocabularies that provide an individual “with the ability
to communicate most effectively and about the widest
range of topics, given the limited word set” (Vander-
heiden & Kelso, 1987, p. 196). For the person who is
literate, vocabulary selection is primarily intended to
accelerate communication speed and to improve the
prompt delivery of those messages that must be commu-
nicated in a timely manner to retain their communicative
effectiveness, such as etiquette routines, conversation-
al control phrases, and emergency requests.
Selection of Acceleration/Timing Vocabularies
Clinically, four different vocabulary sources have been
used to select acceleration/timing vocabularies for spe-
cific individuals: (1) the performance of successful AAC
system users (Beukelman, Yorkston, Poblete, & Nar-
anjo, 1984; Yorkston, Honsinger, Dowden, & Marriner,
1989); (2) the past performance of the specific individual
for whom vocabulary is being selected (Yorkston, Smith,
& Beukelman, 1990); (3) the performance of natural
speakers (Yorkston, Beukelman, Smith, & Tice, 1990;
Yorkston, Smith, & Beukelman, 1990); and (4) the re-
ports of informants (Carlson, 1981), including peers who
understand the communication requirements of the
communicative setting or context. This combination of
sources provides guidance regarding the “core” vocab-
ulary that is common to many different communicators,
as well as the “fringe” vocabulary that is unique to an
individual, context, or setting (Yorkston, Dowden, Hon-
singer, Marriner, & Smith, 1988).
Vocabulary Use Patterns
People Who Use AAC Systems. Of particular in-
terest to researchers and clinicians has been the perfor-
mance of those persons who are operationally and
socially competent with their AAC systems (Beukelman
& Yorkston, 1982; Beukelman et al., 1984; Yorkston,
Beukelman, et al., 1990; Yorkston, Smith, & Beukel-
man, 1990). These researchers have collected commu-
nication samples over extended time periods from
individuals who use a letter-by-letter AAC approach,
and therefore, were able to communicate messages of
their choice using word patterns that reflected their own
preferences.
In an early effort to study the commonality or similarity
in vocabulary use, Beukelman et al. (1984) collected the
communication samples that were produced in letter-
by-letter fashion with Canon Communicators¹ over a
¹Canon Communicator. Canon Corporation, USA Inc., 1 Canon
Plaza, Lake Success, NY 10042.
 Vocabulary Selection
14-day period by five persons. It should be noted that
only the messages that were expressed using the Canon
Communicator were included in the communication
samples. Those messages that were communicated
with gesture or other modes were not collected or
analyzed. The subjects were all young adults from 21 to
25 years of age. One lived at home, two in rehabilitation
centers, one in a nursing home, and one in a residence
center for individuals with cerebral palsy. One was a
student in a junior college while the others were not
actively involved in an educational program. No attempt
was made to analyze vocabulary use patterns by setting
or context. The frequency of word occurrence was
computed using a custom computer program written by
Poblete and Naranjo for a mainframe computer. In an
effort to calculate the commonality of word occurrence,
the presence of words in the lists of the individual
Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 06:26 01 November 2015
subjects was compared to the composite list of the 500
most frequently occurring words for all of the subjects
combined. The investigator’s selection of a 500 word
composite list was an arbitrary decision. The common-
ality or overlap scores are reported in Figure 1. For
example, when comparing the 50 most frequently oc-
curring words produced by Subject 1 with the core
vocabulary list of 50 words, 76% of the words occurred
on both lists. Similar comparisons were made for all
subjects using core lists of three different sizes: 50
words, 200 words, and 500 words. No attempt was
made in this study to compare the commonality of words
used across the individual subjects. In addition, the
authors did not compare the results of this research to
the vocabulary lists generated by other sources.
Figure 1. Congruence between core and individualized word lists for
5 subjects. Comparisons are made for lists of 50, 200, and 500 words
(Beukelman, Yorkston, Poblete, & Naranjo, 1984).
173
Comparison to “Published” Vocabularies
In an effort to compare and contrast the vocabularies
of AAC users with other published vocabularies, York-
ston et al. (1988) compared 11 vocabulary lists from
various fields of investigation, including vocabulary lists
taken from natural speech samples, from AAC devices
with extensive vocabularies, from AAC system users,
from curricular guides, and from English as a second
language resource materials with nine vocabulary lists
that were included in the AAC systems of adult subjects.
The authors concluded that when the published vocab-
ulary lists were compared to the AAC lists, nearly one-
third of the words in the AAC lists were not found in even
the largest of the published vocabulary lists. No effort
was made by the authors to consider the frequency of
word occurrence as they compared the various vocab-
ulary lists. The authors suggested that the composite
lists may serve as a source of “core” vocabulary when
selecting vocabulary for an individual. They further sug-
gested the need to develop composite vocabulary lists
based on “carefully selected groups of augmented com-
municators” (p. 189).
Individualized versus Published Vocabularies
In order to compare and contrast the relative benefits
of word lists that are individualized to those derived from
published word lists, Yorkston, Smith, and Beukelman
(1990) compared the performance of 10 persons who
used AAC systems to word lists selected from “published”
vocabulary sources. The individuals studied ranged in age
from 13 to 30 years. All used letter-by-letter spelling to
express their messages (the five persons from the
Beukelman et al., 1984, study were included in this
study). Their communication samples were analyzed
using an IBM XT² computer with Microsoft Word³ (Ver-
sion 3.0) word processing program, which generated a
list of all different words according to frequency of
occurrence. A listing of different words was entered into
the Revelations TM4 database, so that the occurrence
of words could be compared across individual lists and
standard source lists.
The published word lists included the following: F—
500 Frequently Occurring Words (Beukelman et al.,
1984); U—Augmented Communicator Composite List
(Yorkston et al., 1988); V—Vois 140 Word List (VOIS
1405, Phonic Ear); S—Standard Composite List (York-
²IBM XT Computer. IBM Corporation, P.O. Box 1328-C, Boca
Raton, FL 33432.
3
Microsoft Word. 16011 NE 36th Way, Box 97017, Redmond, WA
98073-9717.
4
Revelations TM Data Base. Cosmos, Inc. 19530 Pacific Hwy
South, Suite 120, Seattle, WA 98188.
5
Vois 140 Word List. Phonic Ear, 250 Camino Alto, Mill Valley, CA
94941-1466.
 174 Beukelman, McGinnis, and Morrow
ston et al., 1988); W—Words+ List (Words+6 AAC De-
vices); M—Minspeak Single Words Strategy List.7
The data from this project are illustrated using two of
the figures reported in the article. Figure 2 shows the
means and standard deviations of the percent of words
contained in the lists that were used by the ten subjects.
Note that when the word lists are ordered from smallest
(F) to largest (M), there is a consistent decrease in the
proportion of the words from the various standard lists
that were actually used. The communication samples
produced during an extended 2-week period by AAC
system users were compared to selected standard lists.
Sixty percent of the words from the 500 frequently
occurring words (Beukelman et al., 1984) occurred in
the communication samples, and only 27.1% of the
words from the Minspeak Words Strategy list were ever
used in the communication samples.
Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 06:26 01 November 2015
In Figure 3, the percentage of the total communication
sample represented by the various vocabulary lists is
presented. The individualized lists were those lists pro-
duced by the person using an AAC system; these lists
contained all words that were produced two or more
times. Words that occurred in the samples a single time
(unique words) were eliminated. The authors concluded
that when vocabulary lists for linguistically-intact per-
sons are individually derived based on analysis of com-
munication samples of the given individual, a relatively
short list of words can represent a large proportion of
the total communication sample for that person. Thus,
if the individual generates communication samples us-
ing a letter-by-letter spelling approach, it is productive
to analyze these samples and suggest acceleration
vocabulary that might be useful to this individual.
