School-based School-based Speech-language Pathologists Research Articles

School-Based Speech-Language Pathologists' Perceived Self-Efficacy in Conducting Multidimensional Treatment With Children Who Stutter.

Purpose The purposes of this study were to examine the self-efficacy of school-based speech-language pathologists (SLPs) in conducting multidimensional treatment with children who stutter (CWS) and to identify correlates of self-efficacy in treating speech-related, social, emotional, and cognitive domains of stuttering. Method Three hundred twenty randomly selected school-based SLPs across the United States responded to an online survey that contained self-efficacy scales related to speech, social, emotional, and cognitive components of stuttering. These ratings were analyzed in relation to participants' beliefs about stuttering treatment and their comfort level in treating CWS, perceived success in therapy, and empathy levels, in addition to their academic and clinical training in fluency disorders as well as demographic information. Results Overall, SLPs reported moderate levels of self-efficacy on each self-efficacy scale and on a measure of total self-efficacy. Significant positive associations were observed between SLPs' self-efficacy perceptions and their comfort level in treating CWS, self-reported success in treatment, beliefs about the importance of multidimensional treatment, and self-reported empathy. There were some discrepancies between what SLPs believed was important to address in stuttering therapy and how they measured success in therapy. Conclusions Among school-based SLPs, self-efficacy for treating school-age CWS with a multidimensional approach appears stronger than previously reported; however, more progress in training and experience is needed for SLPs to feel highly self-efficacious in these areas. Continuing to improve clinician self-efficacy for stuttering treatment through improved academic training and increased clinical experiences should remain a high priority in order to enhance outcomes for CWS. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.12978194.

What Does Evidence-Based Practice Mean to You? A Follow-Up Study Examining School-Based Speech-Language Pathologists' Perspectives on Evidence-Based Practice.

Purpose The current investigation is a follow-up from a previous study examining child language diagnostic decision making in school-based speech-language pathologists (SLPs). The purpose of this study was to examine the SLPs' perspectives regarding the use of evidence-based practice (EBP) in their clinical work. Method Semistructured phone interviews were conducted with 25 school-based SLPs who previously participated in an earlier study by Fulcher-Rood et al. 2018). SLPs were asked questions regarding their definition of EBP, the value of research evidence, contexts in which they implement scientific literature in clinical practice, and the barriers to implementing EBP. Results SLPs' definitions of EBP differed from current definitions, in that SLPs only included the use of research findings. SLPs seem to discuss EBP as it relates to treatment and not assessment. Reported barriers to EBP implementation were insufficient time, limited funding, and restrictions from their employment setting. SLPs found it difficult to translate research findings to clinical practice. SLPs implemented external research evidence when they did not have enough clinical expertise regarding a specific client or when they needed scientific evidence to support a strategy they used. Conclusions SLPs appear to use EBP for specific reasons and not for every clinical decision they make. In addition, SLPs rely on EBP for treatment decisions and not for assessment decisions. Educational systems potentially present other challenges that need to be considered for EBP implementation. Considerations for implementation science and the research-to-practice gap are discussed.

Speech-Language Pathologists’ Behavior Management Training and Reported Experiences With Challenging Behavior

The purpose of this exploratory study was to examine the extent that school-based speech-language pathologists (SLPs) received behavior management training and experience challenging behavior. We developed a web-based survey to address our research aims, and recruited participants via online community boards and social media. A sample of 233 school-based SLPs reported minimal focus on behavior management in their undergraduate and graduate programs, and that they often experience challenging behavior when delivering services. We conclude by inviting colleagues, both researchers and practitioners, to continue discussion around (a) the need for adequate behavior management training, (b) the potential promise of collaborative efforts between teachers, SLPs, and other related service providers, and (c) educators’ responsibilities to ensure that children and youth who receive special education services have access to the curriculum and demonstrate educational progress.

A National Survey of Speech-Language Pathologists' Engagement in Interprofessional Collaborative Practice in Schools: Identifying Predictive Factors and Barriers to Implementation.

