Language Speech and Hearing Services in Schools最新文献

Purpose: Spanish-speaking families are a growing population that speech-language pathologists must be prepared to work with. To provide culturally responsive intervention, speech-language pathologists (SLPs) must understand the perspectives of Spanish-speaking caregivers when providing intervention. These values and experiences may differ from those of monolingual, mainstream culture. Understanding the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on these experiences is also important. In this qualitative study, we explore the experiences of Spanish-speaking mothers whose children have received school-based speech-language intervention and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Method: We interviewed five Spanish-speaking mothers who were identified as having bilingual children who had or were currently receiving speech therapy, all through the public school system. The mothers participated in a semistructured interview to share their experiences with their children receiving intervention. We analyzed the transcripts through interpretative phenomenological analysis to identify salient themes among participants. All research team members reviewed and agreed upon themes to ensure credibility.

Results: The findings revealed six group experiential themes: (a) lack of services and frustration with and barriers to accessing services, (b) greater improvements in English compared with Spanish, (c) bilingual speech therapy has positive effects on children and Spanish-speaking mothers, (d) family involvement in speech therapy is highly important, (e) family stress related to speech difficulties, and (f) pandemic negatively impacted children's socialization and learning.

Discussion: The results are discussed in the context of equity. Through understanding the experiences of Spanish-speaking mothers, SLPs can work to ensure service levels comparable with those of monolingual children and support bilingual acquisition.

Purpose: We investigated the effectiveness of a highly individualized morphosyntactic intervention using the SHAPE CODING™ system delivered at different dosages.

Method: Eight children with developmental language disorder aged 8;0-10;10 (years;months) received 10 hr of explicit individualized intervention for morphosyntax delivered in 30-min individual sessions once per week for 20 weeks. Following at least four baseline probe tests, two grammatical targets per session received explicit instruction until they reached criterion (90%), when the next target was introduced. To control for session length and teaching episode density, either both targets received 20 teaching episodes per session or one target received 10 teaching episodes and the other 30. Maintenance testing of completed targets was also carried out.

Results: Scores on probe tests post-intervention were significantly higher than during the baseline phase (d = 1.6) with no change during the baseline or maintenance phases. However, progress during the intervention phase was highly significant. One participant showed significantly faster progress with intervention, while one (with the lowest attention score) made little progress. When considering progress relative to cumulative intervention sessions, progress was faster with 30 teaching episodes per session and slower with 10. However, when cumulative teaching episodes were used as the predictor, all three within-session dosages showed very similar rates of progress, with the odds of a correct response increasing by 3.9% for each teaching episode. The targets that were achieved required an average of 40-60 teaching episodes.

Conclusions: With the exception of one participant, the individualized intervention was highly effective and efficient. Thus, the individualized target identification process and intervention method merit further research in a larger group of children. The cumulative number of teaching episodes per target provided across sessions appeared to be key. Thus, clinicians should aim for high teaching episode rates, particularly if the number of sessions is constrained. Otherwise, intervention scheduling can be flexible.

Supplemental material: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.25996168.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to test the efficacy of the Teaching Early Literacy and Language (TELL) curriculum package for improving the early literacy and oral language skills of preschoolers from low-income families.

Method: In a randomized controlled trial (RCT), TELL was implemented in 30 TELL and 28 business-as-usual classrooms. TELL is a Tier 1 whole-class curriculum package that includes a scope and sequence of instruction, lesson plans and materials, high-quality books, curriculum-based measures (CBMs), and professional development training and coaching.

Results: Implementation fidelity was high; however, due to COVID-19 school closures, we did not collect end-of-year data for our third cohort of teachers. Results indicated significant TELL effects on all code-related CBMs and two code-related distal measures as well as receptive and expressive vocabulary CBMs. No significant differences were found on distal measures of oral language/vocabulary or listening comprehension.

Conclusions: Results of the present study, paired with findings from an earlier TELL RCT with children with developmental speech and/or language impairments, suggest that children enrolled in TELL classrooms achieve higher outcomes on a variety of code-related and vocabulary measures by the end of their final preschool year.

Supplemental material: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.25345708.

