Communication board

Communication boards are one form of aided AAC

The ASHA AAC Practice Portal lists communication boards and books among low-tech or light-tech aided AAC. A board may be printed on paper, laminated, mounted, attached to a wheelchair tray, displayed on fabric, or presented digitally without speech output.

A visual schedule mainly shows sequence. A choice board presents available options. A message board lets the person create or select language. One display may serve several functions, so describe its actual use.

Selection method is part of the board

ASHA describes two broad selection routes. In direct selection, the person chooses a symbol through touch, pointing, eye gaze, a head movement, a light pointer, or another independently detected action. In indirect selection, items are presented in a sequence and the person selects through a previously agreed signal or switch.

Partner-assisted scanning is one indirect method. The partner presents options in a stable order, and the person uses an established response such as a blink, vocalization, nod, or movement. Record the option order, selection signal, confirmation and correction method, pace, and what happens when either person is unsure. The partner presents and acknowledges choices while the person authors the selection.

The ASHA communication-aids page includes whiteboards and letter boards among low-tech communication aids and links to a partner-assisted yes-or-no system. A low-tech tool can be a main system or a backup for a speech-generating device.

Board design should support more than choosing

A board limited to snacks and preferred activities restricts what the person can say. Include language for greeting, commenting, asking, refusing, stopping, reporting pain, requesting help, sharing information, repairing misunderstanding, and connecting socially. The person may need letters or words for novel messages alongside fast, familiar phrases.

Ask how the team selected:

• board size, symbol size, spacing, contrast, lighting, and viewing distance
• touch, point, eye gaze, switch, scan, or another access method
• languages, dialects, spelling, symbols, labels, and vocabulary organization
• placement, positioning, portability, durability, cleaning, and privacy
• a confirmation signal, correction route, partner wait time, and breakdown repair
• copies for relevant settings plus a process for updating vocabulary

Trial the board across people, activities, times, and environments, and collect the person's view of comfort, effort, vocabulary, and control.

Communication access remains available throughout the day

ASHA says people who use AAC should always have access to their communication tools or devices. Keep a board visible and reachable in the settings where the person needs it. Provide an accessible backup during charging, repair, bathing, travel, outdoor activity, or emergency response.

Partners should accept speech, gesture, sign, vocalization, body movement, writing, and other reliable forms alongside the board. Avoid requiring a board selection before honoring a clear message. Food, water, bathroom use, movement, pain care, relationships, safety, and prescribed supports stay available regardless of performance.

A letter board does not identify the method

A person can independently use a letter board through direct selection or a defined scanning method. The physical board alone says nothing about who authored a message.

ASHA's Facilitated Communication position statement calls FC a discredited technique and says information obtained through FC should not be considered the communication of the person with a disability. In FC, a facilitator supplies physical or other support that can influence selection.

ASHA's Rapid Prompting Method position statement covers RPM and related “letterboarding” or “Spelling to Communicate” procedures. ASHA does not recommend RPM because of prompt dependency and lack of scientific validity, and says its output should not be assumed to be the person's communication. Families can ask who holds or moves the board, which prompts occur, how the selection is independently detected, and how authorship was evaluated.

Respect for communicative potential belongs with independently assessable access, varied communication options, and the person's right to accept, decline, correct, or stop.

School teams make individualized assistive-technology decisions

The U.S. Department of Education's 2024 assistive-technology letter identifies AAC devices as possible assistive technology for eligible children under IDEA. The relevant Part C or individualized education program team determines need through the applicable process.

If a board is required for school access, clarify availability across classes, meals, transport, activities, home, and emergencies. Assign design, copies, updates, repair, training, privacy, and transition.

The team should preserve the person's authorship

A speech-language pathologist with AAC expertise can assess language and communication access within competence and licensure. Occupational, physical, vision, hearing, education, and assistive-technology professionals may contribute. A behavior analyst can help define observable access and partner actions within scope while coordinating with the communication lead. The person and family identify meaningful messages, contexts, preferences, and unacceptable supports.

Partners can model on their own copy, provide access, wait, and respond naturally. Avoid guessing, steering the board, or treating silence as consent.

A fictional example measures access and response separately

Samira is a fictional eleven-year-old who uses speech, gesture, and a symbol-and-letter board. Across ten planned after-school routines, the board is positioned and reachable at the first check in 9 of 10 routines, or 90%. The missing board stays recorded as an environmental gap.

During the nine access-ready routines, the team identifies 18 eligible opportunities to ask, comment, refuse, report a problem, or repair a message. Samira communicates a recognizable message through any agreed mode in 12 of 18, or 66.7%. Partners acknowledge or act on 11 of 12 messages, or 91.7%, within a fictional ten-second window. Six no-message opportunities sit outside that conditional partner-response denominator.

Samira rates six routines workable, two tiring, and one frustrating. The small one-week sample has no baseline or comparator and cannot show a board effect. It helps the team investigate access, vocabulary, fatigue, partner response, and Samira's experience.

Measures should identify board and partner barriers

Report access-ready routines divided by routines checked; independently detectable selections by message purpose; recognizable messages divided by defined opportunities; partner responses divided by emitted messages; repair success; access failures; time and effort; and the person's rating. Define every event, denominator, response window, prompt, setting, inclusion rule, and observer procedure.

Pair percentages with examples and the person's feedback. A high selection count can coexist with narrow vocabulary, excessive prompting, physical effort, or ignored dissent. Review board design, environment, partner behavior, and team training before assigning difficulty to the person.