Social media experiences of adolescents with communication disability
A structured interview pilot study
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 22414633 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Nichola Shelton (0000-0003-3162-8338, The University of Sydney, corresponding author), Natalie Munro (0000-0001-9694-9701, The University of Sydney), Julia Starling (0000-0001-7909-6102, The University of Sydney), Lyn Tieu (0000-0003-2794-7977, University of Toronto), Rebecca Sutherland (0000-0002-4522-058X, The University of Sydney), Melanie Keep (0000-0001-9516-0303, The University of Sydney) |
| Year | 2026 |
| Publication date | 2026-04-09 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Child Language Teaching and Therapy (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0265-6590 • E-ISSN: 1477-0865 |
| Publisher | SAGE Publications (PUBLISHER • US) |
| DOI | 10.1177/02656590261432879 |
| OpenAlex | W7152741131 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 50 |
Purpose This pilot study aimed to evaluate a new structured interview tool, the Digital Dialogues Interview (DDI), which was designed to amplify the voices of 12- to 17-year-olds with communication disability by examining how and why they use social media. Method A three-phase design was adopted. In Phase 1, the structured interview was developed. In Phase 2, a youth advisory group of young adults ( n = 4) was consulted on the project's design and materials to be used in Phase 3. In Phase 3, structured interviews with adolescents with communication disability ( n = 5), characterised by language and/or literacy difficulties, were conducted. To evaluate both the feasibility of the DDI and the challenges associated with administering it, data were gathered on the usefulness of the data collection procedures and usability of the tool. Results The DDI posed minimal challenges for use in qualitative research with young people with communication disability. The primary theme produced through reflexive thematic analysis was that participants use social media to foster connection, while facing challenges including communication difficulties and technology issues. Conclusion This project was an important initial step in creating a tool to investigate how and why young people with communication disability use social media. The findings informed adaptations to the DDI and research procedures, highlighting the value of thorough piloting for improving trustworthiness, the depth of data generated, and ultimately listening to the experiences of young people with communication disability.
Active listening · Data collection · Focus group · Qualitative research · Reflexivity · Semi-structured interview · Social media · Thematic analysis · Usability · Assistive Technology in Communication and Mobility · Child Development and Digital Technology · Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
Co-design of eHealth Interventions With Children and Young People
Transformation of Adolescent Peer Relations in the Social Media Context
Supporting best practice in reflexive thematic analysis reporting in Palliative Medicine
Research co-design in health
Browsing, Posting, and Liking on Instagram
Psycholinguistic Markers for Specific Language Impairment (SLI)
Selfie consents, remote rapport, and Zoom debriefings
A critical review of methods for eliciting voice from children with speech, language and communication needs
The study of children with developmental language disorder beyond English
Theorizing Affordances
Young People, Social Media and Health
Collaborating With Young People
One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis
Young People, Online Networks, and Social Inclusion
Active Audiences? The Debate Progresses But Is Far From Resolved
Types of Social Media Use and Digital Stress in Early Adolescence
Online communication, social media and adolescent wellbeing
Using thematic analysis in psychology
A Step-by-Step Process of Thematic Analysis to Develop a Conceptual Model in Qualitative Research
Conducting the Pilot Study
| Citation velocity | historical |
|---|---|
| Highly cited | No |