A Comprehensive Review of the 2016 ASHA Code of Ethics

The American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) initially implemented a Code of Ethics in 1952, and has periodically revisited the content of the document with revisions to reflect the expanding scope of practice within speech-language pathology and audiology and to clarify certain concepts. Code revision is a cyclical mandated task of the ASHA Board of Ethics conducted to assure accuracy, currency, and completeness of this most important document (Solomon-Rice & O’Rourke, 2016). The current version of the Code of Ethics (2016) was modified from the previous version (2010r), with an updated preamble, definitions of related vocabulary, and re-organized language in the principles. The new code, which supports collaboration, competence, and responsibility, serves as the ethical underpinning for students and clinical fellows, practicing clinicians, researchers, supervisors, and administrators. It is incumbent on ASHA members to encode this information, and incorporate ethical practices across the span of their careers. The current article will summarize the changes between the 2010r and 2016 versions of the ASHA Code of Ethics for practicing speech-language pathologists and audiologists and students studying in these fields. Managers may benefit from this tutorial in order to be familiar with the standards to which their speech-language pathologists and audiologists must abide. Official clarification regarding the ASHA Code of Ethics should be directed to the ASHA Director of Ethics at [email protected]

Selective Stimulability in the Speech and Language Assessment of Bilingual Children with Selective Mutism

English Language Learners (ELLs) with Selective Mutism (SM) mirror their typically developing, bilingual peers who are going through the silent period. The silent period is a normal phenomenon characterized by decreased expressive language and a general lack of communication that is temporary. Understanding second language acquisition and differentiating SM from the silent period, however, is critical to reduce over- and under-identification of children for services. Whereas bilingual children with SM do not speak in either of their languages, bilingual children in the silent period are only silent in their second language. Although limited information exists regarding assessment and treatment for SM in ELLs, general assessment and intervention strategies are available. The notion of selective stimulability (how stimulable a child with SM is for expressive communication) may be used in assessment in order to encourage children with SM to communicate expressively when using speech and language protocols and for determining prognosis for treatment. Guidelines for differential diagnosis of SM and the silent period are offered in this paper, including a case example of the use of selective stimulability in a speech-language assessment of a Spanish-speaking child. Moreover, additional information related to the assessment process and implications for intervention are provided