Vocabulary Lists
Figure 2. The means and standard deviations of the percentage of
words contained in the standard lists as defined in the texts that were
used by 10 subjects (Yorkston, Smith, & Beukelman, 1990). Word lists
are identified in the text.
6
Words+ Word Lists. Words+, P.O. Box 1229, Lancaster, CA
93534.
7 8
Minspeak: Words Strategy. Prentke Romich Co., 1022 Heyl Rd.,
Wooster, OH 44691.
Yorkston, Smith, and Beukelman (1990) further re-
ported that individualized word lists are more efficient
than composite vocabulary lists, if efficiency is defined
as the largest proportion of the total sample repre-
sented by word lists of limited size. For example, con-
sider the case in which an AAC device such as the
Minspeak TouchTalker8 or the Vois 140 is selected for
a linguistically-intact individual, and that person is al-
lowed to retrieve the vocabulary items using a code
without concern for the individualized use patterns. The
learning costs are quite great considering that over
70% of the words included in the Minspeak Words
Strategy List or the Vois 140 list did not appear in the
samples produced by the 10 individuals. The authors
concluded that:
This is not to suggest that standard (composite) word lists
should be abandoned. On the contrary, our data also sug-
gests that they are an excellent source of potential words
to be included in an AAC application. The inclusion of
standard word lists in the memory of an AAC device is a
great time saving for augmented communicators and their
facilitators. However, these standard lists must not be
taught without careful consideration. Systematic strategies
are required to eliminate unnecessary or ‘costly’ words from
the standard vocabulary lists as an AAC device is individu-
alized for a given client. In some cases, unnecessary words
need not actually be eliminated from the system. In other
cases, codes for useful words can simply be taught first.
Thus, the sequence of teaching codes is individualized
rather than curricular with all students proceeding through
the same learning sequence regardless of their needs. (p.
223.)
Number of Words
Figure 3. The percentage of the total sample plotted against the
number of words in the selected standard lists (Yorkston, Smith, &
Beukelman, 1990). Word lists are identified in the text.
TouchTalker. Prentke Romich Co., 1022 Heyl Rd., Wooster, OH
44691.
 Vocabulary Selection
Multiple-Word Sequences
In a companion article, Yorkston, Beukelman, et al.,
(1990) studied the same communication samples pro-
duced by ten linguistically intact individuals who used
AAC systems, as were investigated in Yorkston, Smith,
and Beukelman (1990), but this time they investigated
the occurrences of multiple word sequences rather than
the single words in the samples. For this work, the
researchers developed a custom software program (Vo-
cabulary Frequency Analyzer) for the IBM XT computer
to calculate the frequency of word occurrence and order
the word lists. Several conclusions were drawn from this
study. First, word sequences of three to five words in
length occurred very infrequently in extended commu-
nication samples. Second, when the multi-word se-
quences were compared across subjects, there was
very little overlap between any of the subject pairs (no
Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 06:26 01 November 2015
overlap for four- or five-word sequences and 14 over-
lapping three-word sequences). Finally, the authors
concluded that retrieval of two-word sequences that
were statistically derived holds promise of increasing
communication efficiency, because a number of two-
word sequences occurred quite frequently within the
samples of an individual subject as well as across the
samples of the ten subjects (115 two-word sequences
were produced by at least two different subjects). De-
spite the findings with respect to the longer multi-word
sequences, statistically-based multi-word analysis
should not be abandoned altogether. Individuals who
use AAC systems may have need for quick efficient
retrieval of messages that have important timing require-
ments. Because these messages are selected to meet
the needs of the individual, they are usually suggested
by the AAC user or informants rather than by statistically
derived methods.
In summary, the research that has investigated the
vocabulary use of literate individuals who use AAC
systems is still limited. The research that has been
completed has focused primarily on a single group of
AAC users who communicated through letter-by-letter
spelling. A core of single word and two-word sequences
has been identified and appears to be quite commonly
used across AAC users. Few three-, four-, and five-word
sequences were used. Neither statistically derived vo-
cabularies used by natural speakers nor vocabularies
selected for inclusion in AAC devices were highly pre-
dictive of the overall vocabulary of AAC users. Appar-
ently, the uniqueness of individual expression requires
multiple sources when vocabulary is selected for inclu-
sion in AAC systems.
Vocabulary Source Lists for Specific Contexts
AAC Sources. As more and more persons who use
AAC systems are successfully integrated into education-
al, vocational, and recreational settings, the opportunity
to study their successful communication performance
will increase. As persons who use AAC systems are
175
integrated into a variety of different contexts, the accel-
eration vocabulary needed to enhance communication
speed will also probably change across these contexts.
The vocabulary associated with a specific context
may be implemented in an AAC system in several ways.
First, these context specific words can be integrated
along with other vocabulary items in a comprehensive
AAC system. These words are available for retrieval as
are the remainder of words stored in the system. Sec-
ond, the specific context vocabulary can be included in
a comprehensive AAC system, but isolated in such a
way that it is efficient to recall and retrieve, for example,
as a single page in a communication book. Finally, a
context specific vocabulary may be the only items dis-
played on an AAC technique, such as a communication
board specifically designed for a Halloween party.
To date, there is little published information of the
vocabularies produced in specific communication set-
tings or contexts. Although clinical reports exist that
describe the letter-by-letter spelling performance of an
individual in a specific context, few of these reports have
found their way into the published literature. For exam-
ple, Schutz-Muehling and Beukelman (1990) prepared
a clinical study in which Schutz-Muehling documented
several years of use of an augmented writing system to
compensate for her fibrositis, a condition that causes
extensive fatigue and pain when she attempts to hand-
write. During her years as a graduate student and then
as a professional speech-language pathologist, Schutz-
Muehling used an abbreviation expansion program
(Productivity Plus9) with a portable IBM compatible
computer. In order to guide Schutz-Muehling’s vocabu-
lary selection, her written passages (letter-by-letter
spelling) were analyzed using the Vocabulary Frequency
Analysis software developed by Tice and Beukelman.
With this source information and her own knowledge of
the vocabulary requirements of her educational and
professional settings, Schutz-Muehling acted as her
own informant. At the time this paper was written, she
utilized approximately 1900 single and multi-word se-
quences in her Productivity Plus application. According
to the keystroke savings data provided by the Productivity
Plus system, Schutz-Muehling realizes approximately a
40% keystroke savings as compared to letter-by-letter
typing. In this case it was possible to individualize her
acceleration vocabulary analysis process. However,
depending upon the spelling level and the capability of
the individual, such an analysis may not be possible.
Written Samples from Students in the Elementary
Grades. Investigations of the vocabulary use patterns
of nondisabled individuals have been an important source
of information to support the selection of acceleration
vocabulary. Studies by Hillerich (1978) and Rinsland
(1945) suggested that the written vocabulary of children
in elementary school is very “simple.” Hillerich (1978)
9
Productivity Plus. Productivity Software International, Inc., New
York, NY.
 176 Beukelman, McGinnis, and Morrow
reported that in the creative writing of children in grades
2 through 6, 100 common words account for 60% of all
words used.
In an initial effort to document the written vocabularies
used by regular students in elementary classrooms,
McGinnis and Beukelman (1989) collected three written
assignments (personal letter, science, and language
arts) from students in 2nd through 6th grade classrooms
(68 to 77 students per grade level). The samples for
each writing task were combined across the students
within a grade level and the frequency of occurrence and
commonality scores were computed. Those words with
a frequency of occurrence score of at least 1 per 1,000
words of sample were included in a commonality anal-
ysis. An analysis of the communication samples from
the third, fourth, and fifth grade students, revealed that
62% of the words occurring in the language arts sample
also occurred in the letter writing sample. However, only
Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 06:26 01 November 2015
37% of the words in the letter writing sample occurred
in the science samples. Although this was a very pre-
liminary study, variability in vocabulary use across the
specific subject areas is suggested.
