Search results

Collaborative working with Parents of Children with DLD in Speech and Language Therapy

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.

Children with language delay referred to Dutch speech and hearing centres: caseload characteristics

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.

Perspectives on goal setting: Video-reflexive ethnography with speech–language therapists and clients

Background: Goal setting is an essential step in the clinical reasoning process of speech and language therapists (SLTs) who provide care for children, adolescents and adults with communication disorders. In the light of person-centred care, shared or collaborative goal setting between the SLT and client is advised in (inter)national guidelines. SLTs face challenges in implementing (shared) goal setting as theoretical frameworks and practical interventions are scarce and less applicable to use with a wide range of communication vulnerable populations. Aims: A first step in developing theory and practical interventions is to explore first-hand experiences of SLTs and clients about day-to-day goal-setting practice. This study was guided by the following research question:What are the perspectives and needs of SLTs and persons with communication disorders regarding (shared) goal setting in routine SLT services? Methods & Procedures: The qualitative study was carried out in the setting of routine speech–language therapy services in community practices, primary education and neurological rehabilitation in the Netherlands. Data collection followed the principles of video-reflexive ethnography, using video footage of goal-setting conversations to facilitate semi-structured, reflexive interviews.Data analysis was based on reflexive thematic analysis. A total of 12 interviews were conducted with client–SLT dyads, covering perspectives from children, parents and adults with a range of communication difficulties and their SLTs. Outcomes & Results: Data analysis resulted in four themes, of which two contain subthemes. Each theme represents a central organizing concept found in SLT and client interviews. The themes were identified as: (1) goal setting is a complex process; (2) goal talk needs to be communication accessible; (3) communicative participation goals are hard to grasp; and (4) the importance of relationships. Topics such as power imbalance, communication vulnerability, effective communication strategies, and motivation and trust are explored under these themes. Conclusions & Implications: SLTs are encouraged to view shared goal setting as a process that needs to be explicitly planned and communicated with clients regardless of their age or communication vulnerability. SLTs have expert knowledge and skills when it comes to supporting communication and applying these skills during goal talks might strengthen shared goal setting and foster a therapeutic relationship. There is a need to concretely conceptualize and embed shared goal setting in policy and clinical guidelines. The themes reported have tentative clinical implications for developing such policy, and shared goal-setting interventions for SLT practice, under the condition that SLTs and people with communication disorders are continuously involved.

Cluttering identified: differential diagnostics between cluttering, stuttering and speech impairment related to learning difficulties

Collaboration between parents and SLTs produces optimal outcomes for children attending speech and language therapy: Gathering the evidence

Background: Collaboration between parents and speech and language therapists (SLTs) is seen as a key element in family-centred models. Collaboration can have positive impacts on parental and children’s outcomes. However, collaborative practice has not been well described and researched in speech and language therapy for children and may not be easy to achieve. It is important that we gain a deeper understanding of collaborative practice with parents, how it can be achieved and how it can impact on outcomes. This understanding could support practitioners in daily practice with regard to achieving collaborative practice with parents in different contexts. Aims: To set a research agenda on collaborative practice between parents and SLTs in order to generate evidence regarding what works, how, for whom, in what circumstances and to what extent. Methods & Procedures: A realist evaluation approach was used to make explicit what collaborative practice with parents entails. The steps suggested by the RAMESES II project were used to draft a preliminary programme theory about collaborative practice between parents and SLTs. This process generates explicit hypotheses which form a potential research agenda. Discussion & Conclusions: A preliminary programme theory of collaborative practice with parents was drafted using a realist approach. Potential contextual factors (C), mechanisms (M) and outcomes (O) were presented which could be configured into causal mechanisms to help explain what works for whom in what circumstances. CMO configurations were drafted, based on the relevant literature, which serve as exemplars to illustrate how this methodology could be used. In order to debate, test and expand our hypothesized programme theory for collaborative practice with parents, further testing against a broader literature is required alongside research to explore the functionality of the configurations across contexts. This paper highlights the importance of further research on collaborative practice with parents and the potential value of realist evaluation methodology

Language Sample Analysis in Clinical Practice: Speech-Language Pathologists’ Barriers, Facilitators, and Needs

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.