Purpose This study examined the models of collaboration used by school-based speech-language pathologists (SLPs) during the provision of special education services including factors predicting use of the interprofessional collaborative practice (IPP) model and barriers to collaboration. Method School-based SLPs responded to a survey on models of collaboration within their work setting. Anchored vignettes were created to determine their engagement in 3 different models (i.e., multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, and interprofessional) used in the provision of special education services during evaluation and intervention. Predictive factors supporting and/or hindering the use of IPP were identified. Results Results demonstrated low percentages of school-based SLPs engaging in IPP during initial evaluations (8%), eligibility meetings (43%), and intervention sessions (14%). Three factors predicted use of IPP in schools: prior training in collaboration, years of experience, and educational setting. The most frequently cited barriers to SLPs' engagement in collaboration included time constraints/scheduling (48%), resistance from other professionals (23%), and lack of support from employers/administration (11%). Conclusions The results of the current study indicated that systemic change is needed at both the university and public school levels. At the university level, preprofessional students need collaborative learning opportunities that are integrated across programs and colleges. School-based SLPs and other education professionals could benefit from job-embedded learning focused on IPP to increase their knowledge and engagement in IPP and improve student outcomes. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.9340760.

Describing How School-Based SLPs Determine Eligibility for Children with Speech Sound Disorders.

The purpose of this study was to explore how school-based speech-language pathologists (SLPs) determine eligibility for children with speech sound disorders (SSDs). Presently, there is substantial variability nationwide with respect to if or how children with SSDs receive speech therapy in public schools. We report the results of a nation-wide survey of school-based SLPs, which further underscore this variability. Findings provide insight into which and how many factors SLPs report contributing to eligibility decisions, as well as which and how many components of an assessment are mandatory. Our discussion includes a call to advocacy for SLPs, but also a need for increased awareness of this problematic variability for school administrators.

School-Based Speech-Language Pathologists' Perspectives on Diagnostic Decision Making.

This study used a structured open interview approach to elicit information from school-based speech-language pathologists (SLPs) regarding their assessment practices for children with suspected language impairment. Phone interviews were conducted with 39 school-based SLPs who were employed across the United States. The interviews explored assessment topics related to assessment tool selection and rationale and the integration of assessment data to determine treatment eligibility. The results of this study suggest that SLPs use both standardized testing and informal testing for their diagnostic procedures. Standardized testing appears to be the tool that drives diagnostic decisions regarding eligibility and severity. Informal measures, such as parent/teacher interviews and language sampling, were used by school-based SLPs to gather information regarding naturalistic language use; however, they seem less important in the diagnostic decision-making process. Also, SLPs reported completing language sample transcription and analysis in real time while interacting with a child. School-based SLPs appear to rely on the results from standardized testing when determining treatment eligibility for children with language impairment. The reliance on standardized testing appears to be driven by institutional policies. We discuss the potential impact of federal/state/district guidelines on diagnostic decisions and consider the research-to-practice gap.

Use of Language Sample Analysis by School-Based SLPs: Results of a Nationwide Survey.

This article examines use of language sample analysis (LSA) by school-based speech-language pathologists (SLPs), including characteristics of language samples, methods of transcription and analysis, barriers to LSA use, and factors affecting LSA use, such as American Speech-Language-Hearing Association certification, number of years' experience, and caseload characteristics. School-based SLPs responded to an invitation to complete an electronic survey related to LSA. One third of respondents indicated they did not use LSA during the 2012-2013 school year. SLPs who served middle and high school students were less likely to use LSA. Most respondents reported using conversation to analyze fewer than 10 samples and transcribing in real time. Additional analyses revealed that SLPs who had 3 or fewer years of experience and who analyzed fewer than 20 language samples per year were statistically less likely to report using real-time transcription. The most frequently cited barrier to using LSA was "LSA is too time-consuming." Many school-based SLPs do not routinely use LSA. Further, many did not report engaging in evidence-based practices, such as recording samples, using established protocols, or using tasks designed to elicit complex syntax. These results indicate a continued need for professional development regarding evidenced-based practices relative to LSA use.

