EURONDD conference – additional materials and references

This survey should be treated as a preliminary, exploratory study. It included a small sample of respondents (n = 30), which is closely related to the specificity of the study population: the survey concerned families of children with rare genetic syndromes, a group that is by definition small and more difficult to access in research. Despite the limited sample size, the findings form a coherent pattern and have important interpretive value, particularly as an indication of systemic problems rather than as a basis for broad statistical generalization.

When viewed alongside the assumptions developed in the article, the survey findings clearly suggest that a genetic diagnosis does not automatically translate into adequate support for communication development. The article argues that families may receive the name of a genetic syndrome relatively early, yet still be left without clear guidance on what the diagnosis means for the child’s communication profile, which areas should be monitored, and when AAC should be considered. As a result, communication is often postponed or treated as secondary to medical diagnosis, even though in children with genetic syndromes communication difficulties commonly coexist with sensory, motor, cognitive, and executive limitations. The article also emphasizes that AAC should not be understood as a “last resort,” but rather as one of the basic developmental tools that should be considered early and planned on the basis of the child’s actual functional profile.

The survey findings correspond closely with this perspective. After diagnosis, only 18 out of 30 families reported receiving general information about communication development. Only 5 out of 30 received practical guidance on how to support communication and the parent-child relationship, and only 1 out of 30 received guidance on how to support the child’s communication and relationships with siblings or peers. At the same time, as many as 10 out of 30 respondents indicated that they had received none of the basic forms of communication-related support after diagnosis. These data suggest that many parents are left with a medical label but without an adequate translation of that knowledge into everyday communicative practice.

The AAC findings are especially important. In the survey, 22 out of 30 families reported that AAC had been introduced for their child, which suggests that the need for this type of support is common in this population. However, AAC was discussed within the first 24 months of the child’s life in only 9 out of 30 cases. This indicates that although AAC is eventually introduced in many families, it is often not discussed early enough. Such a result strengthens the article’s argument that communication support is too often initiated only when speech deficits become highly visible, rather than being treated as an element of early developmental planning. The article explicitly argues that families need clear and practical guidance after diagnosis, that communication cannot be left to chance, and that AAC should be addressed early and systematically within better coordinated support pathways.

It is also noteworthy who initiates and carries communication support. In the survey, the speech-language therapist was the person most frequently identified as monitoring the child’s speech and communication development. At the same time, a substantial group of respondents reported that there had been no such person at all. Information about communication development was obtained not only from professionals, but also from other parents, educational settings, foundations or associations, and social media or the internet. This distribution suggests that knowledge transfer is inconsistent and that families often have to assemble practical guidance from multiple, fragmented sources.

The reported effects of AAC are cautiously optimistic. Parents most often indicated improved expressive abilities, reduced frustration, better relationships with others, speech development, and greater independence. This pattern is consistent with the approach presented in the article, according to which AAC is not merely a substitute for speech but a means of increasing access to communication, language, relationships, and participation. The article also stresses that motor limitations do not justify restricting access to a rich language system. Children with genetic syndromes do not lose their communication needs because communication is physically or executively difficult; they still need ways to ask, comment, narrate, protest, negotiate, and participate in educational and social life.

Several practical conclusions emerge from the survey. First, a genetic diagnosis should trigger not only a medical pathway but also an early communication assessment and the provision of concrete information for families about language and communication development. Second, AAC should be discussed earlier, before speech-related difficulties become entrenched and begin to limit participation. Third, families need not only general information but also practical instruction: how to support communication at home, how to foster communicative relationships with siblings and peers, and how to use paper-based and electronic supports in everyday situations. Fourth, more coordinated collaboration between professionals and families is needed, because a diagnostic label alone is not sufficient for meaningful communication planning. This conclusion is fully consistent with the article’s broader argument that genetic diagnosis should function as a starting point for clinical hypotheses and functional assessment, not as a self-sufficient answer to a child’s communication needs.

Finally, the limitations of the survey should be stated clearly. Because of the small sample size and the considerable internal heterogeneity of genetic syndromes, these findings should be interpreted as exploratory and indicative rather than statistically representative of the wider population. At the same time, this is precisely where their value lies: they highlight a meaningful gap, as experienced by families of children with rare genetic syndromes, between diagnosis and structured, early, practical support for communication development. In this sense, the survey supports the article’s broader conclusion that a more translational model is needed, one that links genetic and neurodevelopmental knowledge with real communication-related, educational, and environmental decisions.

