Effects of word prediction and location of word prediction list on text entry with children with spina bifida and hydrocephalus

In this study, a single-subject alternating-treatments design was used to evaluate the effect of word prediction on the rate and accuracy of text entry and to compare the effect of location of a word prediction list on the rate and accuracy of text entry. Three locations were evaluated: upper right...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Augmentative and alternative communication 2002, Vol.18 (3), p.147-162
Hauptverfasser: Tam, Cynthia, Reid, Denise, Naumann, Stephen, O'Keefe, Bernard
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 162
container_issue 3
container_start_page 147
container_title Augmentative and alternative communication
container_volume 18
creator Tam, Cynthia
Reid, Denise
Naumann, Stephen
O'Keefe, Bernard
description In this study, a single-subject alternating-treatments design was used to evaluate the effect of word prediction on the rate and accuracy of text entry and to compare the effect of location of a word prediction list on the rate and accuracy of text entry. Three locations were evaluated: upper right corner, following the cursor, and lower middle border. KeyREP© was the word prediction software used in this study. Three girls and one boy aged 10 to 12 years with spina bifida and hydrocephalus participated in the study over a period of 20 days. The rates and accuracy of text entry were measured on a copy-writing task. It was found that word prediction did not improve the rates of text entry but did improve the accuracy of text entry when the prediction list was placed in the lower middle border. Statistically, there was no difference in rate or accuracy when the prediction list was placed in different locations; however, three participants recorded the lowest rate, and all participants achieved lowest accuracy when the prediction list followed the cursor. The findings are discussed in terms of user characteristics, the dictionary used in the software, and the nature of the writing task (copying text) because these are common factors that can affect the effectiveness of word prediction.
doi_str_mv 10.1080/07434610212331281241
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_infor</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_85350786</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>85573975</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c337t-99348b98291e33fcb43d75496ca876ede0a45e716c9c3282218e0e0f2568b0a23</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkUtLJDEUhYM4YOvMP5hFVu7KyasqqY0i4jxAmI2uQzq5oSLppEzSaK_861PabgbEmdXlcL9zuNyD0FdKzihR5BuRgouBEkYZ55QpygQ9QCsqpOy4EuoQrV6QbmHUETqu9Z4QQglhK_R87T3YVnH2-DEXh-cCLtgWcsImORyzNa_inX0MteFlNnhqGFIrO_wY2oTtFKIrkPaqziEZvA4-OPMaOe1cyRbmycRt_Yw-eRMrfHmbJ-ju-_Xt1c_u5vePX1eXN53lXLZuHLlQ61GxkQLn3q4Fd7IX42CNkgM4IEb0IOlgR8uZYowqIEA86we1JobxE3S6z51LfthCbXoTqoUYTYK8rVr1veSj7P8D5D2RalhAsQdtybUW8HouYWPKTlOiX2rR79Wy2C72tpB8LhuzPDU63cwu5uKLSTZUzf-RcP5XwgQmtsmaAvo-b0ta3vjxCX8AxGinoQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>85350786</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Effects of word prediction and location of word prediction list on text entry with children with spina bifida and hydrocephalus</title><source>Taylor &amp; Francis Medical Library - CRKN</source><source>Taylor &amp; Francis Journals Complete</source><creator>Tam, Cynthia ; Reid, Denise ; Naumann, Stephen ; O'Keefe, Bernard</creator><creatorcontrib>Tam, Cynthia ; Reid, Denise ; Naumann, Stephen ; O'Keefe, Bernard</creatorcontrib><description>In this study, a single-subject alternating-treatments design was used to evaluate the effect of word prediction on the rate and accuracy of text entry and to compare the effect of location of a word prediction list on the rate and accuracy of text entry. Three locations were evaluated: upper right corner, following the cursor, and lower middle border. KeyREP© was the word prediction software used in this study. Three girls and one boy aged 10 to 12 years with spina bifida and hydrocephalus participated in the study over a period of 20 days. The rates and accuracy of text entry were measured on a copy-writing task. It was found that word prediction did not improve the rates of text entry but did improve the accuracy of text entry when the prediction list was placed in the lower middle border. Statistically, there was no difference in rate or accuracy when the prediction list was placed in different locations; however, three participants recorded the lowest rate, and all participants achieved lowest accuracy when the prediction list followed the cursor. The findings are discussed in terms of user characteristics, the dictionary used in the software, and the nature of the writing task (copying text) because these are common factors that can affect the effectiveness of word prediction.