Voice Disorder Management Competencies: A Survey of School-Based Speech-Language Pathologists in Nebraska.

The purpose of this survey was to determine the self-perceived competence levels in voice disorders of practicing school-based speech-language pathologists (SLPs) and identify correlated variables. Participants were 153 master's level, school-based SLPs with a Nebraska teaching certificate and/or licensure who completed a survey, including demographic information and a 25-item voice disorders competency checklist. Findings indicated school-based SLPs did not feel particularly competent in their ability to assess and treat students with voice disorders. Only 1 response mean was higher than a "moderately competent" level. All other item means were at or below this level. Four correlations indicated positive associations with SLPs' overall self-perceived competence levels: number of continuing education activities related to voice disorders, number of clients with voice disorders in the last 3 months, percentage of time spent with clients who have voice disorders, and feelings of preparation in the area of voice disorders immediately after academic program completion. Informal comparisons to medically based SLP respondents (n = 22) were included. School-based SLPs' competence perceptions with voice disorders are consistent with the minimal levels of competence reported for other underserved or low-incidence populations. Pursuing continuing education in voice disorders is recommended at the same time as access to the population becomes available.

Paediatric concussion: Knowledge and practices of school speech-language pathologists

Primary objective: To characterize paediatric concussion knowledge and the management practices of school-based speech-language pathologists (SLPs) in the US to establish a baseline upon which changes in SLP training, knowledge and best practices can be measured.Research design: A survey was developed to assess current knowledge and management of paediatric concussion allowing for comparison to previous and future surveys on SLP knowledge and practice in other areas of brain injury.Methods and procedures: One thousand surveys were distributed to school-based SLPs from 10 states. Two hundred and eighty SLPs from Minnesota, Wisconsin, New York, Massachusetts, Georgia, Florida, Texas, Tennessee, California and Arizona responded to the survey.Main outcomes and results: Compared to previous survey results, SLPs from the current sample indicate an increase in general brain injury training, but confidence in providing clinical services to brain-injured students remains low. SLPs have a mix of accurate and inaccurate concussion knowledge and uncertainty about their role in concussion management.Conclusions: Findings suggest that increasing communication with other school personnel about concussion, increased training in paediatric TBI and concussion improved access to appropriate assessments tools and implementation of long-term concussion management will improve service delivery to school-aged children with concussion.

Speech-Language Pathologists and Inclusive Service Delivery: What Are the First Steps?

Changing service delivery models can be difficult for a variety of reasons. The expanding roles and responsibilities of school-based speech-language pathologists (SLPs) along with the implementation of Common Core State Standards (CCSS) only create more pressure. Implementation of the CCSS does not have to be an anxiety driven task. School-based SLPs can accept the challenge of providing inclusive-based services to meet the diverse needs of the SLPs caseload while providing educationally relevant services.

A Survey of U.S. Immigrants: Service Delivery Issues for School-Based SLPs

In the 21st century, many residents of the United States are immigrants. Increasing numbers of immigrants and their children present a unique challenge for school-based speech-language pathologists (SLPs). In this study, 376 immigrants from 82 different countries were interviewed about a variety of issues, including their greatest challenges living in the United States, as well as their perceptions of SLPs and SLPs’ services. Practical implications are discussed.

Drafting a Blueprint for Successful Funding in Schools

Purpose: Securing funding for school based services is challenging in current economic times. Using a DIY (Do-It-Yourself) analogy, this article will help school-based speech-language pathologists (SLPs) and audiologists (AUDs) draft and execute a blueprint plan for obtaining funding to support their services. Method: The need for school-based members to self-advocate for funding is illustrated with highlights from a recent survey of school-based SLPs and AUDs. We present a nuts-and-bolts guide to assist with efforts to secure funding for materials, equipment, and technology to best serve students within the school setting. Conclusion: Funding goals can be reached by individual SLPs and AUDs as illustrated by a series of funding success stories.

