To better understand current tangible symbol usage in the United States, we conducted an online survey of direct service providers and family members. Questions focused on demographics of respondents, where and with whom tangible symbols were used, how they implemented tangible symbols, perceived limitations and suggestions related to commercially available tangible symbols, and training resources and needs. We analyzed results from 107 respondents, including 59 service providers who have implemented a commercially available universal tangible symbol set with emergent communicators, using descriptive statistics. Respondents included a range of provider types who all implemented tangible symbols with individuals with visual impairment and a variety of additional diagnoses, but only three family members. Our results demonstrated that implementation approaches varied, and tangible symbols for choices and schedules were most likely to be used, though learners relied on other communication forms as well. Respondents indicated that they value standardization and individualization, noting that they have the capacity to use both approaches to tangible symbol selection. We share implications for designing tangible symbols and developing professional training.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Brady et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: