Feature Matching AAC Apps: What the Research Actually Says (And Why Your Facebook Group Can't Replace It)
By Melba Acey, MS CCC-SLP | AAC Adventure
You're sitting across from a client — maybe a four-year-old with autism and fewer than ten functional words. Maybe a twelve-year-old with cerebral palsy who has been pointing and gesturing their whole life and deserves so much more. Maybe an adult post-stroke who lost the speech they had for sixty years overnight.
You know, in your clinical gut, that this person needs AAC. You know trials need to happen. You know the family is looking at you for answers.
And then comes that quiet, slightly panicked thought that nobody warns you about in grad school:
Where do I even start?
If you've ever felt that — you're not alone. And you're not a bad SLP. You're an honest one.
The AAC landscape is genuinely overwhelming. There are 55+ apps and dedicated devices on the market. They all have different vocabulary systems, different access options, different motor planning philosophies, different funding pathways. Every device rep thinks their product is the answer. Every Facebook group has seventeen different opinions. And somewhere in the middle of all of it is your client — waiting.
Here's the good news: there's a research-supported process for exactly this moment. It's called feature matching. And once you understand it, that "where do I even start?" feeling gets a whole lot smaller.
Feature Matching: The Clinical GPS for AAC Trials
Feature matching is the process of gathering information about a communicator's needs, skills, and environment — and systematically matching that information to the features of potential AAC systems (Beukelman & Mirenda, 2013; Gosnell, Costello, & Shane, 2011).
Think of it as your clinical GPS. You wouldn't start a road trip by just picking a random direction and hoping for the best. You'd enter your destination, look at the route options, and choose the one that fits your specific situation — traffic, distance, whether you need to stop for gas.
Feature matching is the same idea. Before you trial anything, you gather information. Before you gather information, you know what you're looking for. And before you know what you're looking for, you understand the framework.
That framework is the Participation Model (Beukelman & Mirenda, 1988; 2013) — the foundational AAC assessment approach that guides our field. It asks us to look at two kinds of barriers:
Opportunity barriers — external factors that limit a person's access to communication opportunities (attitudes, policies, lack of partner training)
Access barriers — the individual's own skills, needs, and the fit of the AAC system itself
Feature matching lives in the access barriers domain. And it requires us to look at the whole picture — not just one piece of it.
The Five Questions That Drive Feature Matching
When I sit down to start feature matching for a client, these are the five questions I'm always asking. They're grounded in the research and they cut through the overwhelm fast.
1. How will this person physically access the device?
This is your starting point. Everything else follows from here.
Access method matching should happen before you choose any app. Switch scanning, eye gaze, head tracking, keyguard-supported direct touch, and standard direct touch are not interchangeable — and not all apps handle each method equally well.
Some apps were designed for direct touch and scanning is an afterthought. Others have built-in scanning paths optimized for efficiency. Eye gaze is only truly built-in on certain dedicated devices — like the Tobii Dynavox TD I-Series. Keyguards are only available for certain apps and certain grid sizes.
Matching the access method first narrows your entire app list immediately. And it protects your client from being trialed on something they literally cannot use reliably.
Ask yourself: Is this direct touch? Touch with support? Switch? Eye gaze? Head tracking? When in doubt — assess motor access first before you ever open an app.
2. How important is motor planning?
Motor planning refers to developing consistent, repeatable motor sequences to access vocabulary. For communicators with motor learning differences — including those with childhood apraxia of speech, cerebral palsy, or who are simply strong motor learners — the motor planning philosophy of the AAC system matters enormously.
Systems built on Minspeak — like LAMP Words for Life and Unity — are designed around one core principle: every word has ONE unique, consistent motor plan that never changes. Once that movement pattern is learned, it becomes automatic. Like typing. You don't think about where the letters are — your fingers just know.
Other systems organize vocabulary differently and work beautifully for many communicators. But if motor consistency is a priority for your client, that has to be part of your feature matching — not an afterthought.
Ask yourself: Is motor automaticity and consistent vocabulary location a clinical priority for this person? Your answer changes your short list significantly.
3. What is this person's language level — and where are they going?
Feature matching isn't just about where a communicator is today. It's about where they're headed.
The Participation Model explicitly asks us to make two sets of AAC decisions — one for today and one for tomorrow. This matters because we know communication development doesn't happen overnight. We need a system that can grow with the communicator — not one they'll outgrow in six months.
This means considering:
Current language level (pre-intentional, emerging, multi-word, phrase, literate)
Literacy skills and trajectory — is spelling or word prediction going to matter?
Vocabulary depth — does this person need 500 words or 10,000?
Gestalt language processing — are they a GLP learner whose language acquisition looks different from analytic learners?
That last one deserves its own moment. If you work with gestalt language processors, feature matching gets a layer more complex — and most traditional frameworks don't address it. GLP learners acquire language in whole chunks first. For these communicators, the question isn't just "what vocabulary system?" but "does this system's organization and navigation support how this person actually acquires language?"
Ask yourself: Where is this person today — and where do I reasonably expect them to be in one, two, five years? Does this system have room to grow with them?
4. What platform and funding pathway is realistic?
This is the practical question that gets skipped more than it should.
An iPad app might be perfect clinically — but if this family is pursuing Medicaid funding for a dedicated speech-generating device, you need to be trialing dedicated devices too. Insurance-fundable dedicated devices from Tobii Dynavox, PRC-Saltillo, and Smartbox are fundamentally different products from consumer iPad apps — even when they run the same vocabulary software.