Spoken Communication Samples in Elementary
School Classrooms. School talk is very different from
home talk. In school, language is not used to meet
immediate needs, as it often is at home, instead children
talk to communicate with unfamiliar adults and begin to
build a theory of reality and acquire knowledge (Westby,
1985). The differences in vocabulary use between con-
versational communication and spoken academic com-
munication will be important distinctions as persons who
use AAC systems are integrated into regular class-
rooms. However, at this time there are no studies re-
ported that directly address this issue. Some work has
been completed that addresses the vocabulary used in
spoken classroom communication. Trevor and Nelson
(1989) gathered and analyzed the vocabulary used by
students for one entire academic day in regular educa-
tion first, third, and fifth grade classrooms. The voices
of the entire class of students were audio-recorded and
transcribed. The results of this study revealed that stu-
dents in a third grade classroom produced a significantly
greater number of words than did students in the fifth
grade classroom. However, while the total number of
words was greater for third than first grade classrooms,
the difference was not significant. The type-token ratios
(i.e., the ratio between the number of different and the
number of total words in a sample) were not significantly
different for the students at the three grade levels.
Vocabulary overlap scores were computed for words
produced by all students in each grade at a frequency
of more than 0.5 occurrences per 1,000 words of total
sample. Forty-nine percent of the words produced by
the fifth grade students were also produced by the first
grade students. Forty-six percent of the words produced
by fifth grade students were also produced by the third
grade students. Forty-six percent of the words produced
by the third grade students were also produced by the
fifth grade students. This report by Trevor and Nelson
(1989) should be recognized as a preliminary study, as
a limited number of elementary classrooms in one geo-
graphic location participated in this study. In a broad
review of the information known about the vocabulary
used by early elementary students, Stemach and Wil-
liams (1988) published the 2,500 most commonly spo-
ken words by first grade children. This composite list
was compiled from a wide variety of source lists includ-
ing spontaneous oral vocabularies of children in primary
grades (Murphy, 1957); vocabulary for beginning read-
ing (Johnson, 1971); and vocabulary of first grade chil-
dren (Hopkins, 1979; Moe, Hopkins, & Rush, 1982).
In summary, a variety of vocabulary use lists reveals
a core group of words (single words and two-word
sequences) that are commonly communicated using
natural speech and AAC devices. The words in this core
list appear quite frequently and represent a sizeable
proportion of the total number of words produced during
face to face communication. However, many of the
words used by natural speakers and individuals using
AAC systems do not appear on these core vocabulary
lists. During AAC applications, these “fringe” or unique
words must be predicted by sources other than statisti-
cally derived core lists.
Future Research: Acceleration Vocabularies
Although the research focusing on the selection of
acceleration vocabulary for literate individuals is as yet
quite limited, several areas of future research are clear.
As persons who use AAC systems are more completely
integrated into educational and vocational settings, the
specific vocabularies used by augmented and natural
communicators in these settings will assist in effectively
selecting acceleration vocabularies. Clearly, the vocab-
ulary items produced and the frequency of vocabulary
use vary depending upon the setting and context of
communication. If AAC systems continue to be biased
toward conversational vocabulary, the efficiencies that
could be experienced from message retrieval will not be
realized. Preliminary studies suggested that the vocab-
ulary used in the classroom differs from that used in
conversation. One would expect these differences to
become more apparent as an individual progresses
through school. Clearly, the performances of individuals
who are successful students and employees are of
primary interest. However, study of the natural commu-
nicator in these specific settings may also be a valuable
source of vocabulary. Finally, the careful study of the
vocabulary suggested by expert informants, including
the peers and the person using the AAC system, may
contribute to efficient selection of acceleration vocabu-
lary in specific communication settings.
The differences in vocabulary use by natural commu-
nicators during written and spoken communication have
been documented to some extent. As individuals use
their AAC systems for social conversation, academic
and vocational face to face communication, and aca-
demic and vocational written language, the need to
 Vocabulary Selection
select specific vocabularies for the various communica-
tion tasks will be clear. AAC devices can now easily
manage multiple vocabularies and the need for re-
search to guide the selection of these vocabularies is
apparent.
Preliminary research documents the differences in
communication patterns that occur with age. While the
vocabulary development of children has received con-
siderable research attention, the vocabulary usage of
adolescents and elderly individuals has not. Because of
the number of elderly persons who have difficulty com-
municating through natural speech, the need to under-
stand more completely the messages that they use and
the words that they employ is critical in an attempt to
meet their communication needs more adequately
through AAC approaches.
Although the focus of this article has been on the
vocabulary requirements of persons who use AAC sys-
Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 06:26 01 November 2015
tems, a slightly broader view of vocabulary analysis is
of interest and that is the identification of the communi-
cated topics by persons of a variety of ages in a range
of contexts. Often communication interaction is en-
hanced if the listener is familiar with the topic. This is
true for persons who use AAC systems, as well as for
those with moderate to severe motor speech disorders
or persons with aphasia who continue to communicate,
at least in part, through natural speech.
Finally, as the vocabulary source materials continue
to expand, the clinician will benefit from computerized
tools to select and manage the vocabularies that are
developed to meet the communication needs of specific
individuals in specific contexts. One effort to develop
such a computerized tool is already underway through
a joint project including research groups from the Uni-
versity of Nebraska, University of Washington, and
Western Michigan University (Beukelman, Yorkston, et
al., 1989).
VOCABULARY SELECTION FOR PERSONS
WHO ARE NOT LITERATE
The focus of this section is to describe current vocab-
ulary selection techniques for persons who are not
literate. What does it mean to suggest that an individual
is nonliterate? Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictio-
nary (1988) states that the definition of a literate person
is an educated person, one who can read and write. A
person who is nonliterate then would be one who is not
able to read and write. People are nonliterate for any
number of different reasons that may have a direct
impact on the vocabulary selection process. For the
person who is nonliterate due to severe cognitive and/or
language disability, developing literacy may not be a
realistic goal. However, persons may be judged to be
nonliterate simply because they have not been given the
necessary access to educational opportunities that de-
velop and enhance literacy. In this case, the development
of vocabulary items that support literacy and language
development may be warranted. Finally, the age of the
177
nonliterate individual may also be a factor in vocabulary
selection decisions. Whether or not the individual has
the time to make up for deficits in reading and writing
ability, given age and educational or vocational status in
life, may affect whether or not reading and writing vocab-
ulary reflects items to remediate language deficiencies.
Clinical Suggestions
The literature on vocabulary selection for persons
who are nonliterate contains a strong clinical component
with a small amount of actual research documentation.
Musselwhite and St. Louis (1988) provided suggestions
for the selection of vocabulary items that promote inter-
actions between the person who uses an AAC system
and his/her communication partner. They suggested
that initial vocabulary meet the following criteria: (1) be
of high interest to the individual; (2) have potential for
frequent use; (3) denote a range of semantic notions or
pragmatic functions; (4) reflect “here and now” for ease
of learning; (5) have potential for later multi-word use;
and (6) provide ease of production or interpretation.
Additionally, Musselwhite and St. Louis (1988) de-
scribed “topic setters,” which are generic topics (family,
home, books, etc.) that can promote initiation of com-
munication interactions. The vocabulary selection pro-
cess for the individual with an AAC system should
include identification of “topic setters” that allow the
individual to initiate and change topics.
Similarly, a report from the Augmentative Communi-
cation Service (1984) outlines specific programming
guidelines for vocabulary selection. This document
states that the guidelines are intended for use with
persons who have the potential to be literate but have a
delayed rate of learning. Three general considerations
are proposed: (1) that functional, motivating vocabulary
address the interests, needs, and wants of the individual
within his/her daily environment; (2) that the character-
istics of the AAC system and the effort required by the
person to learn new vocabulary be considered; and (3)
that selection of vocabulary enhances the development
of the early concepts of language. For these persons,
developmental information can provide access to vocab-
ulary that promotes language understanding and growth.
