AAC Use & Outcomes

Family-Reported Outcomes: A snapshot of AAC users

Prepared by
Carlee DeYoung, PhD
Research & Insights Manager
August 2026

Focus

Much of the AAC outcomes literature relies on small samples observed over short windows. This snapshot summarizes what caregivers of QuickTalker Freestyle users report noticing across functional communication, language understanding, and behavior over one year of a family-reported outcomes survey. It is descriptive, caregiver-report data, not a controlled efficacy study, offered as one data source among many an SLP might weigh.

Respondents

Respondents were caregivers of individuals using the QuickTalker Freestyle or Freestyle Mini, surveyed roughly 1, 2, or 3 years after receiving their device (September 2025–March 2026). The sample includes 5,785 caregivers. Ninety percent of the individuals they support are under age 18 (median age 7), and the three most common diagnoses are mixed receptive-expressive language disorder, autism spectrum disorder, and expressive language disorder. Sample sizes vary by question due to skip logic and survey respondent drop off and are noted per finding.

Key Findings

  • Requesting is the most commonly reported communication gain. 81% of caregivers reported an increase in their loved one’s requesting behavior, the most frequently reported gain across the six communication functions measured; 2% reported a decrease and 15% reported no change (n = 4,043).
  • Language comprehension gains were reported more often than expressive gains, but are harder to track. 78% of caregivers said their loved one’s understanding of language increased since starting device use, while 20% saw no change (n = 3,859).
  • Frustration and challenging behavior improved for a majority, but not all, families. 55% of caregivers reported a decrease in frustration and challenging behavior, 36% reported no change, and 10% reported an increase, a reminder that behavior change is not a guaranteed outcome of introducing AAC. This pattern is consistent with prior findings that AAC use is associated with reduced challenging behavior in many, though not all, cases (Walker & Snell, 2013) (n = 3,935).
  • AAC use is coinciding with more talking, not less, for most families already using some speech. Among caregivers whose loved one already used some verbal speech, 72% reported an increase in verbal speech since starting device use and 26% reported no change, addressing a common concern that AAC use will replace rather than support spoken language, a concern the broader literature has also found little support for (Millar, Light, & Schlosser, 2006) (n = 3,016).

Takeaways

These findings support treating AAC adoption as a gradual, multi-domain process rather than a single skill to master, and as an outcome that unfolds differently across families. The strength of the requesting gain suggests early functional wins are common and worth naming for families navigating the early learning curve, while the frustration and behavior data suggest AAC can function as a communication-first behavior strategy, though not a guaranteed one. The verbal speech finding offers a concrete, evidence-based response to a concern many families raise early in intervention. And the spread in caregiver-reported experience, most positive but a meaningful minority not, is a reminder to keep checking in with families well past the initial fitting rather than assuming a good match at delivery holds indefinitely. 

Methodology

  • Source: AbleNet Family-Reported Outcomes survey, distributed via SurveyMonkey to caregivers of QuickTalker Freestyle and Freestyle Mini users.
  • Sample: N = 5,785 unique caregiver respondents, collected across four survey waves during Year 1 of the FRO program (September 2025–March 2026). Respondents span a range of device tenure, from under one year to three years of ownership.
  • Segment definition: Respondents indicated current use of the QuickTalker Freestyle or Freestyle Mini. Individual question sample sizes range from roughly 3,600 to 5,785 due to skip logic and natural survey drop off (for example, follow-up questions about communication function apply only to caregivers who indicated ongoing device use).
  • Limitations: Findings reflect caregiver perception rather than clinician observation or standardized assessment, and represent a self-selected group of caregivers willing to complete the survey. This snapshot reports Year 1 aggregate findings only; future snapshots will explore breakdowns by age, diagnosis, device tenure, and geography.

References

Millar, D. C., Light, J. C., & Schlosser, R. W. (2006). The impact of augmentative and alternative communication intervention on the speech production of individuals with developmental disabilities: A research review. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49(2), 248–264. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2006/021)

Walker, V. L., & Snell, M. E. (2013). Effects of augmentative and alternative communication on challenging behavior: A meta-analysis. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 29(2), 117–131. https://doi.org/10.3109/07434618.2013.785020