This study investigated speech-language pathologists’ (SLPs) perceptions of factors that influence application of a new taxonomy with terminology for describing child language assessment and identified strategies that may facilitate use of taxonomy terminology to collect data on SLP assessment practice. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 13 SLPs and data were analyzed using thematic analysis. Three main themes were identified in relation to factors that may influence application including applying the taxonomy is arduous, contextual factors may influence application, and SLP experience and knowledge may influence application. Participants identified a number of strategies to facilitate use of taxonomy by SLPs. Findings from this study give insight into the factors that influence SLPs’ application of a taxonomy of assessment terms. These findings are important for all SLPs in the child language field to consider if the profession is to be effective in establishing greater consistency in use of professional terminology.
BirmanB. F. (2000). Designing professional development that works. Educational Leadership, 57(8), 28–33.
2.
BishopD. V. M. (2017). Why is it so hard to reach agreement on terminology? The case of developmental language disorder (DLD). International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 52(6), 671–680. https://doi.org/10.1111/1460-6984.12335
CatyM. È.KinsellaE. A.DoyleP. C. (2015). Reflective practice in speech-language pathology: A scoping review. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 17(4), 411–420. https://doi.org/10.3109/17549507.2014.979870
6.
CheungG.TrembathD.ArciuliJ.TogherL. (2013). The impact of workplace factors on evidence-based speech-language pathology practice for children with autism spectrum disorders. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 15(4), 396–406. https://doi.org/10.3109/17549507.2012.714797
7.
CowieM.WangerK. M.CartwrightA.BaileyH.MillarJ. A.PriceM. (2001). A review of Clinical Terms Version 3 (Read Codes) for speech and language record keeping. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 36(1), 117–126. https://doi.org/10.1080/13682820116848
8.
DenmanD.KimJ.-H.MunroN.SpeyerR.CordierR. (2019). Describing language assessments for school-aged children: A Delphi study. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 21, 602–612. https://doi.org/10.1080/17549507.2018.1552716
EloS.KääriäinenM.KansteO.PölkkiT.UtriainenK.KyngäsH. (2014). Qualitative content analysis: A focus on trustworthiness. SAGE Open, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244014522633
11.
FlottorpS. A.OxmanA. D.KrauseJ.MusilaN. R.WensingM.Godycki-CwirkoM.. . . EcclesM. P. (2013). A checklist for identifying determinants of practice: A systematic review and synthesis of frameworks and taxonomies of factors that prevent or enable improvements in healthcare professional practice. Implementation Science, 8(1), 35. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-8-35
12.
GagliardiA. R.BrouwersM. C.ValerieA.PaldaV. A.Lemieux-CharlesL.GrimshawJ. M. (2011). How can we improve guideline use? A conceptual framework of implementability. Implementation Science, 6, 26. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-6-26
13.
GrahamI. D.LoganJ.HarrisonM. B.StrausS. E.TetroeJ.CaswellW.RobinsonN. (2006). Lost in knowledge translation: Time for a map?The Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 26, 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1002/chp.47
14.
GuestG.BunceA.JohnsonL. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05279903
15.
HardingK. E. (2014). Not enough time or a low priority? Barriers to evidence-based practice for allied health clinicians. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 34(4), 224–231. https://doi.org/10.1002/chp.21255
16.
MannK.GordonJ.MacLeodA. (2009). Reflection and reflective practice in health professions education: A systematic review. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 14(4), 595–621. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-007-9090-2
17.
McIntoshM. J.MorseJ. M. (2015). Situating and constructing diversity in semi-structured interviews. Global Qualitative Nursing Research, 2, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/2333393615597674
18.
MiaoM.PowerE.O’HalloranR. (2015). Factors affecting speech pathologists’ implementation of stroke management guidelines: A thematic analysis. Disability and Rehabilitation, 37(8), 674–685. https://doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2014.932444
19.
MichieS.JohnstonM.AbrahamC.LawtonR.ParkerD.WalkerA. (2005). Making psychological theory useful for implementing evidence based practice: A consensus approach. Quality and Safety in Healthcare, 14(1), 26–23. https://doi.org/10.1136/qshc.2004.011155
20.
O’ConnorS.PettigrewC. M. (2009). The barriers perceived to prevent the successful implementation of evidence-based practice by speech and language therapists. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 44(6), 1018–1035. https://doi.org/10.3109/13682820802585967
21.
ReillyS.TomblinB.LawJ.McKeanC.MensahF. K.MorganA.. . . WakeM. (2014). Terminological debate over language impairment in children: Forward movement and sticking points. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 49(4), 452–462. https://doi.org/10.1111/1460-6984.12111
22.
RoulstoneS. (2015). Exploring the relationship between client perspectives, clinical expertise and research evidence. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 17(3), 211–222. https://doi.org/10.3109/17549507.2015.1016112
23.
RoulstoneS.MarshallJ.PowellG. G.GoldbartJ.WrenY. E.CoadJ.. . . CoadR. A. (2015). Evidence—based intervention for preschool children with primary speech and language impairments: Child talk—An exploratory mixed-methods study. Programme Grants for Applied Research, 3(5), 1–408. https://doi.org/10.3310/pgfar03050
24.
ShrubsoleK.WorrallL.PowerE.O’ConnorD. A. (2019). Barriers and facilitators to meeting aphasia guideline recommendations: What factors influence speech pathologists’ practice?Disability and Rehabilitation, 41, 1596–1607. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2018.1432706
25.
ThomasE.MagilvyJ. K. (2011). Qualitative rigor or research validity in qualitative research. Journal for Specialists in Pediatric Nursing, 16, 151–155. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6155.2011.00283.x
26.
VaismoradiM.HanneleT.BondasT. (2013). Content analysis and thematic analysis: Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nursing & Health Sciences, 15(3), 398–405. https://doi.org/10.1111/nhs.12048
27.
WalshR. (2005). Meaning and purpose: A conceptual model for speech pathology terminology. Advances in Speech-Language Pathology, 7(2), 65–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/14417040500125285
WandersmanA.DuffyJ.FlaspohlerP.NoonanR.LubellK.StillmanL.. . . SaulJ. (2008). Bridging the gap between prevention research and practice: The interactive systems framework for dissemination and implementation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 4(3–4), 171–181. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-008-9174-z
30.
YoungL.ShrubsoleK.WorrallL.PowerE. (2018). Factors that influence Australian speech-language pathologists’ self-reported uptake of aphasia rehabilitation recommendations from clinical practice guidelines. Aphasiology, 32(6), 646–665. https://doi.org/10.1080/02687038.2018.1443201
31.
ZipoliR. P.KennedyM. (2005). Evidence-based practice among speech-language pathologists: Attitudes, utilization, and barriers. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 14, 208–220. https://doi.org/1058-0360/05/1403-0208
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.