Review of Current Research
The following review of clinical and research literature
with respect to the vocabulary selection process for per-
sons who are nonliterate focuses on readings that suggest
that developmental information is an important component
of vocabulary selection, and readings that take a more
environmental approach. Each of these approaches has
merit and provides information that is important for per-
sons who are nonliterate who may or may not be able to
achieve their own individual literacy level.
Vocabulary selection for nonliterate persons who use
AAC systems can be broken down into two strategies.
One relies on developmental information, while the
 178 Beukelman, McGinnis, and Morrow
other, a behavioral-remedial approach, focuses on en-
vironmental considerations (Karlan & Lloyd, 1983).
While the developmental theorists rely on normal lan-
guage data, they do not suggest that vocabulary selec-
tion should ignore the environments for which
appropriate messages are needed for effective commu-
nication. Strict adherents to a behavioral-remedial ap-
proach would advocate that developmental information
is limiting when used for older children and adults be-
cause it can limit their access to communicative oppor-
tunities. However, there may be a time when a mesh of
the two models is needed, given the age and ability to
develop literacy for persons using AAC systems. Next,
this paper examines vocabulary selection strategies
from the two different perspectives.
Developmental Perspective
Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 06:26 01 November 2015
Clinical and Theoretical Issues. Several authors
have written about the importance of using a normal
developmental model when choosing the initial vocab-
ulary to use with language disordered children who are
natural speakers rather than AAC system users. Hol-
land (1975) outlined several contexts for language ther-
apy and suggested vocabulary words that could be used
as teachable content within these contexts. These con-
texts for therapy were to: (1) use child language as a
model; (2) incorporate events that are both rewarding
and important for the child; (3) promote an active, dy-
namic communicative exchange; and (4) stress objects
and events that are part of the here and now. From these
contextual premises, the author generated a list of 35
vocabulary selections that could be taught in a language
therapy situation. These words included nouns, adjec-
tives, verbs, personal pronouns, and polar concepts.
Lahey and Bloom (1977) expanded the ideas of Hol-
land (1975) by analyzing the 35 vocabulary words ac-
cording to form and content. They added the following
two additional stipulations: (1) words that are difficult to
demonstrate nonlinguistically should be presented after
those concepts that can be more readily illustrated; and
(2) frequency of word use determines whether or not the
word is functional for the child to learn.
Fristoe and Lloyd (1980) incorporated the ideas of
Holland (1975) and Lahey and Bloom (1977) in planning
an initial expressive sign vocabulary for persons with
severe disabilities. Using the work of the previous au-
thors, Fristoe and Lloyd developed a list of 70 initial sign
vocabulary selections. To meet the previous criteria, the
70 vocabulary items chosen had to reflect data from
normal child language development, be important to
children, stress interactive communication, emphasize
the use of objects present in the here and now, be easily
understood, be of functional use, and be related to
content categories.
Karlan and Lloyd (1983) tested the social validity of
the initial sign lexicon proposed by Fristoe and Lloyd
(1980). Judges were asked to rate the vocabulary items
as one of the following: (1) essential to; (2) useful in; (3)
could be useful in; or (4) of no value, when designing an
initial expressive vocabulary. Results showed none of
the 84 items to be rated “of no value” and the remaining
items were rated in the “useful” or “could be useful”
category. Social validation of checklists or word lists can
determine the perceived appropriateness of these items
for different populations of nonspeaking persons.
Reichle, Williams, and Ryan (1981) in their criteria
for selecting initial signs, suggested that in addition to
the functional utility of the signs (i.e., value to both
speaker and listener, frequent use, reinforcement value,
generalizability), the cognitive representational level of
the sign is important for most individuals. Blau (1983)
suggested that to develop an adequate initial lexicon,
clinicians must understand both the components of
language development and, most importantly, the func-
tional needs and capabilities of the nonspeaker.
It is important from the developmental perspective to
look at the literature on the development of lexical style.
Evidence exists to document the lexical styles of chil-
dren (Bloom, Lightbown, & Hood, 1975; Nelson, 1973).
These styIes a rereferential/hominal and expres-
sive/pronominal. A predominantly referential style con-
tains a high proportion of object word use, and a
predominately expressive style contains a high propor-
tion of stereotyped phrases (Nelson, 1973). These dif-
ferent learning styles have an obvious impact on the
vocabulary selection process for persons who are de-
veloping language and literacy skills.
Thus, the developmental model for initial vocabulary
selection uses normal child language acquisition data
as a framework for choosing which words to teach first.
However, both Holland (1975) and Lahey and Bloom
(1977) stressed the functional nature of communication.
Additionally, persons who advocate the use of environ-
mental inventories suggested that a developmental base
for vocabulary selection is appropriate to make the items
meaningful for the nonspeaker (Carlson, 1981). It could
be that most models utilize developmental underpin-
nings in functional, meaningful, contexts. It need not be
a question of either/or, when a mesh of the two princi-
ples can best serve the vocabulary selection needs of
nonspeaking persons. All of the authors who use the
developmental model in determining an initial vocabu-
lary pool also stressed the fact that their lists were by no
means appropriate for use with every student and that
the lists are best used as a guide to planning.
Spoken Language of Preschool Children. Infor-
mation regarding vocabulary use patterns among non-
literate persons is being obtained from the study of
disabled and nondisabled, speaking preschool children
in home and school settings. In an ongoing research
effort, M. Fried-Oken (personal communication, July,
1990) is examining vocabulary selection for AAC sys-
tems of young children with cerebral palsy. To develop
vocabulary sources for these children, parents of able-
bodied children and parents and clinicians of children
with cerebral palsy are asked to prepare a list of 100
words that their children would or do use to communi-
 Vocabulary Selection 179

cate effectively and efficiently on a daily basis. Sponta-

neous language samples are also collected from the
speaking children. Preliminary results suggest that a list
of 37 words was common across all sources. This list
fits into the semantic categories first proposed by Lahey
and Bloom (1977) and then used by Fristoe and Lloyd
(1980) in the initial sign lexicon articles. The categories
include: negation, recurrence, existence, actions on
objects, actions locating objects or self, attributes or
descriptions of objects, and substantives (M. Fried-
Oken, personal communication, July, 1990).
An initial study was completed by Beukelman, Jones,
and Rowan (1989) who audio-recorded and transcribed
the spoken communication samples of six nondisabled
preschool students (3 years-10 months to 4 years-9 Composite List Size
months) in three different classrooms. Using a new
generation of Vocabulary Frequency Analyzer Software10 Figure 4. Percentage of total words produced that are accounted for
that was developed for the Macintosh11 computer to ana-
Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 06:26 01 November 2015

by the most frequently used words in the composite sample of

lyze the frequency of occurrence of individual single- preschool children (Beukelman, Jones, & Rowan, 1989).
word and multi-word sequence, these samples were
analyzed in individual and composite form.
Communication samples of approximately 3,000 words
were collected from the six subjects. The number of
different words per sample ranged from 404 to 468
words. Two hundred and fifty words occurred with a
frequency of at least 0.5 occurrence per 1,000 words of
the composite communication sample for the six sub-
jects. The proportion of the total sample represented by
sublists of increasing size is shown in Figure 4. A review
of this figure reveals that 45.1% of the total sample was
represented by the 25 most frequently occurring words,
60% by the 50 most frequently occurring words and 85%
of the total language sample by the 250 most frequently
occurring words. When these results are compared to
the samples generated by other individuals during con- 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250
versation and writing, it is apparent that the vocabulary Frequency of Occurrence (Composite List)
used by these young children in the preschool setting
was much more limited than that used by the adults and Figure 5. The commonality scores for composite sublists of fre-
children described by Vanderheiden and Kelso (1987). quently occurring words (Beukelman, Jones, & Rowan, 1989).