Incorporating Video Modeling Into a School-Based Intervention for Students With Autism Spectrum Disorders

Video modeling is an intervention strategy that has been shown to be effective in improving the social and communication skills of students with autism spectrum disorders, or ASDs. The purpose of this tutorial is to outline empirically supported, step-by-step instructions for the use of video modeling by school-based speech-language pathologists (SLPs) serving students with ASDs. This tutorial draws from the many reviews and meta-analyses of the video modeling literature that have been conducted over the past decade, presenting empirically supported considerations for school-based SLPs who are planning to incorporate video modeling into their service delivery for students with ASD. The 5 overarching procedural phases presented in this tutorial are (a) preparation, (b) recording of the video model, (c) implementation of the video modeling intervention, (d) monitoring of the student's response to the intervention, and (e) planning of the next steps. Video modeling is not only a promising intervention strategy for students with ASD, but it is also a practical and efficient tool that is well-suited to the school setting. This tutorial will facilitate school-based SLPs' incorporation of this empirically supported intervention into their existing strategies for intervention for students with ASD.

Preservice Efforts To Promote School-Based SLPs' Roles in Written Language Development

AbstractThe authors describe an innovative clinical education program that emphasizes the provision of written language services by preservice speech-language pathology graduate students at Radford University in Virginia. Clinicians combined academic coursework in language acquisition in school-age children and clinical experiences that target children's written language development to promote future literacy-based leadership roles and collaborative efforts among school-based speech-language pathologists (SLPs). These literacy-based experiences prepare SLPs to serve in the growing numbers of American public schools that are implementing Response to Intervention models.

Educational Audiologists: Their Access, Benefit, and Collaborative Assistance to Speech-Language Pathologists in Schools

The main goals of this study were to determine if school-based speech-language pathologists (SLPs) have access to the services of an audiologist and if those SLPs felt they obtained benefit from the audiologist's services. Additional goals included gathering information about SLPs' (a) understanding of basic audiological concepts typical for a school setting, (b) added job responsibilities brought about by lack of access to an audiologist, and (c) collaboration with audiologists. A 36-item survey was e-mailed to 1,000 SLPs listed with the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association as being employed in schools. Two-hundred and nine respondents from 42 states returned the survey. Seventy-six percent of the responding SLPs had access at some time to an audiologist, with 88% of them believing they received benefit from the services provided by that audiologist, primarily in the areas of hearing screenings and in-services. Thirty-eight SLPs (58%) who did not have access to an audiologist reported having additional job responsibilities. Many school-based SLPs believed they received benefit from an audiologist when they had access to one. Collaboration between these professionals was strong, yet findings indicate that audiologists could improve their collaborative efforts with SLPs and assist them in working within their scope of practice and maintaining their ethical standards.

Program Intensity and Service Delivery Models in the Schools: SLP Survey Results

School-based speech-language pathologists (SLPs) routinely work with team members to make recommendations regarding an intervention program's intensity and method of service delivery for children with speech and language impairments. In this study, student, SLP, and workplace characteristics that may influence SLPs' recommendations were examined. Almost 2,000 school-based SLPs completed an online survey about the factors they consider when making recommendations regarding program intensity and service delivery model that students on their caseloads receive. SLPs reported that student characteristics, rather than SLP or workplace characteristics, were the factors they considered the most when making these recommendations. However, these same SLPs reported that current students on their caseload with severe to moderate disabilities participated in intervention 2-3 times a week for 20-30 min in groups outside of the classroom. Students with the least severe disability received intervention 1 time a week for 20-30 min in groups outside of the classroom. The limited variety of intervention program intensities and service delivery models used suggests that student characteristics may not be the most important factor considered when making intervention recommendations, as reported by the SLPs. Instead, caseload size and years of practice appear to influence SLPs' recommendations regarding which program intensity and service delivery models to use.