Purpose: This study examined the clinical practice, self-efficacy, and beliefs about assessing and treating written language among speech-language pathologists (SLPs) working with school-aged clients (aged 5-21 years) in school and nonschool settings in the United States.

Method: A survey was completed by a nationwide sample of 344 SLPs working with school-aged clients in the United States. Statistical analyses were conducted to determine differences between (a) SLPs' self-efficacy in assessing and treating spoken versus written language and (b) school-based and non-school-based SLPs' clinical practice, self-efficacy, and beliefs about their roles with written language.

Results: All respondents reported significantly lower rates of self-efficacy in assessing and treating written language compared to spoken language, and their self-efficacy had a significant, positive relationship with the amount of clinical time devoted to written language. School-based SLPs devoted a significantly lower percentage of clinical time to written language, had significantly lower self-efficacy in addressing written language, and had lower rates of agreement on statements about their roles and responsibilities with written language compared to non-school-based SLPs. These differences were not found with spoken language. The most prevalent written language needs on respondents' workloads were reported as written expression (69.3%) and reading comprehension (66%).

Conclusions: School-based and non-school-based SLPs report different levels of clinical time devoted to written language, self-efficacy in addressing written language, and beliefs about their roles in addressing written language. There is a need to investigate the reasons for these differences and the potential impact of preservice and in-service training in ameliorating them.

Supplemental material: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.25511047.

Purpose: Children with developmental language disorder frequently have difficulty with both academic success and language learning and use. This clinical focus article describes core principles derived from a larger program of research (National Science Foundation 1748298) on language intervention combined with science instruction for preschoolers. It serves as an illustration of a model for integrating language intervention with curricular content delivery.

Method: We present a five-step model for a speech-language pathologist and other school professionals to follow to (a) understand the grade-level core curriculum objectives; (b) align intervention targets with the curriculum; (c) select a therapy approach that aligns with both goals and curricular content, and (d) methods for implementing the intervention; and (e) verify that both the intervention and the curriculum have been provided in accordance with best practices. We apply this model to the Next Generation Science Standards, a science curriculum popular in the United States, and to grammar and vocabulary interventions, two areas of difficulty for children with developmental language disorders, though it would be possible to extend the steps to other curricular areas and intervention targets.

Conclusions: We conclude by discussing the barriers and benefits to adopting this model. We recognize that both speech-language pathologists and teachers may have limited time to implement language intervention within a general education curriculum, but we suggest that the long-term benefits outweigh the barriers.

Purpose: Emerging literature suggests caregiver self-efficacy is an important factor related to caregivers' shared reading practices with their children. Reduced shared reading has been documented among families of caregiver(s) with language-based learning disabilities (LBLD). Yet, it remains unclear whether caregivers' history of language and reading difficulties is associated with caregiver self-efficacy. The purpose of this study was to examine whether self-efficacy in language- and reading-related caregiver activities related to caregiver history of language and reading difficulties and shared reading practices.

Method: One hundred seventy-six caregivers of children aged 18-60 months completed a custom self-efficacy in language- and reading-related caregiver activities questionnaire, as well as demographic, history of language and reading difficulties (used both as a continuous measure and to dichotomize caregivers with and without LBLD history), and shared reading measures in a one-time survey.

Results: Caregivers with a history of LBLD reported an overall lower self-efficacy and a reduced amount of time reading with their children per week than caregivers without LBLD history. Examining caregiver history of language and reading difficulties continuously across the whole group, self-efficacy mediated the relationship between caregiver difficulties and shared reading practices, even when caregiver education was incorporated as an additional mediator in models.

Conclusions: Findings indicate that self-efficacy and caregiver education mediate the relationship between caregiver history of language and reading difficulties and shared reading practices. Consideration of self-efficacy by clinicians and educators is warranted when promoting shared reading practices to caregivers of young children. There is a need for future research to examine relationships between self-efficacy and shared reading among caregivers with LBLD of culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds.

Supplemental material: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.25901590.

