Plugged In: Screen-Based Device Use Among U.S. Public School Speech-Language Pathologists and Associated Clinical Characteristics

Abstract

School-based speech-language pathologists (SLPs) are increasingly confronted with opportunities to use screen-based devices. In order to fully investigate how technology impacts therapeutic efficacy, it is imperative to first understand how and why SLPs utilize technology. This study explores: (a) the frequency with which SLPs use eight types of screen-based devices during direct intervention; (b) how student and SLP characteristics impact device use; and (c) the clinical rationales supporting device use. Using a self-administered, online questionnaire, 261 SLPs reported that technology use contributes to perceptions of increased clinical effectiveness. Results indicate tablets are the most frequently used device; however, student age, specific communication disorders, and service delivery model significantly impact the type and frequency of device use. Furthermore, academic materials and traditional activities continue to be the predominant format of intervention activities. Findings provide insight into how SLPs balance the allure of screen-based devices with student needs, professional characteristics, and the educational environment.

Keywords

speech or language disability survey assistive technology mobile devices

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alt

Arizmendi

G. D.

Beal

C. R.

(2014). The relationship between mathematics and language: Academic implications for children with specific language impairment and English language learners. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 45, 220–233. https://doi.org/10.1044/2014_LSHSS-13-0003

American Academy of Pediatrics Council on Communications and Media. (2016a). Media and young minds. Pediatrics, 138(5), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2016-2591

American Academy of Pediatrics Council on Communications and Media. (2016b). Media use in school-aged children and adolescents. Pediatrics, 138(5), 1–6.

American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (1993). Definitions of communication disorders and variations. www.asha.org/policy/RP1993-00208.htm

American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2000). Guidelines for the roles and responsibilities of school-based speech-language pathologists. https://www.asha.org/policy/ps2010-00318/

American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2004). Preferred practice patterns for the profession of speech-language pathology. https://www.asha.org/uploadedFiles/PP2004-00191.pdf

American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2010). Roles and responsibilities of speech-language pathologists in schools. http://www.ashaorg/policy/PI2010-00317.htm

American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2013). Telepractice. http://www.ashaorg/Practice-Portal/Professional-Issues/Telepractice/

American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2016a). ASHA BHSM Member poll results for speech-language pathologists. https://www.asha.org/uploadedFiles/BHSM-Member-Poll-Results.pdf

10.

American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2016b). Scope of practice in speech-language-pathology. https://www.asha.org/policy/SP2016-00343/

11.

American Speech Language Hearing Association. (2018). 2017 Technology mini-survey summary report: Number and type of responses.

12.

American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2020). 2020 Schools survey report: SLP caseload characteristics. https://www.asha.org/siteassets/uploadedFiles/2020-Schools-Survey-SLP-Caseload.pdf

13.

American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (n.d.). Healthy communication and popular technology initiative. http://www.communicationandtech.org

14.

Assistive Technology Industry Association. (n.d.). What is AT? https://www.atia.org/home/at-resources/what-is-at/#what-is-assistive-technology

15.

Black

L. I.

Vahratian

Hoffman

H. J.

(2015). Communication disorders and use of intervention services among children aged 3-17 years: United States, 2012 (Data Brief No. 205). National Center for Health Statistics. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db205.pdf

16.

Blumberg

F. C.

Fisch

S. M.

(2013). Introduction: Digital games as a context for cognitive development, learning, and developmental research. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 139, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/cad.20026

17.

Bosse

Renner

Wilkens

(2020). Social media and internet use patterns by adolescents with complex communication needs. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 51(4), 1024–1036.

18.

Brandel

Loeb

D. F.

(2011). Program intensity and service delivery models in the schools: SLP survey results. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 42(4), 461–490.

19.

Brito

Barr

McIntyre

Simcock

(2012). Long-term transfer of learning from books and video during toddlerhood. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 111, 108–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2011.08.004

20.

Campos

Skiados

Flynn

(2018). The unicorn: The rarity of males in speech-language pathology. Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups, 3(17), 29–37.

21.

Chaffee

S. H.

Metzger

M. J.

(2001). The End of mass communication? Mass Communication and Society, 4(4), 365–379. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327825MCS0404_3

22.