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0743-4618</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1477-3848</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1080/07434610212331281241</identifier><identifier>CODEN: AAACEC</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Informa UK Ltd</publisher><subject>physical impairment ; single-subject design ; software ; typing rate ; word list ; word prediction ; writing aid</subject><ispartof>Augmentative and alternative communication, 2002, Vol.18 (3), p.147-162</ispartof><rights>2002 Informa UK Ltd All rights reserved: reproduction in whole or part not permitted 2002</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c337t-99348b98291e33fcb43d75496ca876ede0a45e716c9c3282218e0e0f2568b0a23</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c337t-99348b98291e33fcb43d75496ca876ede0a45e716c9c3282218e0e0f2568b0a23</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/07434610212331281241$$EPDF$$P50$$Ginformaworld$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07434610212331281241$$EHTML$$P50$$Ginformaworld$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,4022,27922,27923,27924,59646,59752,60435,60541,61220,61255,61401,61436</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Tam, Cynthia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Reid, Denise</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Naumann, Stephen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>O'Keefe, Bernard</creatorcontrib><title>Effects of word prediction and location of word prediction list on text entry with children with spina bifida and hydrocephalus</title><title>Augmentative and alternative communication</title><description>In this study, a single-subject alternating-treatments design was used to evaluate the effect of word prediction on the rate and accuracy of text entry and to compare the effect of location of a word prediction list on the rate and accuracy of text entry. Three locations were evaluated: upper right corner, following the cursor, and lower middle border. KeyREP© was the word prediction software used in this study. Three girls and one boy aged 10 to 12 years with spina bifida and hydrocephalus participated in the study over a period of 20 days. The rates and accuracy of text entry were measured on a copy-writing task. It was found that word prediction did not improve the rates of text entry but did improve the accuracy of text entry when the prediction list was placed in the lower middle border. Statistically, there was no difference in rate or accuracy when the prediction list was placed in different locations; however, three participants recorded the lowest rate, and all participants achieved lowest accuracy when the prediction list followed the cursor. The findings are discussed in terms of user characteristics, the dictionary used in the software, and the nature of the writing task (copying text) because these are common factors that can affect the effectiveness of word prediction.</description><subject>physical impairment</subject><subject>single-subject design</subject><subject>software</subject><subject>typing rate</subject><subject>word list</subject><subject>word prediction</subject><subject>writing aid</subject><issn>0743-4618</issn><issn>1477-3848</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2002</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqNkUtLJDEUhYM4YOvMP5hFVu7KyasqqY0i4jxAmI2uQzq5oSLppEzSaK_861PabgbEmdXlcL9zuNyD0FdKzihR5BuRgouBEkYZ55QpygQ9QCsqpOy4EuoQrV6QbmHUETqu9Z4QQglhK_R87T3YVnH2-DEXh-cCLtgWcsImORyzNa_inX0MteFlNnhqGFIrO_wY2oTtFKIrkPaqziEZvA4-OPMaOe1cyRbmycRt_Yw-eRMrfHmbJ-ju-_Xt1c_u5vePX1eXN53lXLZuHLlQ61GxkQLn3q4Fd7IX42CNkgM4IEb0IOlgR8uZYowqIEA86we1JobxE3S6z51LfthCbXoTqoUYTYK8rVr1veSj7P8D5D2RalhAsQdtybUW8HouYWPKTlOiX2rR79Wy2C72tpB8LhuzPDU63cwu5uKLSTZUzf-RcP5XwgQmtsmaAvo-b0ta3vjxCX8AxGinoQ</recordid><startdate>2002</startdate><enddate>2002</enddate><creator>Tam, Cynthia</creator><creator>Reid, Denise</creator><creator>Naumann, Stephen</creator><creator>O'Keefe, Bernard</creator><general>Informa UK Ltd</general><general>Taylor &amp; Francis</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>8BM</scope><scope>7T9</scope></search><sort><creationdate>2002</creationdate><title>Effects