4.0 Article

Standardized Measures Used Regularly by Speech-Language Pathologists' when assessing the Language Abilities of School-Aged Children: A Survey

期刊

FOLIA PHONIATRICA ET LOGOPAEDICA
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000530718

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the use of standardized language measures by speech language pathologists when assessing school-aged children. The results showed that although many standardized measures were used, only a few were used regularly. The study also found that these measures were often used to assess domains they were not specifically designed for, and for purposes they were not ideally suited to. It concludes that speech language pathologists need to focus more on evidence-based practice when selecting standardized measures for school-aged children.
Introduction: This study examined speech language pathologists' use of standardized language measures when assessing school-aged children. Method: A total of 335 Speech Language Pathologist (SLP)s provided information in a web-based survey regarding the standardized language measures they use for school-aged children. SLPs were asked to identify the domains targeted, purposes of use and reasons for which regularly used standardized measures were chosen for use. Results: Findings indicated that SLPs collectively use many standardized measures, although only a small number are used regularly. SLPs reported using standardized measures to assess domains that measures are not ideally designed for and for purposes that the measures were not ideally suited to assessing. SLPs reported selecting diagnostic measures based on psychometric properties, but not for screening measures. Reasons for choice varied depending on the particular measure. Conclusion: Overall, findings indicated that SLPs need to place greater focus on evidence-based practice recommendations when selecting standardized measures for use with school-aged children. Implications for clinical practice and future directions are discussed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据