Dysphagia Management: A Survey of School-Based Speech-Language Pathologists in Vermont

This study (a) gathered information about the kinds of dysphagia management services school-based speech-language pathologists (SLPs) provide, (b) examined the attitudes of SLPs related to dysphagia management, (c) compared the responses of SLPs on the basis of their experience working in a medical setting, and (d) investigated the relationship between SLPs' training and their confidence to provide dysphagia services. Fifty-two school-based SLPs practicing in Vermont responded to a survey designed to gather information on the variables of interest. Respondents reported a low incidence of students requiring dysphagia services and SLPs providing a wide range of dysphagia services. Results indicated variability in attitudes related to dysphagia management, but trends were also evident. Chief among them were SLPs' low levels of confidence to provide dysphagia services and the need for additional training in dysphagia management. SLPs who had experience in a medical setting reported greater confidence to evaluate and treat students with dysphagia compared to those without experience in a medical setting. Relationships between a variety of previous training experiences and confidence to treat dysphagia were also revealed. This study expanded previous research in this area. Factors accounting for our results, limitations, directions for future research, and implications for practice are discussed.

Providing Written Language Services in the Schools: The Time Is Now

The current study was conducted to investigate the provision of written language services by school-based speech-language pathologists (SLPs). Specifically, the study examined SLPs' knowledge, attitudes, and collaborative practices in the area of written language services as well as the variables that impact provision of these services. Public school-based SLPs from across the country were solicited for participation in an online, Web-based survey. Data from 645 full-time SLPs from 49 states were evaluated using descriptive statistics and logistic regression. Many school-based SLPs reported not providing any services in the area of written language to students with written language weaknesses. Knowledge, attitudes, and collaborative practices were mixed. A logistic regression revealed three variables likely to predict high levels of service provision in the area of written language. Data from the current study revealed that many struggling readers and writers on school-based SLPs' caseloads are not receiving services from their SLPs. Implications for SLPs' preservice preparation, continuing education, and doctoral preparation are discussed.

Current Training and Continuing Education Needs of Preschool and School-Based Speech-Language Pathologists Regarding Children With Cleft Lip/Palate

The purpose of this study was to obtain information regarding the education and experience of preschool and school-based speech-language pathologists (SLPs) regarding the assessment and treatment of children born with cleft lip and/or palate and to determine their continuing education needs in this area. A 16-item mixed-methods survey to collect quantitative and qualitative data was distributed via postal mail to a geographically diverse random sample of 565 preschool and school SLPs. The response rate was 59%. With an average of 15.93 years in practice, respondents reported that they infrequently saw children with cleft lip/palate. When treating these children, respondents wanted communication with the cleft-craniofacial team, accessible continuing education through Web sites and conferences, and clinically practical information relevant to the school setting. When assessing and treating a low-incidence population such as children with cleft-related communication disorders, school-based SLPs need accessible, accurate continuing education resources and collaboration with specialists in the field.

Job Stress of School-Based Speech-Language Pathologists

Stress and burnout contribute significantly to the shortages of school-based speech-language pathologists (SLPs). At the request of the Utah State Office of Education, the researchers measured the stress levels of 97 school-based SLPs using the Speech-Language Pathologist Stress Inventory. Results indicated that participants' emotional-fatigue manifestations, instructional limitations, biobehavioral manifestations, lack of professional supports, and total stress were significantly below that of the original national sample. However, of the 48 survey items, participants' responses indicated more stress in three specific areas, namely, caseload size, salary, and the use of prescription drugs. Caseload and salary have been identified in other studies as major sources of stress for SLPs. No significant differences in stress were identified with the type of school district (rural and urban), number of years' experience, or number of students served. Efforts to reduce stress levels of SLPs should be aimed at increasing supports, reducing caseloads, and increasing salaries.