Claire M Selin1, Mabel L Rice2, Teresa M Girolamo3, Chien J Wang4. 1. Department of Human Development and Family Studies, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park. 2. Child Language Doctoral Program, University of Kansas, Lawrence. 3. Cognitive Neuroscience of Communication, University of Connecticut, Storrs. 4. Pearson, San Antonio, TX.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Most research on language acquisition and impairments is neutral to work setting; however, work settings (e.g., schools, health care) are expected to differ in alignment with overlaid workplace models (e.g., education, medical). These differences may affect clinical service provision for individuals with specific language impairment (SLI). This article evaluates potential effects of work setting on top-down advocacy initiatives and clinical service provision for children with symptoms of SLI. METHOD: Speech-language pathologists serving pediatric populations in health care-based (n = 140) and school-based (n = 423) work settings completed a three-part survey: (a) participant demographics, (b) report of case/workload and practice patterns, and (c) clinical vignettes and eligibility belief. Data analysis included descriptives and chi-square tests. RESULTS: The work setting groups reported differences in eligibility terminology, eligibility criteria, and practice patterns from the point of referral through discharge. The reported differences aligned with overlaid workplace models. As compared to the school-based group, health care-based participants reported fewer eligibility restrictions in the workplace, agreed more often with a belief in less restrictive eligibility criteria, and reported more sensitive clinical decisions when operating under neutral workplace circumstances. Despite these findings, health care-based participants reported a smaller proportion of individuals with language impairment only on their caseload. DISCUSSION: Work setting variations influence the underidentification of individuals with SLI for speech-language pathology services. Differences in responses by workplace indicate the need for unique and targeted advocacy efforts. Shifting diagnostic terminology and criteria will be insufficient in closing the gap unless advocacy efforts also address speech-language pathologists' workplace realities.
PURPOSE: Most research on language acquisition and impairments is neutral to work setting; however, work settings (e.g., schools, health care) are expected to differ in alignment with overlaid workplace models (e.g., education, medical). These differences may affect clinical service provision for individuals with specific language impairment (SLI). This article evaluates potential effects of work setting on top-down advocacy initiatives and clinical service provision for children with symptoms of SLI. METHOD: Speech-language pathologists serving pediatric populations in health care-based (n = 140) and school-based (n = 423) work settings completed a three-part survey: (a) participant demographics, (b) report of case/workload and practice patterns, and (c) clinical vignettes and eligibility belief. Data analysis included descriptives and chi-square tests. RESULTS: The work setting groups reported differences in eligibility terminology, eligibility criteria, and practice patterns from the point of referral through discharge. The reported differences aligned with overlaid workplace models. As compared to the school-based group, health care-based participants reported fewer eligibility restrictions in the workplace, agreed more often with a belief in less restrictive eligibility criteria, and reported more sensitive clinical decisions when operating under neutral workplace circumstances. Despite these findings, health care-based participants reported a smaller proportion of individuals with language impairment only on their caseload. DISCUSSION: Work setting variations influence the underidentification of individuals with SLI for speech-language pathology services. Differences in responses by workplace indicate the need for unique and targeted advocacy efforts. Shifting diagnostic terminology and criteria will be insufficient in closing the gap unless advocacy efforts also address speech-language pathologists' workplace realities.
Authors: Karen E A Burns; Mark Duffett; Michelle E Kho; Maureen O Meade; Neill K J Adhikari; Tasnim Sinuff; Deborah J Cook Journal: CMAJ Date: 2008-07-29 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: C J Johnson; J H Beitchman; A Young; M Escobar; L Atkinson; B Wilson; E B Brownlie; L Douglas; N Taback; I Lam; M Wang Journal: J Speech Lang Hear Res Date: 1999-06 Impact factor: 2.297