The commonality score with which the six subjects
used the 250 most frequently occurring words in the
composite sample is reported in Figure 5. Because six They only studied six children from three classrooms for
a limited period of time. Much more study is required to
subjects were included in the study, a commonality
describe successful communicative participation in the
score of “6” indicates that each of the subjects used the
word with at least a 0.5 occurrence per 1,000 words of preschool classroom.
sample frequency. A commonality score of six occurred
Environmental Perspective
for the 25 most frequently occurring words in the com-
posite sample indicating that all of the subjects used
these twenty-five words in their samples. A review of the In the behavioral-remedial model, the environment
and the child’s activities are the basis for choosing
figure indicates that the most frequently occurring 100
words of the composite sample were used by at least 5 vocabulary items. Strict adherents to this model de-em-
of the 6 children. The research by Beukelman, Jones, phasize normal developmental data, because they are
often misused when applied to populations of older
and Rowan (1989) represents a very preliminary effort.
children, adolescents, and adults. This is especially true
of older adults with acquired severe communication
10
Frequency Analyzer Software. Barkley Memorial Center, Univer-
disorders, such as aphasia. The environmental inven-
sity of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583-0732. tory that is associated with this model can aid in deter-
11
Macintosh Computer. Apple Computer, Inc., 20525 Mariana mining frequency of word occurrence, individual prefer-
Ave., Cupertino, CA 95014. ence, functional utility of words across situations, and
 180 Beukelman, McGinnis, and Morrow
basic human needs (Karlan & Lloyd, 1983; Nietupski &
Hamre-Nietupski, 1979).
An environmental inventory can be conducted by
simply observing and recording the daily events of the
severely communicatively impaired person. Several forms
are available for this type of inventory. The person(s)
who complete this inventory should script the activities
of the severely communicatively impaired person in all
appropriate environmental settings and specific sub-
environments. Carlson (1981) stresses that an environ-
mental inventory must document how the nonspeaker
both participates in and observes each environmental
activity. The author states, “By discriminating between
observatory and participatory events, it was possible to
gain a better picture of the child’s actual experiences
within the area rather than the adult’s perception of the
experiences” (p. 42). The special equipment, physical
positioning, other persons, and materials that are pres-
Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 06:26 01 November 2015
ent in the environment should be documented. From this
environmental inventory, vocabulary words that would
enhance the communication interaction can be listed.
This pool of vocabulary words can then be reduced to a
smaller list of words that can be managed by an AAC
system.
Mirenda (1985) described an ecological inventory
derived from a special education curriculum to select
vocabulary for persons who are nonliterate. This vocab-
ulary selection technique is based on an ecological
inventory strategy for curriculum development (Brown
et al., 1980) and is broken down into six phases: (1)
determine the current and subsequent school and com-
munity environments in which a severely handicapped
student is required to function; (2) conduct detailed,
on-site analyses of the communication requirements of
nonhandicapped persons during actual activities in those
environments; (3) conduct on-site handicapped student
inventories related to the same activities and environ-
ments; (4) conduct discrepancy analyses to determine
the communication deficits and needs of handicapped
students; (5) interview significant others regarding com-
munication needs; and (6) create instructional adapta-
tions (such as picture communication books) to address
those needs. This vocabulary selection technique en-
sures that students will have the relevant vocabulary
they need to communicate in a variety of natural, age-
appropriate environments (e.g., with the counter person
at a fast-food restaurant, friends at the mall, librarian at
school, supervisor at work, etc.). Vocabulary is specific
and individually determined according to the environ-
mental demands of the settings.
An environmental inventory approach has also been
used with the adult aphasic population. The individual
with aphasia who is nonliterate will have to rely on
preselected messages. In order to select these items,
“a vocabulary/message inventory in multiple environ-
ments becomes crucial” (Beukelman & Garrett, 1988, p.
117). Garrett, Beukelman, and Morrow (1989) described
a multimodality AAC system developed for Mike, a
74-year-old man with Broca’s aphasia. One component
of this system was a word dictionary arranged topically
around Mike’s favorite conversational themes. The first
step in the vocabulary selection process for this word
dictionary was conducting an exhaustive inventory of
these conversational themes, as well as the specific
words pertaining to each theme. A second step then
took place in which Mike edited the themes and words
collected during the inventory phase. Thus, the final
product was a word dictionary containing messages that
Mike, rather than the informants, felt were important.
It is also worth noting that commercially available
“word dictionaries” such as the Daily Communicator12
have been developed specifically for the adult popula-
tion. Although the method of selection of the words and
messages in such products are not reported in the
literature, they can and do act as “core” vocabularies for
adults with aphasia.
Case Study Research
Case study research focusing specifically on the vo-
cabulary selection process is severely limited. Yorkston
et al. (1989) used a combination of vocabulary selection
tools to generate vocabulary for a 36-year-old woman
with physical challenges and limited literacy skills. They
used environmental inventories, communication diction-
aries (written documentation of the communicative ex-
changes between the individual and her communication
partners), and a review of four vocabulary lists to estab-
lish a pool of vocabulary words. These four lists included
the Karlan and Lloyd (1983) list, the most frequently
used words of Canon communicators (Beukelman et al.,
1984), the Picsyms Dictionary (Carlson, 1984) and the
word list from the Vois 140.5
From this vocabulary selection process, a list of 240
messages was developed. At a later date, two additional
words were added bringing the list total to 242. Of these
242 items, 218 or 90% were single words and 24 were
whole phrases. When comparisons were made be-
tween the subject’s final word list and the four standard
lists, none of the lists contained all of the words that the
subject had in her list. If any one of these lists had been
used as the only source for this individual’s word list, the
vocabulary that she needed to communicate would not
have been available. However, a larger standard list of
words may still not contain all of the words that subjects
would use in their own word lists. In essence, bigger
may not necessarily be better when reviewing standard
word lists for vocabulary selection. Their use at this point
should not be ruled out, instead the authors suggest that
standard word lists may be a “necessary but not suffi-
cient aspect of vocabulary selection” (Yorkston et al.,
1989, p. 106). In this case study, environmental inven-
12
Daily Communicator. Interactive Therapeutics, P.O. Box 1805,
Stow, OH 44224.
 Vocabulary Selection
tories and communication diaries were an excellent
source for unique or specialized vocabulary.
In conclusion, the number of nonliterate individuals
who require AAC intervention is large and the task of
selecting appropriate vocabulary for them is extensive.
However, the empirical research base to guide this
effort is extremely limited. Fortunately, the theoretical
structures for this research endeavor appear to be well
developed.
Future Research Directions
Future research directions for helping persons who
are nonliterate will be divided into two different sections
to reflect the needs of persons who have severe cogni-
tive and language delays and those persons who are
preliterate.
Persons Who Have Severe Cognitive and Language
Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 06:26 01 November 2015
Disabilities. First, how do we select appropriate vo-
cabulary to meet the challenge of educating students
with severe cognitive and language disabilities in regu-
lar education settings? Professionals, parents, and per-
sons with disabilities are advocating a regular life in the
home, school, and community. This has direct implica-
tions for the vocabulary that is included in the AAC
system when the individual is mainstreamed into the
regular education classroom and participates in commu-
nity-referenced activities. Here, the context and goals
that are set will drive the vocabulary selection process.
Specifically, the research questions that must be
addressed are related to determining the different per-
spectives (i.e., developmental, environmental, and sta-
tistically derived lists) and the combinations that can
provide the best vocabulary pools.
Second, for persons with severe cognitive and lan-
guage disabilities, do the vocabulary selection techni-
ques change with an individual’s age? Is the perspective
(either developmental or environmental) different be-
cause the individual is an adult and, if so, which tech-
nique or combination of techniques is better?