Childress

D. C.

(2011). Play behaviors of parents and their young children with disabilities. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 31(2), 112–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/0271121410390526

23.

Cirrin

F. M.

Schooling

T. L.

Nelson

N. W.

Diehl

S. F.

Flynn

P. F.

Staskowski

Torrey

T. Z.

Adamczyk

D. F.

(2010). Evidence-based systematic review: Effects of different service delivery models on communication outcomes for elementary school-age children. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 41, 233–264. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2009/08-0128)

24.

DeCurtis

L. L.

Ferrer

(2011). Toddlers and technology: Teaching the techniques. The ASHA Leader, 16(11). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1044/leader.FTR5.16112011.np

25.

Dotson

W. H.

Rasmussen

E. E.

Shafer

Colwell

Densley

R. L.

Brewer

A. T.

Alonzo

M. C.

Martinez

L. A.

(2017). Evaluating the ability of the PBS children’s show Daniel Tiger’s Neighborhood to teach skills to two young children with autism spectrum disorder. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 10(1), 67–71.

26.

Fernandes

(2011). iTherapy: The revolution of mobile devices within the field of speech therapy. Perspectives on School-Based Issues, 12, 35–40. https://doi.org/10.1044/sbi12.2.35

27.

Gallego

M. D.

Bueno

Noyes

(2016). Second life adoption in education: A motivational model based on Uses and Gratifications theory. Computers & Education, 100, 81–93.

28.

Gilkerson

Richards

J. A.

(2009). The power of talk. Impact of adult talk, conversational turns and TV during the critical 0-4 years of child development (2nd ed.). LENA Foundation.

29.

Heyman

(2018). Identifying features of apps to support using evidence-based language intervention with children. Assistive Technology, 1–11.

30.

Holm

Farrier

Dodd

(2008). Phonological awareness, reading accuracy and spelling ability of children with inconsistent phonological disorder. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 43(3), 300–322.

31.

Joffe

V. L.

Black

(2012). Social, emotional, and behavioral functioning of secondary school students with low academic and language performance: Perspectives from students, teachers, and parents. Language, Speech & Hearing Services in Schools, 43(461-473), 461–473. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2012/11-0088)

32.

Johnson

C. J.

Beitchman

J. H.

Brownlie

E. B.

(2010). Twenty-year follow-up of children with and without speech-language impairments: Family, educational, occupational, and quality of life outcomes. American Journal of Speech- Language Pathology, 19, 51–65. https://doi.org/doi/10.1044/1058-0360(2009/08-0083)

33.

Ketelaars

M. P.

Cuperus

Jansonius

Verhoeven

(2010). Pragmatic language impairment and associated behavioural problems. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 45(2), 204–214. https://doi.org/10.3109/13682820902863090

34.

Kirkorian

H. L.

Pempek

T. A.

Murphy

L. A.

Schmidt

M. E.

Anderson

D. R.

(2009). The impact of background television on parent-child interaction. Child Development, 80(5), 1350–1359 1310p. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01337.x

35.

Konijn

E. A.

ten Holt

J. M.

(2010). From noise to nucleus. In Doveling

von Scheve

Konijn

E. A.

(Eds.), The Routledge handbook of emotions and mass media (pp. 37–59). Routledge.

36.

Lauricella

A. R.

Gola

A. A. H.

Calvert

S. L.

(2011). Toddlers’ learning from socially meaningful video characters. Media Psychology, 14(2), 216–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2011.573465

37.

Lewis

B. A.

Freebairn

L. A.

Tag

Ciesla

A. A.

Iyengar

S. K.

Stein

C. M.

Taylor

H. G.

(2015). Adolescent outcomes of children with early speech sound disorders with and without language impairment. American Journal of Speech- Language Pathology, 24, 159–163. https://doi.org/10.1044/2014_AJSLP-14-0075

38.

Madigan

Browne

Racine

Mori

Tough

(2019). Association between screen time and children’s performance on a developmental screening test. JAMA Pediatrics, 173(3), 244–250. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2018.5056

39.

Madigan

McArthur

B. A.

Anhorn

Eirich

Christakis

D. A.

(2020). Associations between screen use and child language skills: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatrics, 174(3), 665–675. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.03327

40.