of word prediction and location of word prediction list on text entry with children with spina bifida and hydrocephalus</title><author>Tam, Cynthia ; Reid, Denise ; Naumann, Stephen ; O'Keefe, Bernard</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c337t-99348b98291e33fcb43d75496ca876ede0a45e716c9c3282218e0e0f2568b0a23</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2002</creationdate><topic>physical impairment</topic><topic>single-subject design</topic><topic>software</topic><topic>typing rate</topic><topic>word list</topic><topic>word prediction</topic><topic>writing aid</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Tam, Cynthia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Reid, Denise</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Naumann, Stephen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>O'Keefe, Bernard</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ComDisDome</collection><collection>Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA)</collection><jtitle>Augmentative and alternative communication</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Tam, Cynthia</au><au>Reid, Denise</au><au>Naumann, Stephen</au><au>O'Keefe, Bernard</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Effects of word prediction and location of word prediction list on text entry with children with spina bifida and hydrocephalus</atitle><jtitle>Augmentative and alternative communication</jtitle><date>2002</date><risdate>2002</risdate><volume>18</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>147</spage><epage>162</epage><pages>147-162</pages><issn>0743-4618</issn><eissn>1477-3848</eissn><coden>AAACEC</coden><abstract>In this study, a single-subject alternating-treatments design was used to evaluate the effect of word prediction on the rate and accuracy of text entry and to compare the effect of location of a word prediction list on the rate and accuracy of text entry. Three locations were evaluated: upper right corner, following the cursor, and lower middle border. KeyREP© was the word prediction software used in this study. Three girls and one boy aged 10 to 12 years with spina bifida and hydrocephalus participated in the study over a period of 20 days. The rates and accuracy of text entry were measured on a copy-writing task. It was found that word prediction did not improve the rates of text entry but did improve the accuracy of text entry when the prediction list was placed in the lower middle border. Statistically, there was no difference in rate or accuracy when the prediction list was placed in different locations; however, three participants recorded the lowest rate, and all participants achieved lowest accuracy when the prediction list followed the cursor. The findings are discussed in terms of user characteristics, the dictionary used in the software, and the nature of the writing task (copying text) because these are common factors that can affect the effectiveness of word prediction.</abstract><pub>Informa UK Ltd</pub><doi>10.1080/07434610212331281241</doi><tpages>16</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0743-4618
ispartof Augmentative and alternative communication, 2002, Vol.18 (3), p.147-162
issn 0743-4618
1477-3848
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_85350786
source Taylor & Francis Medical Library - CRKN; Taylor & Francis Journals Complete
subjects physical impairment
single-subject design
software
typing rate
word list
word prediction
writing aid
title Effects of word prediction and location of word prediction list on text entry with children with spina bifida and hydrocephalus
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-10T13%3A24%3A18IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_infor&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Effects%20of%20word%20prediction%20and%20location%20of%20word%20prediction%20list%20on%20text%20entry%20with%20children%20with%20spina%20bifida%20and%20hydrocephalus&rft.jtitle=Augmentative%20and%20alternative%20communication&rft.au=Tam,%20Cynthia&rft.date=2002&rft.volume=18&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=147&rft.epage=162&rft.pages=147-162&rft.issn=0743-4618&rft.eissn=1477-3848&rft.coden=AAACEC&rft_id=info:doi/10.1080/07434610212331281241&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_infor%3E85573975%3C/proquest_infor%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=85350786&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true