Third, what vocabulary selection strategies are most
effective to choose vocabulary items that promote con-
versation and interaction? Stuart (1988) suggests that
vocabulary items do several things: (1) give the individual
an opportunity to talk to people of different ages, intel-
lects, and interests; (2) reflect personal identity, mem-
bership in subgroups, and opportunities for involvement
in many different true communication situations; and (3)
provide special function vocabulary for holidays, jobs,
prayers, reading stories, etc. Specifically, persons who
are nonliterate (including those with severe intellectual
disability) require vocabulary items that promote sponta-
neous communicative interactions about every topic im-
aginable and in all of the settings they access. It is then
necessary to identify those tools (i.e., inventory, diary,
dialogue) that best achieve this goal.
181
Persons Who Are Preliterate. First, how can de-
velopmental information be integrated into the vocabu-
lary selection process? For example, what steps in the
vocabulary selection process are needed to ensure that
words are developmentally appropriate and challenging
as well as functional?
Second, how should vocabulary be selected to fit the
lexical style of the person who uses an AAC system?
Learners who use a predominantly referential style may
have difficulty with vocabulary that is replete with phrases
because they prefer to use single words in an attempt
to “label” the object of their communicative message.
The reverse is true for the learner who uses a predom-
inantly expressive style and is more interested in social
interaction and people than labeling actual objects.
Clearly, the vocabulary needs will be distinct given the
individual’s learning style.
Third, what types of literacy remediation techniques
are available to enhance the skills of the person who is
developing language? What strategies are most effi-
cient to promote spelling, reading, and writing develop-
ment? How can computer-assisted writing systems
function in the regular academic classroom?
Fourth, what words do regular education students
now use in academic classrooms? We require informa-
tion about both the spoken and written vocabulary that
regular students use. Documentation of the actual words
that these students use throughout the school day is
crucial to promote research into using lists of frequently
occurring or “core” words.
Fifth, how can the role of the person who uses an AAC
system be enhanced in the selection of his/her own
vocabulary? As these individuals are encouraged to
take personal responsibility for their communication
systems, certainly vocabulary selection should be fore-
most in these activities. Mary Ann Romski (personal
communication, September, 1989) reported that she
includes a symbol that means “What’s that?,” so the
individual can request certain types of words. It may also
be helpful to assist the individual to “capture” words by
adding a symbol that communicates the message “I
want that word” in order to signal his/her preferences.
Obviously, these two strategies for “capturing” words
and messages require quite different skills on the part
of the AAC user. The first strategy of indicating, “What’s
that?,” requires linguistic capabilities, while the second
strategy of indicating, “I want that word” also requires
meta-linguistic capabilities.
Finally, because persons who are nonliterate (regard-
less of the reason for being nonliterate) must still rely on
informants to select some vocabulary to be placed in
their AAC system, research is needed on the use of
informants and the selection tools that are required to
help informants choose appropriate vocabulary. Pion-
eering research in this specific area will be the focus of
the next section.
 182 Beukelman, McGinnis, and Morrow
INFORMANTS AND VOCABULARY
SELECTION METHODS
Basic Assumptions About Informants
Returning to the assumptions outlined at the begin-
ning of this paper, note that three of the six assumptions
are directly related to the selection and use of informants.
An informant is anyone involved in making decisions
about what messages to include in an AAC system. One
assumption states that persons who use AAC systems
themselves should serve as their own informants when-
ever possible. This statement is qualified, however, by
the next assumption that for a variety of reasons some
individuals are unable to act as the sole informant. The
third assumption suggests that multiple informants will
help to ensure appropriateness and efficiency in the
Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 06:26 01 November 2015
vocabulary selection process.
The third assumption, the use of multiple informants
with a variety of backgrounds has been promoted widely
in the literature (Augmentative Communication Service,
1984; Carlson, 1981; Karlan & Lloyd, 1983; McDonald
& Schultz, 1973). In fact, there is little else in the
literature about informants except the advice to use lots
of them.
Carlson (1981) mentioned the use of parents, teachers,
speech-language pathologists, siblings, and friends. Other
significant others such as group home staff, teacher
aides, and counselors have been added to this list of
potential informants (Augmentative Communication
Service, 1984). Involving persons who use AAC sys-
tems themselves, both to make contributions and to edit
the contributions of significant others, is also advocated
(Augmentative Communication Service, 1984; Carlson,
1981; McDonald & Schultz, 1973).
In addition to the recommendation to use a variety of
informants, there are some suggestions regarding the
procedures that can be used to guide the participation
of informants. Van Tatenhove (1987) provided five tech-
niques that can be used to instruct communication
partners (i.e., caregivers and facilitators) to select vo-
cabulary for the individual. These techniques include:
(1) looking at the student’s environments to inventory;
(2) writing dialogues for familiar routines; (3) asking
partners to write down on a blank piece of paper sug-
gestions for relevant vocabulary; (4) following proce-
dures similar to number 3, except that the partner and
the trainer role-play different daily activities; and (5)
using audio- and video-tape to record communicative
exchanges and writing down the relevant vocabulary for
the specific activity. Each of the methods delineates
environmental vocabulary that provides words relevant to
the setting and activity, but also promotes interaction
beyond requesting.
Using Multiple Informants
One approach to organizing the efforts of multiple
informants has received some initial investigation in an
unpublished study by Morrow, Beukelman, and Mirenda
(1989). In this study, the investigators compared vocab-
ulary size, vocabulary characteristics, and informant
reactions associated with three different methods of
vocabulary selection and three different categories of
informants. The three methods for selecting vocabulary
for children who used AAC systems included (1) a blank
sheet task in which informants were instructed to pro-
vide a listing of vocabulary words for a specific child, (2)
a categorical listing task in which the informants listed
specific words under several different categorical head-
ings that were provided to them, and (3) a checklist task
(Bristow & Fristoe, 1984) in which informants identified
words from a checklist.
Effect of Informant Type on Vocabulary
Size and Characteristics
Morrow et al. (1989) investigated the effect of infor-
mant type on vocabulary size, i.e., how many words did
each informant contribute? The speech-language pa-
thologist offered more of the total words than the parent
or the teacher for four of six subjects. For the other two
subjects, the parent offered the largest number of total
words.
Further investigation indicated the effect of informant
type on vocabulary characteristics (i.e., what kind of
words did each informant contribute?). Specifically, the
characteristic of uniqueness was investigated. Unique
words were defined as “those words yielded by only one
[vocabulary selection] method and one informant” (Mor-
row et al., 1989). Results indicated that for three of six
subjects, the parent contributed most of the unique
words. For the other three subjects, the speech-lan-
guage pathologist offered the most unique words. Al-
though teachers did not contribute as many unique
words as the other two informants, they were an impor-
tant resource for school related vocabulary.
Informant Reactions to Vocabulary
Selection Methods
One of the important sub-questions in the Morrow et
al. (1989) study was that of the informants’ reactions to
using the vocabulary selection methods. This was in-
vestigated in terms of the level of satisfaction, level of
difficulty, and amount of time needed to complete the
task. Informants indicated their level of satisfaction on a
five-point rating scale. Overall satisfaction level was
relatively constant across informant groups. Thus, no
one group of informants was more satisfied than any
other group. Across informants, satisfaction level was
rated the same for the blank sheet and categorical
method, with the checklist being rated as slightly more
satisfactory than the other two methods.
Level of perceived difficulty with each method was
also rated on a five-point rating scale. Parents and
teachers judged the difficulty level of vocabulary selec-
tion tasks similarly, while speech-language pathologists
 Vocabulary Selection
rated the vocabulary selection tasks as being slightly
less difficult. Across informants, difficulty level was rated
the same for the first two techniques, blank sheet and
categorical method, with the checklist (the third tech-
nique) rated as slightly less difficult than the other two
methods.