Platform matters too. iOS and Android aren't always interchangeable. Some apps are iOS only. Some families don't own Apple products. Some schools are Android-based. Some communicators need the durability, warranty, and repair pathway that only a dedicated device provides.
Ask yourself: What funding pathway is this family pursuing? What platform is realistic for their daily life? Does the device need to be ruggedized, waterproof, mountable?
5. Are there any special considerations that change everything?
These are the features that get overlooked — and when they're missed, device abandonment follows.
Keyguards — if motor accuracy is a concern, does this app have a keyguard available? For which grid sizes? From whom? (PRC-Saltillo includes a keyguard with NovaChat purchases. Not every manufacturer does.)
Bilingual needs — does this family communicate in more than one language? Not all apps support this equally. CoughDrop supports 27+ languages. Some apps are English-only.
Cortical Visual Impairment (CVI) — standard symbol displays may not work for CVI. Grid size, contrast, and visual complexity matter enormously.
Aphasia — communication after stroke or TBI requires a different vocabulary organization approach than developmental AAC. Some apps have specific aphasia page sets. Many don't.
Cost — a family with no insurance coverage for AAC needs different options than a family with strong funding support. There's no shame in this being a feature.
Ask yourself: Is there anything about this communicator's profile that immediately rules something in — or out?
Why Getting This Right Is More Important Than You Think
Here's the part that I don't think we talk about enough in our field.
Device abandonment remains common even though AAC is considered an evidence-based intervention. Researchers have consistently found that poor feature matching — failing to adequately match the physical, cognitive, and communication profile of the person to the features of the system — is a significant contributing factor to devices ending up unused (Kovacs, McCaw, & Skerry, 2023; Moorcroft, Scarinci, & Meyer, 2019).
These are devices that families fought for. That funding bodies negotiated. That evaluators spent hours recommending. And they end up in a backpack.
The research is also clear on the flip side: a well-matched device, chosen and implemented in partnership with the communicator and their caregivers, is likely to be a well-used device (Medbridge, 2025).
Feature matching isn't paperwork. It's the clinical process that stands between your client and a device that actually works for them versus one that doesn't.
The Honest Part
I want to be real with you for a second.
Feature matching is hard. Even for experienced AAC SLPs. The landscape changes constantly — new apps, new vocabulary systems, new dedicated devices, new research. Holding all of that in your head while also doing the evaluation, talking to the family, observing the child, and writing the report is a lot.
That's not a failure of clinical skill. That's just the reality of a field that is growing faster than any one person can keep up with alone.
The research recommends trialing at least three different AAC options for every communicator (University of Colorado Boulder, n.d.). Three options — systematically selected based on matched features. That's the standard. And meeting that standard requires knowing what's out there.
Which is exactly why I built something to help.
Where Do You Even Start?
Start Here.
The AAC Matchmaker is an interactive clinical tool that takes your communicator's profile and gives you 5 evidence-informed, feature-matched starting points in under 5 minutes.
Answer questions about:
Access method
Motor planning needs
Language level and literacy
Platform and funding pathway
Vocabulary style
Special considerations like bilingual needs, CVI, aphasia, keyguards, and cost
And get back:
5 ranked app and device recommendations
The specific vocabulary or page set recommended for each
Access method details — switch, eye gaze, keyguard specifics
Motor planning notes
Funding pathway flags for insurance-fundable dedicated devices
A confidence rating — strong, partial, or low match — so you know exactly how to interpret your results
A "why this app" clinical rationale you can reference in your documentation
It doesn't replace your clinical judgment. It gives you a faster, more organized starting point so you can spend your energy on what actually matters — your client.
Not sure yet? Try the free version first.
The free preview gives you your #1 ranked match with full clinical notes — no commitment, no credit card.
👉 Try the AAC Matchmaker Free →
Ready to stop starting from scratch on every eval?
👉 Get All 5 Matches — AAC Matchmaker Full Tool → $47 one-time · Lifetime access · 55+ apps and devices · All future updates included
Because "where do I even start?" deserves a real answer. 🎯
References
Beukelman, D. R., & Mirenda, P. (2013). Augmentative and alternative communication: Supporting children and adults with complex communication needs (4th ed.). Paul H. Brookes.
Gosnell, J., Costello, J., & Shane, H. (2011). Using a clinical approach to answer "What communication apps should we use?" Perspectives on Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 20(3), 87–96. https://doi.org/10.1044/aac20.3.87
Kovacs, T., McCaw, N., & Skerry, N. (2023). Rethinking device abandonment: A capability approach focused model. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 39(3), 185–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434618.2023.2199859
Moorcroft, A., Scarinci, N., & Meyer, C. (2019). A systematic review of the barriers and facilitators to the provision and use of low-tech and unaided AAC systems for people with complex communication needs and their families. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 14(7), 710–731.
University of Colorado Boulder, Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences. (n.d.). AAC feature matching overview. https://www.colorado.edu/slhs/aac-feature-matching-overview
Medbridge. (2025). Beating the odds in AAC device abandonment. https://www.medbridge.com/blog/beating-the-odds-in-aac-device-abandonment
Melba Acey, MS CCC-SLP is an ASHA-certified speech-language pathologist and AAC specialist with 20+ years of experience. She is the owner of Rocket City Speech Therapy in Huntsville, Alabama and the founder of AAC Adventure.
Follow along: @aac_adventure | aacadventure.com
⚠️ Clinical disclaimer: The AAC Matchmaker provides evidence-informed starting points for device trials — not clinical prescriptions. Feature matching is one component of a comprehensive AAC evaluation. Clinical judgment, hands-on trials, and input from the communicator and their full team are always required.
