Explore the vast range of titles available.

In a national survey, speech-language pathologists (SLPs) were asked about service delivery and interventions they use with children ages 3-6 who have speech sound disorder (SSD). The survey was e-mailed to 2,084 SLPs who worked in pre-elementary settings across the United States. Of these, 24% completed part or all of the survey, with 18% completing the entire survey. SLPs reported that they provided children ages 3-6 who had SSD with 30 or 60 min of treatment time weekly, regardless of group or individual setting. More SLPs indicated that they used traditional intervention than other types of intervention. However, many SLPs also reported using aspects of phonological interventions and providing phonological awareness training. Fewer SLPs indicated that they used nonspeech oral motor exercises than in a previous survey ( Lof & Watson, 2008). Recently graduated SLPs were no more familiar with recent advances in phonological intervention than were their more experienced colleagues. Discussion This study confirms previous findings ( Mullen & Schooling, 2010) about the amount of service provided to children ages 3-6 who have SSD. Issues related to the use of traditional and phonological intervention with children who have phonological disorder are discussed, along with concerns related to evidence-based practice and research needs.

Purpose: This article provides a comprehensive narrative review of intervention studies for children with speech sound disorders (SSD). Its companion paper (Baker & McLeod, 2011) provides a tutorial and clinical example of how speech-language pathologists (SLPs) can engage in evidence-based practice (EBP) for this clinical population. Method: Studies reporting speech sound intervention for children with SSDs published from 1979 to 2009 were identified and coded. Results: One hundred thirty-four intervention studies were identified. Intervention typically was conducted by an SLP in a one-to-one individual format for 30- to 60-min sessions 2 to 3 times per week. Total duration of intervention (from assessment to discharge) was reported for 10 studies and ranged from 3 to 46 months. Most studies were either Level IIb (quasi-experimental studies, 41.5%) or Level III (nonexperimental case studies, 32.6%). Single-case experimental design (29.6%) was the most frequently used experimental research design. There were 7 distinct approaches to target selection and 46 distinct intervention approaches, with 23 described in more than 1 publication. Each approach was associated with varying quantities and levels of evidence, according to research design. Conclusion: Collaborative research reflecting higher levels of evidence using rigorous experimental designs is needed to compare the relative benefits of different intervention approaches.

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had a huge impact on every facet of life. This directly included the delivery of health care from allied health professionals such as speech–language pathologists (SLPs) in South Africa. Research has shown that there is limited research done locally on the impact of COVID-19 relating to stroke care. Consequently, this results in a lack of research on the provision of speech, language and swallowing intervention using teletherapy after a stroke from an SLP point of view.Objectives: The aim of this study was to explore the experiences of SLPs with regard to their use of teletherapy in a COVID-19 context when providing speech, language and swallowing intervention for patients after a stroke.Methods: This study made use of a qualitative approach. An electronic questionnaire was sent to SLPs inviting them to participate in the study. Purposive sampling was used to recruit participants and thematic content analysis was used to analyse the open-ended qualitative questions.Results: The findings show that SLPs experienced a variety of facilitators and barriers to using teletherapy. Additionally, issues of access differ across the private and public sector SLPs for both the clients and the SLPs.Conclusion: The current study provided research in the field of teletherapy, which is relatively new in the South African context. The study, whilst small in scale, provided some insight into the changes experienced from the shift to teletherapy.

Purpose: The goal of this study was to determine if job satisfaction differs between speech-language pathologists (SLPs) working in school settings and SLPs working in medical settings. Method: The Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS) by Spector (1997) was sent via electronic mail to 250 SLPs in each of the 2 settings. Job satisfaction scores were computed from subscale category ratings and were compared between the 2 settings. Subscale category ratings for pay, promotion, supervision, benefits, contingent rewards, operating conditions, coworkers, nature of work, and communication were analyzed for differences between and within settings. Age, caseload size, and years-at-position were analyzed by linear regression to determine whether these factors might predict SLPs' job satisfaction. Results: The survey had a response rate of 19.6% (N = 98 participants). Although SLPs in both settings were generally satisfied with their jobs, SLPs in medical settings had significantly higher total job satisfaction scores. Respondents from both settings had similar satisfaction ratings for subscale categories, with nature of work receiving the highest rating and operating conditions and promotion the lowest. Results of the linear regression analysis for age, caseload size, and years-at-position were not significant. Conclusion: Further research should evaluate important aspects of job satisfaction in both settings, especially nature of work operating conditions, and promotion.

Purpose: 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. Method: 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. Results: 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. Conclusion: 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. Key Words: school intervention, service delivery, dosage, survey

Speech language pathologists (SLPs) have developed specialized knowledge about oral language and its relationship to early literacy development that can be particularly useful to early childhood educators. The purpose of this article is to highlight ways in which an SLP can support early childhood teachers in a Response to Intervention role by assessing and facilitating young students’ early literacy acquisition. In this article, we observe students who are struggling to attain one of the Common Core State Standards, discuss factors that may inhibit their typical development of early literacy, and illustrate several evidenced-based instructional practices to assist young students who struggle with reading to achieve success.

