In order to optimize collaboration between Speech and Language Therapists (SLTs) and parents of children with Developmental Language Disorders (DLD), our aim was to study what is needed for SLTs to transition from the parent-as-therapist aide model to the FCC model and optimal collaborate with parents. Chapter 2 discusses the significance of demystifying collaborative working by making explicit how collaboration works. Chapter 3 examines SLTs’ perspectives on engaging parents in parent-child interaction therapy, utilizing a secondary analysis of interview data. Chapter 4 presents a systematic review of specific strategies that therapists can employ to enhance their collaboration with parents of children with developmental disabilities. Chapter 5 explores the needs of parents in their collaborative interactions with SLTs during therapy for their children with DLD, based on semi-structured interviews. Chapter 6 reports the findings from a behavioral analysis of how SLTs currently engage with parents of children with DLD, using data from focus groups. Chapter 7 offers a general discussion on the findings of this thesis, synthesizing insights from previous chapters to propose recommendations for practice and future research.
DOCUMENT
Background: Collaboration between Speech and Language Therapists (SLTs) and parents is considered best practice for children with developmental disorders. However, such collaborative approach is not yet implemented in therapy for children with developmental language disorders (DLD) in the Netherlands. Improving Dutch SLTs’ collaboration with parents requires insight in factors that influence the way SLTs work with parents. Aims: To explore the specific beliefs of Dutch SLTs that influence how they collaborate with parents of children with DLD. Methods and procedures: We conducted three online focus groups with 17 SLTs using a reflection tool and fictional examples of parents to prompt their thoughts, feelings and actions on specific scenarios. Data were organised using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Outcomes and results: We identified 34 specific beliefs across nine TDF domains on how SLTs collaborate with parents of children with DLD. The results indicate that SLTs hold beliefs on how to support SLTs in collaborating with parents but also conflicting specific beliefs regarding collaborative work with parents. The latter relate to SLTs’ perspectives on their professional role and identity, their approach towards parents, and their confidence and competence in working collaboratively with parents.
DOCUMENT
Background: Early detection and remediation of language disorders are important in helping children to establish appropriate communicative and social behaviour and acquire additional information about the world through the use of language. In the Netherlands, children with (a suspicion of) language disorders are referred to speech and hearing centres for multidisciplinary assessment. Reliable data are needed on the nature of language disorders, as well as the age and source of referral, and the effects of cultural and socioeconomic profiles of the population served in order to plan speech and language therapy service provision. Aims: To provide a detailed description of caseload characteristics of children referred with a possible language disorder by generating more understanding of factors that might influence early identification. Methods & Procedures: A database of 11,450 children was analysed consisting of data on children, aged 2–7 years (70% boys, 30% girls), visiting Dutch speech and hearing centres. The factors analysed were age of referral, ratio of boys to girls, mono‐ and bilingualism, nature of the language delay, and language profile of the children. Outcomes & Results:Results revealed an age bias in the referral of children with language disorders. On average, boys were referred 5 months earlier than girls, and monolingual children were referred 3 months earlier than bilingual children. In addition, bilingual children seemed to have more complex problems at referral than monolingual children. They more often had both a disorder in both receptive and expressive language, and a language disorder with additional (developmental) problems. Conclusions & Implications: This study revealed a bias in age of referral of young children with language disorders. The results implicate the need for objective language screening instruments and the need to increase the awareness of staff in primary child healthcare of red flags in language development of girls and multilingual children aiming at earlier identification of language disorders in these children.
DOCUMENT
Children with DLD in special education show improvement in language performance. No differences in improvement between: • Children with receptive expressive disorders and expressive disorders • Children with low and high IQs • Mono and multilingual children Intervention is important for all children with DLD. Contact: gerda.bruinsma@hu.nlThere is a paucity of information on the effects of special education provisions on the language skills of children with DLD. Specifically , it is unclear 1. if (and how ) school based intervention impacts various language domains 2. to what extent child characteristics modulate outcomes Method We traced the trajectory of 154 children with DLD at 18 schools for special education that provide systematic language oriented interventions . Mean age 4;10 at the start of the study; range 3;11 5;7 yrs
DOCUMENT
Purpose:Our aim was to develop consensus on the definition and operationalization of communicative participation (CP)in 2- to 8-year-old children with language disorders (LDs).A clear definition and operationalization can facilitate the discussion about children’s communication problems in daily life between parents and professionals. Method: In an online Delphi study, anonymized thoughts and opinions were collected on the definition and operationalization of CP in young children with LD. The 47 Delphi panel members were Dutch parents, young adults with LDs, teachers and assistants, speech-language pathologists, clinical linguists,and clinical researchers. Thematic content analysis was used to develop a concept definition and items operationalizing CP.The Delphi panel rated the suitability of concept definitions using a 7-point Likert scale. Concept definitions were revised with feedback from the Delphi panel until consensus was achieved. The Delphi panel rated items on how well they operationalize CP, using the same Likert scale. Results: The majority (79%) of the Delphi panel indicated that the essence of CP was captured by the definition:“CP is understanding and being understood in a social context,by applying verbal and non-verbal communication skills.”In addition, 33 behavioral items were developed.Conclusion:This study resulted in strong consensus on the definition of CP between Dutch parents and professionals.Items were developed that can inform speech-language pathologists on the type of questions to ask a child’s parents or teacher when discussing CP. Further research is needed on how the items can best be used in clinical practice.
