JCPSLP Vol 18 no 2 July 2016

to reputable service providers. Trusted AAC advocacy organisations such as Agosci or the International Society for Augmentative and Alternative Communication (ISAAC) may play a role in this dissemination. With regards to content certification, third-party verification schemes such as MedCERTAIN have also been proposed to improve the reliability of on-line health information through the use of expert review processes and recognised “trustmark” seals (Eysenbach, Yihune, Lampe, Cross, & Brickley, 2000). Finally, user feedback may be valuable for webmasters of disability sites in tailoring their content to consumers’ needs and guiding the attention of other users (Greenberg et al., 2004). Indeed, facilities for users to rate the quality and usefulness of information were already present on several of the disability and parenting “hubs” included in the current study. Uptake of such quality-assurance practices by webmasters in the field of disability may further improve consumer knowledge and acumen. Study limitations and future directions Keyword research is modelled from patterns of established search behaviour in the general population, and yet little is currently known about the actual search strategies of AAC consumers and their support networks. Until these are ascertained, research into this area remains speculative. Future studies using interviews, focus groups, surveys, and/or user-observation methods will shed light onto the information requirements of AAC consumers, their approaches to information seeking, and their ILC support needs. Like most exploratory research, this study raises more questions than it answers. We had limited capacity in the current project to evaluate the quality of on-line AAC information. Nonetheless, the measurement of content

quality remains an ongoing challenge in on-line health informatics (Greenberg et al., 2004), and should be a priority focus for disability in the NDIS era. Another valuable area for ongoing research is the role that AAC- /disability- specific forums, peer support, and social media play in networking and disseminating asynchronous information sources. Emerging research into the use of Twitter by people who use AAC (Hemsley, Dann, Palmer, Allan, & Balandin, 2015) indicates that, for some individuals, social media has become another important vehicle for information exchange and social connection. Conclusion In today’s digital world, it is safe to assume that many AAC consumers will turn to the Internet for information. Internet users researching AAC for the first time are likely to encounter high volumes of variable quality information, covering a range of agendas. As self-directed support becomes the norm, the ability of consumers to access and appraise information will become a pressing requirement. Improving digital literacy of health consumers is only one part of a complex puzzle; supporting professionals, service providers, and web content developers should also play a key roles as they consider issues around digital accessibility, readability, and search-engine optimisation. Future investments in this area by the general AAC community and/or NDIS service providers could include the implementation of a unified quality rating scale, and the use of centralised hub sites to guide information gathering by service users. In the meantime, AAC professionals can act as a conduit, guiding consumers towards quality on-line advice or resources, and assisting them to evaluate their findings.

Appendix. Full coding schema for website metadata

Criteria

Coding

Relevance

M = Mostly relevant S = Somewhat relevant N = Not relevant

Purpose

P/T = general information about AAC/AAC products/ AAC techniques S = information about AAC-related services G/R = implementation guidance and resources N = networking members of AAC community (consumers, family, professionals) APR = academic publication or research (presenting, reviewing, or evaluating research findings) C = commercial marketing or on-line sales H = information hub (links to other information only) OPN = opinions and perspectives, news items, journalism PE = sharing personal experiences O = other (specify)

Citations

Do authors cite other publications or include references to support their content? (Y/N)

Recency

Year last updated (not copyright year) N/S = not specified

Domain

First order domain name (e.g., .com, .co, .edu., .org, .net) Specify also public repository sites: Youtube, Pinterest, etc. N/S = not specified

Country

Country of website sourced from domain name or other page information N/S = not specified

Population focus

Autism, cerebral palsy, aphasia, other N/S = not specified

Population focus (age)

Child, adult, or both. N/S = not specified

73

JCPSLP Volume 18, Number 2 2016

www.speechpathologyaustralia.org.au

Made with