Future Directions
The trend in the literature to this point has been to
utilize as informants only persons who are familiar with
and knowledgeable about the persons who use AAC
systems. This raises an interesting question. Does an
informant have to know the individual for whom vocab-
ulary is being selected? Is it perhaps enough for the
informant to be an expert on the communicative de-
mands of a specific environment? One example of this
is the history professor who knows the unique verbal
Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 06:26 01 November 2015
and written communicative requirements of history, and
so acts as an expert informant for an unfamiliar student
who will be enrolled in the class during the following
semester.
One might assume that when the informant is signif-
icantly different from the person who uses an AAC
system, whether it be due to age, interests, or other
factors, there is a danger of obtaining a vocabulary
actually more suited to the informant than to the in-
tended user of the vocabulary. Thus, another issue that
deserves further consideration is that of how best to use
“peer” informants. Again, these peers may or may not
be familiar with the individual, but their participation in
similar activities and environments may give them spe-
cial insights into a highly appropriate vocabulary.
More research needs to be completed in order to
study how the vocabulary selection method affects the
vocabulary obtained. Not only do vocabulary size and
general characteristics need to be investigated, but
more importantly, the impact of selection methods on
the specific words and messages that are chosen for
individual AAC users should also be investigated. Are
the words yielded by the various vocabulary selection
methods really appropriate for the individual, or are they
biased by the informant and/or the method itself? There
is a particular need to validate the appropriateness of
predicted words by comparing them to the words the
individual actually uses while communicating.
The issue of how the vocabulary selection task is
presented to informants is also an important one. For
example, in a wide variety of fields, researchers have
studied the factors affecting response rates to question-
naires. Many factors have been found to have a significant
effect on response rates. These include the salience of
the subject matter to the respondent, which may be an
important consideration in the use of expert informants
(Goyder, 1982; Heberlein & Baumgartner, 1978). Also,
personalization of questionnaires, number of contacts
with the respondent, and sex of the respondent were
significant factors affecting questionnaire responses
183
(Boser, 1988; Goyder, 1982; Heberlein & Baumgartner,
1978).
Finally, further investigation into the concept of the
cumulative approach to using multiple informants and
other vocabulary selection strategies is warranted in
light of the goals to increase the quality and efficiency
of the vocabulary selection process.
CLOSING COMMENTS
In this article, we have attempted to summarize the
information that is currently available regarding the se-
lection of vocabulary to be included in AAC systems.
While this information base is expanding, our knowl-
edge of how to appropriately and efficiently select vo-
cabulary is not. In clinical practice, we face a paradox.
Individuals who use AAC systems have very unique
vocabulary needs and a personalized vocabulary should
be developed for them. Yet, to do so is a very time
consuming and difficult activity. Therefore, an effort is
being made to develop sources of vocabulary to be used
as guidelines in the vocabulary selection process. To
date, our source lists are very general resources that
have not been drawn from communication performance
in specific contexts. Clearly, the research in vocabulary
use and selection must shift to focus on data that is more
contextually and demographically specific. Studies of
the performance of both natural speakers and persons
who use AAC systems, who are of different age levels,
and in specific settings perhaps will provide a data base
that will be useful. Our research is just beginning to
consider the efficacy of particular vocabulary sources
for the various types of persons who use AAC systems.
In addition, information is needed about the ways in
which persons who act as informants and vocabulary
managers utilize source lists and vocabulary selection
tools. Obviously, the goal of vocabulary selection is to
enhance the communication skills of the individual, not
just to develop extensive lists of vocabulary efficiently.
The impact of vocabulary source information on clini-
cal/educational practice of those who facilitate vocabu-
lary selection remains an important research question.
Of particular interest is the role that individuals who
use AAC systems can play in the selection and retention
of vocabulary items for their own systems. In the future,
the AAC field will need to develop tools and strategies
that allow individuals to control decisions regarding their
own vocabulary without having to develop extensive
meta-linguistic skills.
Because the size of the vocabulary selected for the
person who uses an AAC system is nearly always
constrained due to the technical limitations of the AAC
technique or the learning capacity of the individual,
strategies to set priorities for vocabulary to be included
in an AAC system must be considered. A review of this
manuscript reveals little information about the strategies
and guidelines that are used to set priorities for the
vocabulary to be included in an AAC system. The lack
 184 Beukelman, McGinnis, and Morrow
of information is surprising because the amount of clin-
ical/educational activity related to vocabulary selection
is extensive, as decisions are made each year for
thousands of individuals. Unfortunately, little of this
information is being collected, analyzed, and dissemin-
ated. Individuals who use AAC systems, clinicians, edu-
cators, and researchers still have much to do.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This paper is based in part on a presentation at the think
tank on State of the Art and Science in the field of Aug-
mentative and Alternative Communication held at Purdue
University during September of 1989. The authors wish to
thank Janice Light for her editorial suggestions.
Address reprint requests to: David R. Beukelman,
202F Barkley Memorial Center, University of Nebraska-
Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68583-0732, USA.
Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 06:26 01 November 2015
REFERENCES
Augmentative Communication Service, Hugh MacMillan Medical Cen-
tre. (1984). Programming Guidelines: Vocabulary Selection. Un-
published manuscript, Hugh MacMillan Medical Centre, Toronto,
Ontario.
Beukelman, D., & Garrett, K. (1988). Augmentative and alternative
communication for adults with acquired severe communication dis-
orders. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 4, 104-121.
Beukelman, D., Jones, R., & Rowan, M. (1989). Frequency of word
usage by non-disabled peers in integrated preschool classrooms.
Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 5, 243-248.
Beukelman, D., & Yorkston, K. (1982). Communication interaction of
adult communication augmentation system use. Topics in Lan-
guage Disorders, 2(2), 39-54.
Beukelman, D., Yorkston, K., Poblete, M., & Naranjo, C. (1984).
Frequency of word occurrence in communication samples pro-
duced by adult communication users. Journal of Speech and
Hearing Disorders, 49, 360-367.
Beukelman, D., Yorkston, K., Tice, R., Nelson, N., lacono, T., &
Laikko, P. (1989). Vocabulary Selection Toolbox.
Blau, A. (1983). Vocabulary selection in augmentative communica-
tion. Where do we begin ? In H. Winitz (Ed.), Treating language
disorders: For clinicians by clinicians (pp. 205-234). Baltimore:
University Park Press.
Bloom, L., Lightbown, P., & Hood, L. (1975). Structure and variation
in child language. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child
Development, 40(Serial No. 160).
Boser, J. A. (1988). Teacher-education graduate surveys: Variables
related to response rate. Journal of Educational Research, 81,
369-373.
Bristow, D., & Fristoe, M. (1984, November). Systematic evaluation
of the nonspeaking child. Miniseminar at the American Speech,
Language, and Hearing Association National Convention, San
Francisco, CA.
Brown, L., Falvey, M., Vincent, L., Kaye, N., Johnson, F., Ferrara-Parrish,
P., & Gruenewald, L. (1980). Strategies for generating comprehens-
ive longitudinal and chronological age appropriate individual edu-
cation programs for adolescent and young adult severely handi-
capped students. Journal of Special Education, 14, 199-215.
Carlson, F. (1981). A format for selecting vocabulary for the nonspeak-
ing child. Language Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 12,
140-145.
Carlson, F. (1984). Picsyms categorical dictionary. Lawrence, KS:
Baggeboda Press.
Fristoe, M., & Lloyd, L. L. (1980). Planning an initial expressive sign
lexicon for persons with severe communication impairment. Jour-
nal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 45, 170-180.
Garrett, K., Beukelman, D., & Morrow, D. (1989). A comprehensive
augmentative communication system for an adult with Broca’s
aphasia. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 5, 55-61.
Goldman-Eisler, F. (1968). Psycholinguistics: Experiments in sponta-
neous speech. New York: Academic Press.
Goyder, J. C. (1982). Further evidence on factors affecting response
rates to mailed questionnaires. American Sociological Review, 47,
550-553.
