A narrative review on analysing and reporting research conducted using Talking Mats^®, an inclusive communication tool

Article type: Research Article

Authors: Hayden, Nikita^{a; b; c} | Bradshaw, Jill^{d; *} | Hayward, Sarah^{e; f} | Murphy, Joan^g | Boa, Sally^h | Eden, Viktoriaⁱ | Alm, Norman^j | Pampoulou, Eliadaⁱ | Mischo, Susanne^k

Affiliations: [a] School of Education, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK | [b] iHuman, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK | [c] CIDD, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK | [d] Tizard Centre, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK | [e] Language and Cognition, University College London, London, UK | [f] Oxleas NHS Foundation Trust, Bexley, UK | [g] Independent Academic, Scotland, UK | [h] Strathcarron Hospice, Fankerton, Scotland, UK | [i] Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, Cyprus University of Technology, Limassol, Cyprus | [j] School of Science and Engineering, University of Dundee, Dundee, Scotland, UK | [k] Department Rehabilitation and Special Education, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany

Correspondence: [*] Corresponding author: Jill Bradshaw, Tizard Centre, Cornwallis North East, University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent, CT2 7NF, UK. E-mail: j.bradshaw@kent.ac.uk.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Talking Mats® is a visual communication tool which can support people to express their views. Talking Mats has been used in research as a more inclusive data collection tool, however, analysing the varied data produced by Talking Mats is challenging, and there is a lack of guidance on how to analyse and report these data. OBJECTIVE: We sought to provide an overview of ways in which Talking Mats data have been analysed and reported. METHODS: We conducted a narrative review of studies that reported using Talking Mats to collect empirical data, to examine how these studies analysed and reported these data. RESULTS: Studies used qualitative analysis techniques, such as: thematic, content, conversation, and framework analysis. Studies also reported clinical and research case studies and observations of non-verbal communication. Quantitative analyses were used less often, and involved transforming qualitative data into quantitative data (e.g., observing symbol placements). Many studies did not describe their methods in sufficient depth. CONCLUSIONS: We developed the Talking Mats Reporting Criteria to support researchers and practitioners to describe their Talking Mats protocols. These Reporting Criteria were developed iteratively and collaboratively between Talking Mats experts and members of the Talking Mats Research Network. Researchers and practitioners should describe their analytical approach in further detail and report the Talking Mats Effectiveness Framework of Functional Communication.

Keywords: Communication support needs, Talking Mats, qualitative and quantitative analysis, inclusive research, methodology

DOI: 10.3233/TAD-230024

Journal: Technology and Disability, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 69-84, 2024