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.
AltM.ArizmendiG. D.BealC. 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
2.
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
3.
American Academy of Pediatrics Council on Communications and Media. (2016b). Media use in school-aged children and adolescents. Pediatrics, 138(5), 1–6.
4.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (1993). Definitions of communication disorders and variations. www.asha.org/policy/RP1993-00208.htm
5.
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/
BlackL. I.VahratianA.HoffmanH. 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.
BlumbergF. C.FischS. 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.
BosseI.RennerG.WilkensL. (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.
BrandelJ.LoebD. 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.
BritoN.BarrR.McIntyreP.SimcockG. (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.
CamposI.SkiadosM.FlynnP. (2018). The unicorn: The rarity of males in speech-language pathology. Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups, 3(17), 29–37.
ChildressD. 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.
CirrinF. M.SchoolingT. L.NelsonN. W.DiehlS. F.FlynnP. F.StaskowskiM.TorreyT. Z.AdamczykD. 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)
DotsonW. H.RasmussenE. E.ShaferA.ColwellM.DensleyR. L.BrewerA. T.AlonzoM. C.MartinezL. 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.
FernandesB. (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.
GallegoM. D.BuenoS.NoyesJ. (2016). Second life adoption in education: A motivational model based on Uses and Gratifications theory. Computers & Education, 100, 81–93.
28.
GilkersonJ.RichardsJ. 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.
HeymanN. (2018). Identifying features of apps to support using evidence-based language intervention with children. Assistive Technology, 1–11.
30.
HolmA.FarrierF.DoddB. (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.
JoffeV. L.BlackE. (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.
JohnsonC. J.BeitchmanJ. H.BrownlieE. 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.
KetelaarsM. P.CuperusJ.JansoniusK.VerhoevenL. (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.
KirkorianH. L.PempekT. A.MurphyL. A.SchmidtM. E.AndersonD. R. (2009). The impact of background television on parent-child interaction. Child Development, 80(5), 1350–13591310p. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01337.x
35.
KonijnE. A.ten HoltJ. M. (2010). From noise to nucleus. In DovelingK.von ScheveC.KonijnE. A. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of emotions and mass media (pp. 37–59). Routledge.
36.
LauricellaA. R.GolaA. A. H.CalvertS. L. (2011). Toddlers’ learning from socially meaningful video characters. Media Psychology, 14(2), 216–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2011.573465
37.
LewisB. A.FreebairnL. A.TagJ.CieslaA. A.IyengarS. K.SteinC. M.TaylorH. 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
MadiganS.McArthurB. A.AnhornC.EirichR.ChristakisD. 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.
MataL.PanasoaraG.FatS.MalureanuC.LazarI. (2018). Systematic review of technology-based psychoeducational interventions for language disorders. BRAIN. Broad Research in Artificial Intelligence and Neuroscience, 9(1), 151–162.
41.
McRayL. B.FitchJ. L. (1996). A survey of computer use by public school speech-language pathologists. Language, Speech & Hearing Services in Schools, 27(1), 40–47.
42.
MunzerT. G.MillerA. L.WeeksH. M.KacirotiN.RadeskyJ. (2019). Differences in parent-toddler interactions with electronic versus print books. Pediatrics, 143(4), e20182012.
43.
MurphyK. A.JusticeL. M.O’ConnellA. A.PentimontiJ. M.KaderavekJ. N. (2016). Understanding risk for reading difficulties in children with language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 59(6), 1436–1447.
44.
NathansonA. I.RasmussenE. 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.
PrelockP. 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.
RideoutV.RobbM. B. (2019). The common sense census: Media use by tweens and teens. Common Sense Media Incorporated.
48.
RideoutV.RobbM. B. (2020). The Common sense census: Media use by kids age zero to eight. Common Sense Media Incorporated.
49.
RubinA. M. (2009). Uses-and-gratifications perspective on media effects. In BryantJ.OliverM. B. (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 165–184). Routledge.
50.
RuggieroT. E. (2000). Uses and gratifications theory in the 21st century. Mass Communication & Society, 3(1), 3–37.
SmeetsD. J. H.van DijkenM. J.BusA. 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.
SosaA. 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.
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.
WainerA. L.IngersollB. 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.
WarrenR. (2001). In words and deeds: Parental involvement and mediation of children’s television viewing. The Journal of Family Communication, 1(4), 211–231.
59.
WeisbergH. F. (2005). The total survey error approach: A guide to th enew science of survey reserach. University of Chicago Press.
ZoshJ. M.VerdineB. N.FilipowiczA.GolinkoffR. M.Hirsh-PasekK.NewcombeN. 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.