Heberlein, T. A., & Baumgartner, R. (1978). Factors affecting response
rates to mailed questionnaires: A quantitative analysis of the pub-
lished literature. American Sociological Review, 43, 447-462.
Hillerich, R. (1978). A writing vocabulary of elementary children.
Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Holland, A. (1975). Language therapy for children: Some thoughts on
context and content. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 40,
514-523.
Hopkins, C. J. (1979). Spontaneous oral vocabulary of children in
grade one. Elementary School Journal, 79, 240-249.
Johnson, D. D. (1971). A basic vocabulary for beginning reading.
Elementary School Journal, 72, 29-34.
Karlan, G., & Lloyd, L. L. (1983). Considerations in the planning of
communication intervention: Selecting a lexicon. Journal of the
Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 8, 13-25.
Lahey, M., & Bloom, L. (1977). Planning a first lexicon: Which words to
teach first. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 42, 340-350.
McDonald, E. T., & Schultz, A. R. (1973). Communication boards for
cerebral-palsied children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disor-
ders, 38, 73-88.
McGinnis, J., & Beukelman, D. (1989). Vocabulary requirements for
writing activities for academically mainstreamed students with disabil-
ities. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 5, 183-191.
Mirenda, P. (1985). Designing pictorial communication systems for
physically able-bodied students with severe handicaps. Augmen-
tative and Alternative Communication, 1, 58-64.
Moe, A. J., Hopkins, C. J., & Rush, R. T. (1982). The vocabulary of
first grade children. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Morrow, D. R. (1989). Vocabulary selection for augmentative commu-
nication systems: A comparison of three techniques. Unpublished
Master’s thesis, University of Nebraska, Lincoln.
Murphy, H. A. (1957). Spontaneous speaking vocabulary of children
in primary grades. Journal of Education, 140, 3-106.
Musselwhite, C., & St. Louis, K. (1988). Communication programming
for persons with severe handicaps: Vocal and augmentative strat-
egies. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company.
Nagy, W., & Anderson, R. (1984). The number of words in school
English. Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 304-330.
Nelson, N. (1973). Structure and strategy in learning to talk. Mono-
graphs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 38(Serial
No. 149).
Nietupski, J., & Hamre-Nietupski, S. (1979). Teaching auxiliary skills
to severely handicapped students. AAESPH, 4, 107-124.
Reichle, J., Williams, W., & Ryan, S. (1981). Selecting signs for the
formulation of an augmentative communicative modality. Journal
of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 6, 48-56.
Richards, J. C. (1974). Word lists: Problems and prospects. Regional
English Language Center Journal, 5(2), 69-84.
Rinsland, H. (1945). A basic vocabulary of elementary schoolchildren.
New York: Macmillan.
Schutz-Muehling, L., & Beukelman, D. (1990). An augmentative
writing system for a college student with fibrositis: A case study.
Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 4, 250-255.
 Vocabulary Selection 185

Stemach, G., & Williams, W. (1988). Word express: The first 2,500
words of spoken English. Navato, CA: Academic Therapy Publica-
tions.
Stuart, S. (1988). Vocabulary selection -Augmentative communica-
tion. South Dakota Speech Language Hearing Association Jour-
nal, 31, 17-19.
Trevor, K., & Nelson, N. (1989). Vocabulary use by children in first,
third, and fifth grade classrooms. Unpublished research manu-
script, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo.
Vanderheiden, G., & Kelso, D. (1987). Comparative analysis of fixed
vocabulary communication acceleration techniques. Augmentative
and Alternative Communication, 3, 196-206.
Van Tatenhove, G. (1987). Training caregivers and facilitators to
select vocabulary: lmplementation strategies for improving the use
of communication aids in schools. Rockville, MD: American
Speech-Language-Hearing Association.
Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary. (1988). Springfield, MA:
Merriam Webster Publishers.
Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 06:26 01 November 2015
Westby, C. (1985). Learning to talk-talking to learn: Oral-literate
language differences. In C. Simon (Ed.), Communication skills and
classroom success. Boston: Little, Brown, and Company.
Yorkston, K., Beukelman, D., Smith, K., & Tice, R. (1990). Extended
communication samples of augmented communicators II: Analysis
of multi-word sequences. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disor-
ders, 55, 225-230.
Yorkston, K., Dowden P., Honsinger, M., Marriner, N., & Smith, K.
(1988). A comparison of standard and user vocabulary lists. Aug-
mentative and Alternative Communication, 4, 189-210.
Yorkston, K., Honsinger, M., Dowden, P., & Marriner, N. (1989).
Vocabulary selection: A case report. Augmentative and Alternative
Communication, 5, 101-108.
Yorkston, K., Smith, K., & Beukelman, D. (1990). Extended commu-
nication samples of augmented communicators I: A comparison of
individualized versus standard single word vocabularies. Journal
of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 55, 217-224.

ARTICLES TO APPEAR IN FORTHCOMING ISSUES OF AAC

University Students Using Augmentative and Alternative Communication in the U.S.A.: A Demographic Study by Mary Blake
Huer (USA)
Augmentative Communication Training with a Nonspeaking Adult: Lessons from M.H. by Sharon L. Glennen, Maureen A.
Sharp, and Daniel C. Tullos (USA)
Individual Language Learning Styles and Augmented Communicators by Teresa A. lacono (USA)
Comments on Terminology by Catriona Gunn (Australia)
The Further Development of an Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) Symbol Taxonomy by Donald R. Fuller
(USA), Lyle L. Lloyd (USA), and Ralf W. Schlosser (FRG)
Effects of Rate and Pitch Variations on the Intelligibility of Synthesized Speech by H.S. Venkatagiri (USA)
Communication Development of Young Children with Tracheostomies by Lauren B. Adamson and Barbara Dunbar (USA)
Children With Severe Speech Impairments: Caregiver Survey of AAC Use by Janet H. Allaire, Risa P. Gressard, James A.
Blackman, and Sharon L. Hostler (USA)
Initial Comparison of the Efficiency of a Variety of Augmentative or Alternative Communication Systems for Ordering Meals
in Fast Food Restaurants by L. Scott Doss, Peggy Ann Locke, Susan S. Johnston, Joe Reichle, Jeff Sigafoos, Paul J.
Charpentier, and Dulce J. Foster (USA)
Performance Is the Prize: Language Competence and Performance among Users of AAC by Nickola Nelson (USA)

ISAAC CORPORATE MEMBERS

ISAAC’s continued growth and development has been due to the efforts of many outstanding individuals and groups.
Among those we would like to acknowledge the following corporate members:

Adaptive Communication Systems, Inc. Fondation Suisse Pour Les Teletheses Unidad de Comunicacion Aumentativa
Pittsburgh, USA Neuchatel, Switzerland Madrid, Spain

AICA (Association Incremento Phonic Ear Inc. United Cerebral Palsy Assoc., Inc.
Comunicazione Alternativa) Mill Valley, USA New York, USA
Milano, Italy
Prentke Romich Company United Cerebral Palsy Assoc., Inc.
CNR-Cansigleottozionale Ricerche Wooster, USA Washington, USA
Pisa, Italy
Rehabilitation Technology Assessment Words+, Inc.
Don Johnston Developmental Equipment Program Lancaster, USA
Wauconda, USA University Hospital Rehabilitation Center
Elizabethtown, USA

August 7-11, 1992

Biennial ISAAC Conference
The Fifth International Conference of the International Society for Augmentative and Alternative Communication (ISAAC)
will be held in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S.A., at the Wyndham Franklin Plaza on August 7-11, 1992. For further
information, contact: Beth Mineo, Ph.D., or Susan Quinlisk-Gill, M.Ed., Conference Chairs, Alfred I. duPont Institute,
1600 Rockland Rd., Wilmington, DE, U.S.A. 19899; Telephone: (302) 651-6830; FAX: (302) 651-4019.