Purpose: To undertake a community (nonclinical) study to describe the speech of preschool children who had been identified by parents/teachers as having difficulties \"talking and making speech sounds\" and compare the speech characteristics of those who had and had not accessed the services of a speech-language pathologist (SLP). Method: Stage 1: Parent/teacher concern regarding the speech skills of 1,097 4- to 5-year-old children attending early childhood centers was documented. Stage 2a: One hundred forty-three children who had been identified with concerns were assessed. Stage 2b: Parents returned questionnaires about service access for 109 children. Results: The majority of the 143 children (86.7%) achieved a standard score below the normal range for the percentage of consonants correct (PCC) on the Diagnostic Evaluation of Articulation and Phonology (Dodd, Hua, Crosbie, Holm, & Ozanne, 2002). Consonants produced \"incorrectly\" were consistent with the late-8 phonemes (Shriberg, 1993). Common phonological patterns were fricative simplification (82.5%), cluster simplification (49.0%)/reduction (19.6%), gliding (41.3%), and palatal fronting (15.4%). Interdental lisps on /s/ and /z/ were produced by 39.9% of the children, dentalization of other sibilants by 17.5%, and lateral lisps by 13.3%. Despite parent/teacher concern, only 41/109 children had contact with an SLP. These children were more likely to be unintelligible to strangers, to express distress about their speech, and to have a lower PCC and a smaller consonant inventory compared to the children who had no contact with an SLP. Conclusion: A significant number of preschool-age children with speech sound disorders (SSD) have not had contact with an SLP. These children have mild-severe SSD and would benefit from SLP intervention. Integrated SLP services within early childhood communities would enable earlier identification of SSD and access to intervention to reduce potential educational and social impacts affiliated with SSD. (Contains 8 tables, 2 figures, and 1 footnote.)

Purpose: To present a primarily conceptual introduction to item response theory (IRT) and Rasch models for speech-language pathologists (SLPs). Method: This tutorial introduces SLPs to basic concepts and terminology related to IRT as well as the most common IRT models. The article then continues with an overview of how instruments are developed using IRT and some basic principles of adaptive testing. Conclusion: IRT is a set of statistical methods that are increasingly used for developing instruments in speech-language pathology. While IRT is not new, its application in speech-language pathology to date has been relatively limited in scope. Several new IRT-based instruments are currently emerging. IRT differs from traditional methods for test development, typically referred to as classical test theory (CTT), in several theoretical and practical ways. Administration, scoring, and interpretation of IRT instruments are different from methods used for most traditional CTT instruments. SLPs will need to understand the basic concepts of IRT instruments to use these tools in their clinical and research work. This article provides an introduction to IRT concepts drawing on examples from speech-language pathology.

This study was conducted to assess dentists’ knowledge of normal speech-language development (NSLD), speech-language disorders (SLD), and speech-language pathology (SLPy) and to determine their general attitudes toward speech-language pathology (SLPy). A self-administered, web-based questionnaire was emailed to all members of the Jordanian Dental Association Council. 191 completed questionnaire were entered in excel sheet and statistically analyzed with IBM SPSS version 20 software. The respondents demonstrated insufficient knowledge regarding normal speech-language development and speech-language disorders. Additionally, the major¬ity of respondents reported a general impression that the speech-language pathologist has an important role in a health profession team (86.8%). However, they did poorly on the normal speech-language development questions (26%) as well as the speech-language disorders questions (18%). There were no statistically significant differences between different variables - age, gender, years of practice, place of practice and specialty of dentists and dentists’ knowledge of speech-language pathology.

Purpose: This study examined whether experienced speech-language pathologists (SLPs) differ from inexperienced people in their perception of phonetic detail in children's speech. Method: Twenty-one experienced SLPs and 21 inexperienced listeners participated in a series of tasks in which they used a visual-analog scale (VAS) to rate children's natural productions of target /s/-/[theta]/, /t/-/k/, and /d/-/g/ in word-initial position. Listeners rated the perceived distance between individual productions and ideal productions. Results: The experienced listeners' ratings differed from the inexperienced listeners' ratings in four ways: They had higher intrarater reliability, showed less bias toward a more frequent sound, and were more closely related to the acoustic characteristics of the children's speech. In addition, the experienced listeners' responses were related to a different set of predictor variables. Conclusion: Results suggest that experience working as an SLP leads to better perception of phonetic detail in children's speech. Limitations and future research are discussed. (Contains 4 figures, 2 tables and 2 footnotes.)