How much exposure to English is necessary for a bilingual toddler to perform like a monolingual peer in language tests?

Background Bilingual children are under-referred due to an ostensible expectation that they lag behind their monolingual peers in their English acquisition. The recommendations of the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists (RCSLT) state that bilingual children should be assessed in both the languages known by the children. However, despite these recommendations, a majority of speech and language professionals report that they assess bilingual children only in English as bilingual children come from a wide array of language backgrounds and standardized language measures are not available for the majority of these. Moreover, even when such measures do exist, they are not tailored for bilingual children. Aims It was asked whether a cut-off exists in the proportion of exposure to English at which one should expect a bilingual toddler to perform as well as a monolingual on a test standardized for monolingual English-speaking children. Methods & Procedures Thirty-five bilingual 2;6-year-olds exposed to British English plus an additional language and 36 British monolingual toddlers were assessed on the auditory component of the Preschool Language Scale, British Picture Vocabulary Scale and an object-naming measure. All parents completed the Oxford Communicative Development Inventory (Oxford CDI) and an exposure questionnaire that assessed the proportion of English in the language input. Where the CDI existed in the bilingual's additional language, these data were also collected. Outcomes & Results Hierarchical regression analyses found the proportion of exposure to English to be the main predictor of the performance of bilingual toddlers. Bilingual toddlers who received 60% exposure to English or more performed like their monolingual peers on all measures. K-means cluster analyses and Levene variance tests confirmed the estimated English exposure cut-off at 60% for all language measures. Finally, for one additional language for which we had multiple participants, additional language CDI production scores were significantly inversely related to the amount of exposure to English. Conclusions & Implications Typically developing 2;6-year-olds who are bilingual in English and an additional language and who hear English 60% of the time or more, perform equivalently to their typically developing monolingual peers

Service delivery and intervention intensity for phonology-based speech sound disorders

Background: When planning evidence-based intervention services for children with phonology-based speech sound disorders (SSD), speech and language therapists (SLTs) need to integrate research evidence regarding service delivery and intervention intensity within their clinical practice. However, relatively little is known about the optimal intensity of phonological interventions and whether SLTs’ services align with the research evidence.Aims: The aims are twofold. First, to review external evidence (i.e., empirical research evidence external to day-today clinical practice) regarding service delivery and intervention intensity for phonological interventions. Second,to investigate SLTs’ clinical practice with children with phonology-based SSD in Australia, focusing on service delivery and intensity. By considering these complementary sources of evidence, SLTs and researchers will be better placed to understand the state of the external evidence regarding the delivery of phonological interventions and appreciate the challenges facing SLTs in providing evidence-based services.Methods & Procedures: Two studies are presented. The first is a review of phonological intervention research published between 1979 and 2016. Details regarding service delivery and intervention intensity were extractedfrom the 199 papers that met inclusion criteria identified through a systematic search. The second study was an online survey of 288 SLTs working in Australia, focused on the service delivery and intensity of intervention provided in clinical practice.Main Contributions: There is a gap between the external evidence regarding service delivery and intervention intensity and the internal evidence from clinical practice. Most published intervention research has reported toprovide intervention two to three times per week in individual sessions delivered by an SLT in a university clinic, in sessions lasting 30–60 min comprising 100 production trials. SLTs reported providing services at intensities below that found in the literature. Further, they reported workplace, client and clinician factors that influenced the intensity of intervention they were able to provide to children with phonology-based SSD.Conclusions & Implications: Insufficient detail in the reporting of intervention intensity within published research coupled with service delivery constraints may affect the implementation of empirical evidence into everyday clinical practice. Research investigating innovative solutions to service delivery challenges is needed to provide SLTs with evidence that is relevant and feasible for clinical practice

Speech-language pathologists as determiners of the human right to diversity in communication for school children in the US

Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression–the right to communication. Communication is at the core of the speech-language pathology (SLP) profession. Yet, while we celebrate the 70th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights some of our most vulnerable youth are being placed in special education at disproportional rates. School-based SLPs in the United States may be unwittingly contributing to this phenomenon, obstructing the human right to communication because of biased assessment procedures. However, increasing cultural competence, diversifying the profession, and utilising additional assessment measures are actions that can be taken to promote equity in assessment for all children

How should children with speech sound disorders be classified? A review and critical evaluation of current classification systems

Background Children with speech sound disorders (SSD) form a heterogeneous group who differ in terms of the severity of their condition, underlying cause, speech errors, involvement of other aspects of the linguistic system and treatment response. To date there is no universal and agreed-upon classification system. Instead, a number of theoretically differing classification systems have been proposed based on either an aetiological (medical) approach, a descriptive–linguistic approach or a processing approach. Aims To describe and review the supporting evidence, and to provide a critical evaluation of the current childhood SSD classification systems. Methods & Procedures Descriptions of the major specific approaches to classification are reviewed and research papers supporting the reliability and validity of the systems are evaluated. Main Contribution Three specific paediatric SSD classification systems; the aetiologic-based Speech Disorders Classification System, the descriptive–linguistic Differential Diagnosis system, and the processing-based Psycholinguistic Framework are identified as potentially useful in classifying children with SSD into homogeneous subgroups. The Differential Diagnosis system has a growing body of empirical support from clinical population studies, across language error pattern studies and treatment efficacy studies. The Speech Disorders Classification System is currently a research tool with eight proposed subgroups. The Psycholinguistic Framework is a potential bridge to linking cause and surface level speech errors. Conclusions & Implications There is a need for a universally agreed-upon classification system that is useful to clinicians and researchers. The resulting classification system needs to be robust, reliable and valid. A universal classification system would allow for improved tailoring of treatments to subgroups of SSD which may, in turn, lead to improved treatment efficacy

Clinicians’ perspectives of therapeutic alliance in face-to-face and telepractice speech–language pathology sessions

Purpose: To investigate the face validity of a measure of therapeutic alliance for paediatric speech–language pathology and to determine whether a difference exists in therapeutic alliance reported by speech–language pathologists (SLPs) conducting face-to-face sessions, compared with telepractice SLPs or in their ratings of confidence with technology. Method: SLPs conducting telepractice (n = 14) or face-to-face therapy (n = 18) completed an online survey which included the Therapeutic Alliance Scales for Children–Revised (TASC-r) (Therapist Form) to rate clinicians’ perceptions of rapport with up to three clients. Participants also reported their overall perception of rapport with each client and their comfort with technology. Result: There was a strong correlation between TASC-r total scores and overall ratings of rapport, providing preliminary evidence of TASC-r face validity. There was no significant difference between TASC-r scores for telepractice and face-to-face therapy (p = 0.961), nor face-to-face and telepractice SLPs’ confidence with familiar (p = 0.414) or unfamiliar technology (p = 0.780). Conclusion: The TASC-r may be a promising tool for measuring therapeutic alliance in speech–language pathology. Telepractice does not appear to have a negative effect on rapport between SLPs and paediatric clients. Future research is required to identify how SLPs develop rapport in telepractice.</p