ReviewAugmentative and alternative communication (Baltimore, Md. : 1985)2025
Supporting effective alternative access for individuals with physical disabilities: state of the science, emerging technologies, and future research directions.
Review in Augmentative and alternative communication (Baltimore, Md. : 1985), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dismantling societal barriers that limit people who need or use AAC: lived experiences, key research findings, and future directions.Augmentative and alternative communication (Baltimore, Md. : 1985) · 2025Review
- Supporting meaningful participation in society by adults with developmental disabilities who need and use AAC: lived experiences, key research findings, and future directions.Augmentative and alternative communication (Baltimore, Md. : 1985) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Alternative access methods accommodate an individual's specific physical disability, by adjusting the typical keyboard/mouse/touchscreen interface or using an alternative interface such as head controls, eye trackers, or switches. Ideally, they allow for efficient and comfortable use of any computing device, such as laptops, tablets, and smartphones. This paper reviews the literature to address two main questions: how well do existing access methods meet users' needs? And what is the best way to choose the "right" access method(s) for a given individual? We report on typing speeds for various access methods across 57 studies, as well as experimental multimodal access methods across 34 papers. Results support the intuitive understanding that the access method affects the end user's experience and productivity. We also reviewed 33 papers and resources related to alternative access assessment and service provision. Existing evidence remains emerging and suggests that use of a systematic, user-centered approach to alternative access assessment may reap significant benefits, including better team performance and improved user satisfaction. Yet although many alternative access assessment resources are available, providers may not always use them. While today's alternative access methods can be an impactful means of enabling participation for people with physical disabilities, there is room for improvement, both in the access methods themselves, as well as their associated service provision and support. To identify and implement these improvements, the field needs research and development that is fully inclusive of people with disabilities in all phases of the work. We list some additional priorities for future work.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.