{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018090452261306532, 'fraction_numerical': 0.003015075376884422, 'mean_word_length': 6.16546762589928, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Traditional Versus Computerized Presentation and Response Methods on a Structured AAC Assessment Tool

This pilot investigation compared participants’ performance using traditional versus computerized presentation and response methods on a subtest of the Test of Aided-Symbol Performance™ (TASP). Participants were between 6 years and 21 years of age and were using some form of augmentative and alternative communication (AAC). Investigators used a within-subject crossover design, with participants randomly assigned to the administration condition they experienced first. Two months later, participants experienced the second condition. Results showed no significant difference in performance regardless of the administration condition, which supported the investigators’ hypothesis. Accepting computerized presentation and response methods for the TASP would allow this measure to be used more broadly and expand the current methods of confidently evaluating options for AAC recommendations.