Language, speech, and hearing services in schools · 2022
Speech-Language Pathologist Reading Survey: Scope of Practice, Training, Caseloads, and Confidence.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Loveall Susan J, Pitt Adrienne R, Rolfe Kimberly G, Mann Jamie
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine speech-language pathologists' (SLPs) opinions on their scope of practice related to reading, self-reported background training, current caseloads, and confidence in their abilities to define, assess, and provide effective treatment for reading-related difficulties.
METHOD: SLPs (N = 271) from across the United States completed an online survey assessing their opinions on scope of practice, education and training in reading, and confidence in defining, assessing, and treating reading-related difficulties.
RESULTS: A majority of respondents agreed that the identification, assessment, prevention, and intervention of reading disabilities are all within the scope of practice of SLPs. However, a majority also reported that literacy instruction is more heavily the responsibility of teachers than SLPs, and approximately half felt similarly regarding prevention, assessment, identification, and intervention of reading disabilities. Many respondents did not feel that their training in reading was adequate and felt that more graduate coursework should be dedicated to literacy. There was a lot of variability in responses when asked how often respondents focus on reading skills with clients, ranging from almost daily to never; however, results indicate that SLPs rarely administer reading assessments. Overall, respondents were more confident in their ability to define versus assess or provide therapy for various reading subskills.
CONCLUSION: Despite SLPs agreeing that reading is within their scope of practice and feeling confident in some aspects of reading, graduate programs for speech-language pathology may need to provide greater training in literacy, especially related to reading assessment and diagnosis.
METHOD: SLPs (N = 271) from across the United States completed an online survey assessing their opinions on scope of practice, education and training in reading, and confidence in defining, assessing, and treating reading-related difficulties.
RESULTS: A majority of respondents agreed that the identification, assessment, prevention, and intervention of reading disabilities are all within the scope of practice of SLPs. However, a majority also reported that literacy instruction is more heavily the responsibility of teachers than SLPs, and approximately half felt similarly regarding prevention, assessment, identification, and intervention of reading disabilities. Many respondents did not feel that their training in reading was adequate and felt that more graduate coursework should be dedicated to literacy. There was a lot of variability in responses when asked how often respondents focus on reading skills with clients, ranging from almost daily to never; however, results indicate that SLPs rarely administer reading assessments. Overall, respondents were more confident in their ability to define versus assess or provide therapy for various reading subskills.
CONCLUSION: Despite SLPs agreeing that reading is within their scope of practice and feeling confident in some aspects of reading, graduate programs for speech-language pathology may need to provide greater training in literacy, especially related to reading assessment and diagnosis.