Mata

Panasoara

Fat

Malureanu

Lazar

(2018). Systematic review of technology-based psychoeducational interventions for language disorders. BRAIN. Broad Research in Artificial Intelligence and Neuroscience, 9(1), 151–162.

41.

McRay

L. B.

Fitch

J. L.

(1996). A survey of computer use by public school speech-language pathologists. Language, Speech & Hearing Services in Schools, 27(1), 40–47.

42.

Munzer

T. G.

Miller

A. L.

Weeks

H. M.

Kaciroti

Radesky

(2019). Differences in parent-toddler interactions with electronic versus print books. Pediatrics, 143(4), e20182012.

43.

Murphy

K. A.

Justice

L. M.

O’Connell

A. A.

Pentimonti

J. M.

Kaderavek

J. N.

(2016). Understanding risk for reading difficulties in children with language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 59(6), 1436–1447.

44.

Nathanson

A. I.

Rasmussen

E. E.

(2011). TV viewing compared to book reading and toy playing reduces responsive maternal communication with toddlers and preschoolers. Human Communication Research, 37(4), 465–487.

45.

National Association for the Education of Young Children & Fred Rogers Center. (2012). Technology and interactive media as tools in early childhood programs serving children from birth through age 8. https://www.naeyc.org/sites/default/files/globally-shared/downloads/PDFs/resources/topics/PS_technology_WEB.pdf

46.

Prelock

P. A.

(2000). Multiple perspectives for determining the roles of speech-language pathologists in inclusionary classrooms. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 31(3), 213–218.

47.

Rideout

Robb

M. B.

(2019). The common sense census: Media use by tweens and teens. Common Sense Media Incorporated.

48.

Rideout

Robb

M. B.

(2020). The Common sense census: Media use by kids age zero to eight. Common Sense Media Incorporated.

49.

Rubin

A. M.

(2009). Uses-and-gratifications perspective on media effects. In Bryant

Oliver

M. B.

(Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 165–184). Routledge.

50.

Ruggiero

T. E.

(2000). Uses and gratifications theory in the 21st century. Mass Communication & Society, 3(1), 3–37.

51.

Scarborough

H. S.

Dobrich

(1994). On the efficacy of reading to preschoolers. Developmental Review, 14, 245–302. https://doi.org/10.1006/drev.1994.1010

52.

Shuler

Levine

Ree

(2012). iLearnII: An analysis of the education category of Apple’s app store. The Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop. https://joanganzcooneycenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/ilearnii.pdf

53.

Smeets

D. J. H.

van Dijken

M. J.

Bus

A. G.

(2014). Using electronic storybooks to support word learning in children with severe language impairments. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47(5), 435–449. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219412467069

54.

Sosa

A. V.

(2016). Association of the type of toy used during play with the quantity and quality of parent-infant communication. JAMA Pediatrics, 170(2), 132–137.

55.

Takeuchi

L. M.

Vaala

S. E.

(2014). Level up learning: A national survey on teaching with digital games. The Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop. https://www.joanganzcooneycenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/jgcc_leveluplearning_final.pdf

56.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2016). Digest of Education Statistics, 2015 (NCES Publication Number 2016-014). https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=64

57.

Wainer

A. L.

Ingersoll

B. R.

(2011). The use of innovative computer technology for teaching social communication to individuals with autism spectrum disorders. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 5, 96–107. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2010.08.002

58.

Warren

(2001). In words and deeds: Parental involvement and mediation of children’s television viewing. The Journal of Family Communication, 1(4), 211–231.

59.

Weisberg

H. F.

(2005). The total survey error approach: A guide to th enew science of survey reserach. University of Chicago Press.

60.

Yoakam

D. G.

(1944). Speech games for children. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 30(1), 85–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/00335634409380956

61.

Zosh

J. M.

Verdine

B. N.

Filipowicz

Golinkoff

R. M.

Hirsh-Pasek

Newcombe

N. S.

(2015). Talking shape: Parental language with electronic versus traditional shape sorters. Mind, Brain, and Education, 9(3), 136–144. https://doi.org/10.1111/mbe.12082

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.10 MB