LINK
There is a need to assess communication in daily life situations for people with speech and language disorders. Although language proficiency and communication in daily life are correlated, their relationship is far from linear or straightforward. This paper aims to demonstrate the usefulness of the construct of communicative participation by unravelling the relationship and overlap between participation and communication. We explored the relationship between communication, participation, and communicative participation by reviewing common definitions mentioned in the literature. Next, we evaluated to what extent communication plays a role in each of the World Health Organization’s International Classification of Functioning (ICF) “Activity and Participation” chapters by counting how many items in each chapter should be considered for describing communicative participation.
MULTIFILE
Children with speech sound disorders (SSD) have speech disorders due to problems in articulation, phonology, execution (eg. dysarthria), planning (eg. apraxia), orofacial anomalies (eg. cleft palate) or hearing impairment (ASHA). How do children with speech sound disorders perform on language and motor (experimental) tests compared to typically developing children?
LINK
Children with developmental language disorders (DLDs) may experience barriers to communicative participation. Communicative participation is defined as ‘participation in life situations in which knowledge, information, ideas or feelings are exchanged’. Barriers experienced in communicative participation cannot be explained by language competence alone and are thought to be influenced by contextual factors. A better understanding of these factors will contribute to tailored speech and language therapy services for children with DLD. We conducted a focus group study with 13 speech and language therapists’ (SLTs) to explore their perspectives on contextual (environmental and personal) factors in early childhood that are associated with communicative participation in children with DLD. The personal factor of child well-being, and the environmental factors of familial support and SLT service provision were developed through thematic analysis. The potential mediating role of these factors on communicative participation implies that it is important to address contextual barriers and facilitators in speech and language therapy services.
DOCUMENT
Background: Early and effective treatment for children with developmental language disorder (DLD) is important. Although a growing body of research shows the effects of interventions at the group level, clinicians observe large individual differences in language growth, and differences in outcomes across language domains. A systematic understanding of how child characteristics contribute to changes in language skills is still lacking. Aims: To assess changes in the language domains: expressive morphosyntax; receptive and expressive vocabulary; and comprehension, in children in special needs education for DLD. To explore if differences in language gains between children are related to child characteristics: language profile; severity of the disorder; being raised mono- or multilingually; and cognitive ability. Methods & Procedures: We extracted data from school records of 154 children (4–6 years old) in special needs education offering a language and communication-stimulating educational environment, including speech and language therapy. Changes in language were measured by comparing the scores on standardized language tests at the beginning and the end of a school year. Next, we related language change to language profile (receptive–expressive versus expressive-only disorders), severity (initial scores), growing up mono- and multilingually, and children’s reported non-verbal IQ scores. Outcomes&Results: Overall, the children showed significant improvements in expressive morphosyntax, expressive vocabulary and language comprehension. Baseline scores and gains were lowest for expressive morphosyntax. Differences in language gains between children with receptive–expressive disorders and expressive-only disorders were not significant. There was more improvement in children with lower initial scores. There were no differences between mono- and multilingual children, except for expressive vocabulary. There was no evidence of a relation between non-verbal IQ scores and language growth. Conclusions & Implications: Children with DLD in special needs education showed gains in language performance during one school year. There was, however, little change in morphosyntactic scores, which supports previous studies concluding that poor morphosyntax is a persistent characteristic of DLD. Our results indicate that it is important to include all children with DLD in intervention: children with receptive–expressive and expressive disorders; monoand multilingual children, and children with high, average and low non-verbal IQ scores. We did not find negative relations between these child factors and changes in language skills.
LINK
Purpose: Most speech-language pathologists (SLPs) working with children with developmental language disorder (DLD) do not perform language sample analysis (LSA) on a regular basis, although they do regard LSA as highly informative for goal setting and evaluating grammatical therapy. The primary aim of this study was to identify facilitators, barriers, and needs related to performing LSA by Dutch SLPs working with children with DLD. The secondary aim was to investigate whether a training would change the actual performance of LSA. Method: A focus group with 11 SLPs working in Dutch speech-language pathology practices was conducted. Barriers, facilitators, and needs were identified using thematic analysis and categorized using the theoretical domain framework. To address the barriers, a training was developed using software program CLAN. Changes in barriers and use of LSA were evaluated with a survey sent to participants before, directly after, and 3 months posttraining. Results: The barriers reported in the focus group were SLPs’ lack of knowledge and skills, time investment, negative beliefs about their capabilities, differences in beliefs about their professional role, and no reimbursement from health insurance companies. Posttraining survey results revealed that LSA was not performed more often in daily practice. Using CLAN was not the solution according to participating SLPs. Time investment remained a huge barrier. Conclusions: A training in performing LSA did not resolve the time investment barrier experienced by SLPs. User-friendly software, developed in codesign with SLPs might provide a solution. For the short-term, shorter samples, preferably from narrative tasks, should be considered.
DOCUMENT