Purpose: We investigated and compared the outcomes from two standardized, norm-referenced screening assessments of language (i.e., Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals Preschool-Second Edition [CELFP-2], Diagnostic Evaluation of Language Variation-Screening Test [DELV-ST]) with African American preschoolers whose spoken dialect differed from that of General American English (GAE). We (a) described preschoolers' performance on the CELFP-2 Core Language Index (CLI) and its subtests with consideration of degree of dialect variation (DVAR) observed, (b) investigated how the application of dialect-sensitive scoring modifications to the expressive morphology and syntax Word Structure (WS) subtest affected CELFP-2 CLI scores, and (c) evaluated the screening classification agreement rates between the DELV-ST and the CELFP-2 CLI.

Method: African American preschoolers (N = 284) completed the CELFP-2 CLI subtests (i.e., Sentence Structure, WS, Expressive Vocabulary) and the DELV-ST. Density of spoken dialect use was estimated with the DELV-ST Part I Language Variation Status, and percentage of DVAR was calculated. The CELFP-2 WS subtest was scored with and without dialect-sensitive scoring modifications.

Results: Planned comparisons of CELFP-2 CLI performance indicated statistically significant differences in performance based on DELV-ST-determined degree of language variation groupings. Scoring modifications applied to the WS subtest increased subtest scaled scores and CLI composite standard scores. However, preschoolers who demonstrated strong variation from GAE continued to demonstrate significantly lower performance than preschoolers who demonstrated little to no language variation. Affected-status agreement rates between assessments (modified and unmodified CELFP-2 CLI scores and DELV-ST Part II Diagnostic Risk Status) were extremely low.

Conclusions: The application of dialect-specific scoring modifications to standardized, norm-referenced assessments of language must be simultaneously viewed through the lenses of equity, practicality, and psychometry. The results of our multistage study reiterate the need for reliable methods of identifying risk for developmental language disorder within children who speak American English dialects other than GAE.

Supplemental material: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.26017978.

Purpose: Self-reported listening-related fatigue in adolescents with hearing loss (HL) was investigated. Specifically, the extent to which listening-related fatigue is associated with school accommodations, audiologic characteristics, and listening breaks was examined.

Method: Participants were 144 adolescents with HL ages 12-19 years. Data were collected online via Qualtrics. The Vanderbilt Fatigue Scale-Child was used to measure listening-related fatigue. Participants also reported on their use of listening breaks and school accommodations, including an Individualized Education Program (IEP) or 504 plan, remote microphone systems, closed captioning, preferential seating, sign language interpreters, live transcriptions, and notetakers.

Results: After controlling for age, HL laterality, and self-perceived listening difficulty, adolescents with an IEP or a 504 plan reported lower listening-related fatigue compared to adolescents without an IEP or a 504 plan. Adolescents who more frequently used remote microphone systems or notetakers reported higher listening-related fatigue compared to adolescents who used these accommodations less frequently, whereas increased use of a sign language interpreter was associated with decreased listening-related fatigue. Among adolescents with unilateral HL, higher age was associated with lower listening-related fatigue; no effect of age was found among adolescents with bilateral HL. Listening-related fatigue did not differ based on hearing device configuration.

Conclusions: Adolescents with HL should be considered at risk for listening-related fatigue regardless of the type of hearing devices used or the degree of HL. The individualized support provided by an IEP or 504 plan may help alleviate listening-related fatigue, especially by empowering adolescents with HL to be self-advocates in terms of their listening needs and accommodations in school. Additional research is needed to better understand the role of specific school accommodations and listening breaks in addressing listening-related fatigue.

Purpose: According to the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA), prevention, identification, assessment, and intervention of children who are learning to read and write are within the scope of practice for school-based speech-language pathologists (SLPs). Furthermore, for SLPs who work in the school setting, it is not uncommon to have struggling readers and poor spellers on their caseloads. Importantly, for students who have difficulty in spelling, their spelling errors are among the early indicators of dyslexia and can provide a means for identifying readers who may benefit from early intervention. SLPs can both assess spelling skills and implement evidence-based spelling and literacy diagnosis and instruction. Spelling instruction in kindergarten through the high school grades that is heavily grounded in metalinguistic activities can provide access to mental representations of word spellings, pronunciations, and meanings; links between whole-word and phonics approaches to reading instruction; and a foundation for reading fluency and comprehension.

Conclusions: Learning to spell is essential for learning to read. Accordingly, this tutorial aims to elucidate how to (a) assess and identify phases of spelling development and (b) teach spelling to facilitate reading through a listening-first approach.