American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (n.d.). Augmentative and alternative communication (AAC). https://www.asha.org/public/speech/disorders/aac/

Beukelman, D. R., & Light, J. C. (2020). Augmentative and alternative communication: Supporting children and adults with complex communication needs (5th ed.). Paul H. Brookes.

Binger, C., & Light, J. (2007). The effect of aided AAC modeling on the expression of multi-symbol messages by preschoolers who use AAC. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 23(1), 30–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434610600807470

Brady, N. C., Thiemann-Bourque, K., Fleming, K., & Matthews, K. (2006). Predicting language outcomes for children learning augmentative and alternative communication: Child and environmental factors. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49(6), 1218–1231. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2006/088)

Burkhart, L. (2010). Partner assisted scanning. LindaBurkhart.com.

Calculator, S. N. (2014). AAC-related findings from national surveys of individuals with Angelman syndrome: 1995 and 2009. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 30(1), 93–102.

Cress, C. J., & Marvin, C. A. (2003). Common questions about AAC services in early intervention. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 19(4), 254–272. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434610310001598242

Dawidek, E. (2019). Komunikacja alternatywna i wspomagająca AAC w terapii niemówiących dzieci z autyzmem – zastosowanie programu Mówik. Biuletyn Logopedyczny, 33, 169–193.

Dawidek, E. (2024). Pozycjonowanie urządzeń technologicznych we wspomagających i w alternatywnych metodach komunikacji AAC. Forum Logopedy, listopad–grudzień, 31–37.

Grabias, S. (2019). Język w zachowaniach społecznych. Wydawnictwo UMCS.

Laudańska, Z., van der Venne, P., Preis, H., Sachse, S., Schaaf, C. P., Borjon, J. I., D’Souza, H., Holzinger, D., Haman, E., Mani, N., Poustka, L., Zhang, D., & Marschik, P. B. (2026). Communicative Development Inventories (CDIs) in etiologically diverse developmental conditions: A systematic review. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 170, 105256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2026.105256

Light, J. C., & McNaughton, D. (2014). Communicative competence for individuals who require augmentative and alternative communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 30(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3109/07434618.2014.885080

Martin, G. E., Klusek, J., Estigarribia, B., & Roberts, J. E. (2009). Language characteristics of individuals with Down syndrome. Topics in Language Disorders, 29(2), 112–132. https://doi.org/10.1097/TLD.0b013e3181a71fe1

Michalik, M. (2018). Translokacja jako mechanizm logopedyczny. Wydawnictwo Naukowe UP.

Pearson, E., Wilde, L., Heald, M., Royston, R., & Oliver, C. (2019). Communication in Angelman syndrome: A scoping review. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 62(2), 160–169. https://doi.org/10.1111/dmcn.14257

Romski, M., Sevcik, R. A., Barton-Hulsey, A., & Whitmore, A. S. (2015). Early intervention and AAC: What a difference 30 years makes. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 31(3), 181–202. https://doi.org/10.3109/07434618.2015.1064163

Rutka, P. (2021). Jak przygotowywać partnerów komunikacyjnych użytkownika AAC? Terapia Specjalna Dzieci i Dorosłych, grudzień 2021–styczeń 2022, 16–21.

Rutka, P., & Włodarczyk, K. (2020). Modeluj AAC! Terapia Specjalna Dzieci i Dorosłych, czerwiec–lipiec 2020, 45–52.

Sennott, S. C., Light, J. C., & McNaughton, D. (2016). AAC modeling intervention research review. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 41(2), 101–115. https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796916638822

Singer Harris, N. G., Bellugi, U., Bates, E., Jones, W., & Rossen, M. L. (1997). Contrasting profiles of language development in children with Williams and Down syndromes. Developmental Neuropsychology, 13(3), 345–370. https://doi.org/10.1080/87565649709540683

Townend, G. S., Bartl-Pokorny, K. D., Sigafoos, J., Didden, R., Curfs, L. M. G., & Lantman-de Valk, H. M. J. V. (2020). Development of consensus-based guidelines for managing communication of individuals with Rett syndrome. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 64(2), 151–163. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434618.2020.1785009

von Tetzchner, S., Martinsen, H., & Stadskleiv, K. (2025). Augmentative and alternative communication for children, adolescents and adults with developmental disorders. Routledge.