Early intervention speech-language pathologists’ beliefs and practices related to assessing dual language learners

IF 1.8 3区 医学 Q2 AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY Journal of Communication Disorders Pub Date : 2024-09-28 DOI:10.1016/j.jcomdis.2024.106470
Rebecca L. Jarzynski , Milijana Buac
{"title":"Early intervention speech-language pathologists’ beliefs and practices related to assessing dual language learners","authors":"Rebecca L. Jarzynski ,&nbsp;Milijana Buac","doi":"10.1016/j.jcomdis.2024.106470","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>Early intervention (EI) speech-language pathologists (SLPs) are required to provide culturally and linguistically responsive assessments for dual language learners (DLLs). However, SLPs consistently report feeling underprepared to assess DLLs and research demonstrates gaps in implementation of best practices in pediatric outpatient and school-based settings. This study was designed to understand EI SLPs’ beliefs and practices related to assessing DLLs referred to early intervention programs.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A total of 132 EI SLPs completed a survey in which they were asked to describe their assessment procedures for a DLL case scenario and were further asked to identify the degree to which they agreed with a variety of assessment practices for assessing DLLs.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Results revealed that EI SLPs’ beliefs aligned with best practices for assessing DLLs. However, substantial gaps exist between EI SLPs’ beliefs and their self-reported practices for assessing DLLs.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>These results suggest DLLs may not be receiving evidence-based EI assessments, leading to the potential perpetuation of both over- and under-diagnosis of speech and language delays within this population. Implications include the need to increase the quality of EI SLPs assessment practices through additional training, the removal of systems-level barriers, and the continued need for increased training within preprofessional training programs.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49175,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Communication Disorders","volume":"112 ","pages":"Article 106470"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Communication Disorders","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021992424000662","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

Early intervention (EI) speech-language pathologists (SLPs) are required to provide culturally and linguistically responsive assessments for dual language learners (DLLs). However, SLPs consistently report feeling underprepared to assess DLLs and research demonstrates gaps in implementation of best practices in pediatric outpatient and school-based settings. This study was designed to understand EI SLPs’ beliefs and practices related to assessing DLLs referred to early intervention programs.

Methods

A total of 132 EI SLPs completed a survey in which they were asked to describe their assessment procedures for a DLL case scenario and were further asked to identify the degree to which they agreed with a variety of assessment practices for assessing DLLs.

Results

Results revealed that EI SLPs’ beliefs aligned with best practices for assessing DLLs. However, substantial gaps exist between EI SLPs’ beliefs and their self-reported practices for assessing DLLs.

Conclusions

These results suggest DLLs may not be receiving evidence-based EI assessments, leading to the potential perpetuation of both over- and under-diagnosis of speech and language delays within this population. Implications include the need to increase the quality of EI SLPs assessment practices through additional training, the removal of systems-level barriers, and the continued need for increased training within preprofessional training programs.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
早期干预言语病理学家对评估双语学习者的信念和实践。
简介:早期干预(EI)要求言语病理学家(SLPs)为双语学习者(DLLs)提供文化和语言方面的评估。然而,言语语言病理学家一直表示,他们对评估双语学习者准备不足,而且研究表明,在儿科门诊和学校环境中,最佳实践的实施存在差距。本研究旨在了解幼儿教育辅助语言教师在评估转介至早期干预项目的 DLLs 时的相关信念和实践:共有 132 名早期干预辅助语言教师完成了一项调查,他们被要求描述他们对 DLL 案例的评估程序,并被进一步要求确定他们对评估 DLL 的各种评估方法的认同程度:结果显示,EI SLPs 的信念与评估 DLLs 的最佳实践一致。然而,在评估 DLLs 方面,EI SLPs 的信念与他们自我报告的实践之间存在很大差距:这些结果表明,DLL 儿童可能没有接受以证据为基础的 EI 评估,从而导致这一人群中言语和语言障碍的过度诊断和诊断不足的情况可能长期存在。其影响包括:需要通过额外的培训、消除系统层面的障碍来提高语言智能辅助治疗师的评估实践质量,以及继续需要在专业前培训课程中加强培训。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Communication Disorders
Journal of Communication Disorders AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY-REHABILITATION
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
5.90%
发文量
71
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Communication Disorders publishes original articles on topics related to disorders of speech, language and hearing. Authors are encouraged to submit reports of experimental or descriptive investigations (research articles), review articles, tutorials or discussion papers, or letters to the editor ("short communications"). Please note that we do not accept case studies unless they conform to the principles of single-subject experimental design. Special issues are published periodically on timely and clinically relevant topics.
期刊最新文献
Dynamic assessment of word learning as a predictor of response to vocabulary intervention Editorial Board Shifting from a female-dominated profession: The perceptions and experiences of male students in communication sciences and disorders Cognitive processing biases of social anxiety in adults who do and do not stutter Linguistic factors associated with stuttering-like disfluencies in Japanese preschool and school-aged children who stutter
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1