Should We Update the Term "Complex Communication Needs"?

For the past few years, I’ve been thinking about the term Complex Communication Needs or CCN.  In the field of AAC, we have been using this term to describe individuals who benefit from AAC.  I am concerned that the term, which does not have any validation in our literature, is not the best term to use.
 
My way of looking at this is that for persons who use AAC, the need to communicate is not complex.  The need to communicate is foundational and a right.  There is an urgency in finding ways for individuals who use AAC to express their needs, not a complexity.  By putting complex communication together, this suggests that the person who is using AAC, is using complex communication.  This pairing is also not accurate since we all use different ways to communicate and we all experience communication breakdown.  Sometimes communication is simple. Sometimes it is hard to express oneself.
 
So, it is neither communication that is complex nor is it needs that are complex.  Why then are we using the term complex?


I suspect the word complex was used to describe either an individual’s access mode or that the AAC systems, the hardware and software, the strategies, can seem complex or difficult to learn and use.
 
Another challenge with using the word complex is that I think this sets up the field of AAC in the wrong light.  Using AAC may be perceived as complex to learn for both the AAC user and other stakeholders.  There may be other perceived complexities such as the upkeep to the hardware and software, positioning, choosing the best vocabulary for the individual, etc.  Those of us in the field take on these “complexities” with determination. I don’t perceive them as complexities.  This is a part of what we do to support AAC users.  This is what we do when we feature match.  This is what we do when we work with individuals and their families to find the AAC “best fit” for who that person is, where they live, who they interact with and their future goals.
 
Let’s look at an SLP who is required to differentially diagnose Velopharyngeal Incompetence, Velopharyngeal Insufficiency or Velopharyngeal Mislearning in the context of speech challenges.  The knowledge, the assessment and differential diagnosis is complex. Acquiring intervention strategies to treat these disorders takes time and experience. What might work with one individual may not work for another.  We don’t call the knowledge and skills to treat these disorders complex.  Nor do we say that these individuals have CCN.
 
What about SLPs in our graduate programs or just starting out?  Hearing the term CCN can feel overwhelming.  A new SLP may feel they don’t yet have the knowledge or skills to address individuals who have CCN and may defer or decline to work with them. The term complex may give pause to our graduate students who already feel overwhelmed during their graduate studies.
 
What about AAC users themselves?  How do they feel about the term CCN?  Does it describe their communication needs? What does the term complex mean to them?
 
Lyle Lloyd posted a useful narrative to SIG 12 on ASHA several years ago. He stated that the term CCN has been used by ISAAC for its official papers though ISAAC maintains using CCN is not required for their research and professional publications.  In the past, there have been other terms used such as Person Who Uses AAC (PWUAAC), Aided Communicators and Non-speaking Persons.  More recently, the term AAC User was mentioned on SIG 12.
 
Since writing out “a person who uses Augmentative Alternative Communication” is incredibly wordy, it makes sense to find an acronym that is universally agreed on.  Let’s brainstorm and discuss what might be a better term.  I think it is helpful in our literature to understand there are individuals who benefit from AAC, who have a need to use AAC for their communication.  Why not just use this then – individuals with AACN?  Let’s continue the discussion.