Click here to like us on Facebook and receive all of our updates on your news feed!
Our goal
It is not our intent to review every app or media device that has been or will soon be released. Rather our goal is to provide a framework, based upon well established clinical considerations for feature matching a person's strengths and needs to available tools and strategies (Shane and Costello, 1994), and apply that to comparing and selecting an iDevice platform and apps (refer to Table). Only through an informed clinically based selection, can we minimize the emerging trend toward selecting communication apps based on the robustness of media coverage, public testimonials or recommendations from well meaning friends and family.
To this end, a chart was created to detail the features known to be vital considerations for a broad profile of people with complex communication needs. Not all of these features currently exist in apps thus highlighting the need to match a person’s needs to the right tools and strategies and NOT try to fit a person to a specific platform or app. In addition, this chart should be considered as dynamic ( the number of communication apps is constantly growing as is the scope of available features).
The Chart:

Feature Matching Communication Applications Chart (PDF)
To better understand the application of the chart, a case study will illustrate application of the assessment process and use of the app feature matching process/chart.
Case Study:
Nancy, a 69-year-old woman with Bulbar ALS was seen in August 2010 (Table 1.1 & 1.2)
Table 1.1: Key Needs/Features Based on Assessment Outcomes
| |
Information gathered during assessment
|
Key App Features based on information gathered during the assessment
|
| Representation |
|
|
| Rate Enhancement |
- Doesn’t not want to “write every letter out”
|
- Word Prediction
- Abbreviation Expansion
- Logical Letter Encoding
- Ability to store Phases/Retain Codes
|
| Display Settings |
- Was able to navigate dynamic displays
- Wants something with “little set up”
- Able to use QWERTY keyboard
- Increase font size
|
- QWERTY Keyboard
- Increase font size
|
| Access/Motor |
- Able to type on iPad and other devices
- No current motor issues (yet could potentially have motor issues in the future)
|
- Adjust dwell
- Edit icon size and spacing
- Direct Selection
|
| Purpose of Use and Patients “requests” |
- Communication in multiple contexts
- Wants voice output and a female’s voice
|
- Synthesized Speech (voice output)
- Female Voice
- Adjust rate
- Speak after selection
|
In Nancy’s case, the iPad is a tool that meets most of her communication needs, serving as her primary communication system. Recommendations in addition to the iPad during the AAC consultation included use of pen and paper (for written messages) and a low-tech alphabet board. Yet the iPad will be used as her primary tool due to the voice output features, ability to pre-store messages, and word prediction (thus enhancing the rate of communicative interactions). Assistive Chat was selected as the primary communication app, matching key features that Nancy needs within her price range (Table 1.2).

In Nancy’s case, both Prolqou2go and Easy Speak had just as many “matched” features to the final app choice. Yet in trialing them in the assessment with Nancy, she voiced a clear preference for Assistive Chat (due to quality of voice and what she described as “the best prediction”); thus stressing the importance of step four in Table 1.2.
Related articles
ASHA Perspectives, July, 2011
Using a Clinical Approach To Answer “What Communication Apps Should We Use?” (PDF)
Gosnell, Costello & Shane
ASHA Leader, October 11, 2011
Apps: An Emerging Tool for SLP's
Jessica Gosnell
Video demonstration of the Feature Matching Process for Nancy.