## 2 Materials and Methods
### Focus Group  
The use of focus groups (FGs) is extensively documented in the literature, ranging from academic papers to non-academic, market-driven literature. Focus groups can be understood as a group interview in a low-pressure and non-threatening environment [84, 85]. A Focus Group (FG) has very specific characteristics and procedures to adopt, including the use of a moderator to guide the group based on pre-prepared material [84, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91]. Interactions between participants that share a set of common traits related to the study in question allow for different viewpoints on the same subject without the pressure to achieve any sort of consensus [84, 92]. Thus, FGs allow for information to be gathered that would otherwise not be possible in an in-depth one-to-one interview [89], namely, a less politically correct opinion or critique, instead of the pressure to give the interviewer the socially expected answer in an individual interview [92]. The number of FG participants varies depending on author or field of study, but there is a consensus within the research community that between 5 to 10 participants seems to be sufficient [84, 88, 89, 93]. However, these numbers are _per session_, with all authors, independently of the field, saying that more than one FG should be held and some even providing ways (ideal percentage) to calculate the total number of participants needed to achieve a representative sample that can yield the data required [85]. The results presented in this paper are those of a single FG session with SLTs and human-computer interaction (HCI) specialists that shared a common objective, namely, treating or developing solutions for children. The FG materials as well as the questionnaire were reviewed in a one-to-one informal in-depth interview with a senior SLT specialist that graciously discussed them with the first author of this paper, beforehand. This allowed for an unbiased and expert set of eyes to check both tools in regard to content, structure and detail [94]. The FG consisted of 5 specialists, two moderators and a person that was taking notes and pictures. The session ran for approximately 2 h and 30 min, was audio recorded and a transcript of the FG was later produced and sent to all present for feedback. The participants were invited and briefed by email prior to the FG session, and signed an informed consent regarding the capture of audio, images, and why and how that data would be used. The FG was divided into three phases, namely, (i) ramping-up period that also served to present the idea and why participants were invited, which ran for approximately 30 min; (ii) brainstorming and interactive session on the notion of a possible artefact that could deliver at-home activities for children with SSD, and what they, as SLTs and HCI specialists, felt was needed or could benefit the children or negatively impact them, which ran for approximately 50 min; and (iii) content validate the questionnaire described below, which ran for approximately 50 min. A coffee break occurred between the second and third phases and lasted around 20 min. The second phase consisted of a set of activities and roughly followed a structure that allowed the generation of ideas and their reduction until one meaningful approach was determined [95]. Several ideas and concepts were generated in a brainstorm activity, using sticky notes of different colours to symbolise, for example, danger (red), requirements (green), and so on. After that initial moment, the moderator, using a whiteboard, asked the participants to choose the most promising idea of an activity and develop that idea, incorporating or rejecting concepts and requirements identified in the sticky notes. When the activity was drawn on the whiteboard, new ideas were discussed and adapted, if agreed upon. In the third phase, the gathered expertise of the FG participants was used to better inform the further development and refinement of the questionnaire tool, as advised in [89].