Should We or Should We or Shouldn’t We? Shouldn’t We? Speech Pathologists in Speech Pathologists in Education Education Paediatric Language EBP Group Paediatric Language EBP Group 2008 2008 Brooke Funnell (Leader) Brooke Funnell (Leader) [email protected][email protected]
17
Embed
Should We or Shouldn’t We? Speech Pathologists in Education Paediatric Language EBP Group 2008 Brooke Funnell (Leader) [email protected].
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Should We or Should We or Shouldn’t We?Shouldn’t We?Should We or Should We or Shouldn’t We?Shouldn’t We?Speech Pathologists in Speech Pathologists in
EducationEducationPaediatric Language EBP Group Paediatric Language EBP Group 20082008
In school-aged children with SLI, is a school-based
treatment model an effective way of managing SLI in the
classroom?
In school-aged children with SLI, is an in-class, school-based model better than a withdrawal model in managing SLI in the classroom?
In school-based treatment for school-aged children with
SLI, is a collaborative or consultative model better
than withdrawal?
The Papers
• Tollerfield, I. (2003). The process of collaboration within a special school setting: an exploration of the ways in which skills and knowledge are shared and barriers are overcome when a teacher and speech & language therapist collaborate. Child Language Teaching & Therapy, 67-84
• Wren, Y., Roulstone, S., Parkhouse, J., Hall, B. (2001). A model for a mainstream school-based speech and language therapy service. Child Language Teaching & Therapy, 107-127.
• Hirst, E., Britton, L. (1998). Specialised service to children with specific language impairment in mainstream schools. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 33, supp.
The Papers• McGinty, A.S., Justice, L. (2006).
Classroom-Based versus Pull-Out Interventions: A review of the experimental evidence. EBP Briefs, 1 (1).
The Papers• Farber, J.G. & Klein, E.R. (1999).
Classroom-Based Assessment of a Collaborative Intervention Program With Kindergarten and First-Grade Students. Language, Speech & Hearing Services in Schools, 30 (1), 83-91.
The Papers• Cirrin, F.M. & Gillam, R.B. (2008).
Language Intervention Practices for School-Age Children With Spoken Language Disorders: A Systematic Review. Language, Speech & Hearing Services in Schools, 39, S110-137.
The PapersThroneburg, R., Calvert, L., Sturm, J., Paramboukas, A., Paul, P. (2000). A Comparison of Service Delivery Models: Effects of Curricular Vocabulary Skills in the School Setting. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 9, 10-20.
CBL: Students with SLI can make positive changes in their knowledge of curricular vocabulary in all 3 service deliveries (collaborative, consultative and withdrawal) but make more change in the collaborative model. Collaborative planning is essential for successful joint teaching programs.
The PapersHadley, P.A., Simmerman, A., Long, M., Luna, M. (2000). Facilitating Language Development for Inner-City Children: Experimental Evaluation of a Collaborative, Classroom-based Intervention. Language, Speech & Hearing Services in Schools, 31, 280-295.
CBL: At risk students in Kindergarten & 1st grade involved in collaborative planning and teaching between class teachers and SLPs demonstrated greater change in regards to receptive and expressive vocabulary, as well as letter-sound associations, but no broad improvement in phonological awareness skills when compared with grade-matched peers who weren’t receiving collaborative intervention.
The CAT’s Clinical Bottom Line
We’re not there yet but the generally feeling is that all forms of intervention work (traditional pull-out, consultative and collaborative), however collaborative is the best though it is the most time consuming and costly.