Files
Abstract
Speech language pathologists (SLPs) use a variety of assessment measures in conjunction with clinical decision-making skills during language evaluations to ensure accurate representations of form, content, and use of language to determine diagnosis, eligibility, and functional goal planning (American Speech Language and Hearing Association, 2010; Owens, 2014). This two-study dissertation explored school-based SLPs’ knowledge, education, and use of two types of assessment measures—criterion-referenced assessments and informal language assessment measures—in formulating diagnostic decisions regarding the provision of services.
Language samples are versatile informal assessments through which a SLP elicits spontaneous language in a variety of contexts to collect information and measure performance across language domains. Practice patterns do not demonstrate a wide use of language sample analysis (LSA) despite the evidence on their efficacy and reliability for determining language abilities across age and language domains. The purpose of study one (presented in Chapter 2) was to explore the knowledge and processes of school based SLPs when conducting LSA. Participants were 90 school-based SLPs who responded to a 50-question survey. Results indicated that despite the greater percentage of those who used LSA and the larger number of samples conducted each year as compared to previous surveys, respondents demonstrated a lack of knowledge on current LSA recommended practices.
Little is currently known about the clinical decision-making skills of SLPs during the evaluation process specifically within the context of language sampling. The purpose of study two (presented in Chapter 3) was to explore the diagnostic decisions of school-based SLPs using samples of narrative and expository discourse, criterion-referenced assessment data, and word and morpheme level LSA data. Participants were 28 school-based SLPs. Results indicated that none of the SLPs recommended services after only listening to the child’s language samples. When provided with criterion-referenced narrative assessment data or word and morpheme level data from the child’s LSA, more SLPs recommended services.
Overall both studies extended the current evidence base on SLPs’ knowledge of LSA and diagnostic decision-making processes. The studies presented in Chapters 2 and 3 have implications for current SLPs and for undergraduate and graduate personnel preparation programs.
Language samples are versatile informal assessments through which a SLP elicits spontaneous language in a variety of contexts to collect information and measure performance across language domains. Practice patterns do not demonstrate a wide use of language sample analysis (LSA) despite the evidence on their efficacy and reliability for determining language abilities across age and language domains. The purpose of study one (presented in Chapter 2) was to explore the knowledge and processes of school based SLPs when conducting LSA. Participants were 90 school-based SLPs who responded to a 50-question survey. Results indicated that despite the greater percentage of those who used LSA and the larger number of samples conducted each year as compared to previous surveys, respondents demonstrated a lack of knowledge on current LSA recommended practices.
Little is currently known about the clinical decision-making skills of SLPs during the evaluation process specifically within the context of language sampling. The purpose of study two (presented in Chapter 3) was to explore the diagnostic decisions of school-based SLPs using samples of narrative and expository discourse, criterion-referenced assessment data, and word and morpheme level LSA data. Participants were 28 school-based SLPs. Results indicated that none of the SLPs recommended services after only listening to the child’s language samples. When provided with criterion-referenced narrative assessment data or word and morpheme level data from the child’s LSA, more SLPs recommended services.
Overall both studies extended the current evidence base on SLPs’ knowledge of LSA and diagnostic decision-making processes. The studies presented in Chapters 2 and 3 have implications for current SLPs and for undergraduate and graduate personnel preparation programs.