UVM Theses and Dissertations
Format:
Print
Author:
Hammond, Janet Coe
Dept./Program:
Communication Sciences
Year:
2004
Degree:
M.S.
Abstract:
Purpose: This investigation examined the perception of school-based speech-language pathologists (SLPs) in Vermont regarding the level of importance of incorporating assessment and treatment of literacy issues into their scope of practice, and their level of comfort doing so. Additionally, demographics that might correlate with their perceptions were considered. Method: Cross-sectional survey data were compared. Outcomes were examined for (1) the associations between the survey responses regarding the importance of literacy support and the skills and knowledge survey responses and (2) the significant differences among levels of demographic variables with the knowledge and skills data as dependent variables. Participants included persons providing speech and language services in the Vermont public school system.
The survey consisted of a mailed, self-administered questionnaire for a quantitative assessment of current scope of practice in literacy and language, comprised of 20 forced-choice items. Items 1 (knowledge) and 2 (skills) were derived from the scope of practice for SLPs in language and literacy and were comprised of 15 specific competencies (American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, 2001, 2002). The first seven competencies were associated with item 1 and probed the level to which the SLP feels the knowledge needed to support literacy was important. The remaining eight probed the level to which the SLP feels the skill to implement literacy was present. Within each of the 15 items, two questions were asked. The first question probed the perceived importance of knowledge in language and literacy while the second probed the level of knowledge or skill the responder possessed. The next four items probed the extent to which literacy was incorporated into the actual scope of practice. Eight additional questions were included to request demographic information that may influence the practice of SLPs. Finally, write-in responses were invited.
Results: Respondents indicated that having knowledge of literacy development was very important. While skill in literacy instruction was somewhat less important, it correlated with the acquisition of skill. The respondents appeared to feel most confident in areas that were more central to the traditional domain of speech-language pathology, such as phonological awareness and vocabulary. They were least confident as they moved away from this core. While the respondents tended to feel 'fairly' well supported in their literacy practice by the administrators, they were less so with colleagues and in assessing their own practice. Years of practice and taking literacy-based coursework had a strong positive correlation to the greatest number of literacy knowledge and skills. The size of caseload had no strong correlations in terms of the practitioners' feeling of the importance of literacy instruction and feeling of competence. Employment in a post elementary setting had several significant negative correlations. Clinical Implications: The extent to which SLPs in Vermont are currently participating in literacy development, as well as identification of some of the practices that may support their involvement in fostering literacy are discussed.
The survey consisted of a mailed, self-administered questionnaire for a quantitative assessment of current scope of practice in literacy and language, comprised of 20 forced-choice items. Items 1 (knowledge) and 2 (skills) were derived from the scope of practice for SLPs in language and literacy and were comprised of 15 specific competencies (American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, 2001, 2002). The first seven competencies were associated with item 1 and probed the level to which the SLP feels the knowledge needed to support literacy was important. The remaining eight probed the level to which the SLP feels the skill to implement literacy was present. Within each of the 15 items, two questions were asked. The first question probed the perceived importance of knowledge in language and literacy while the second probed the level of knowledge or skill the responder possessed. The next four items probed the extent to which literacy was incorporated into the actual scope of practice. Eight additional questions were included to request demographic information that may influence the practice of SLPs. Finally, write-in responses were invited.
Results: Respondents indicated that having knowledge of literacy development was very important. While skill in literacy instruction was somewhat less important, it correlated with the acquisition of skill. The respondents appeared to feel most confident in areas that were more central to the traditional domain of speech-language pathology, such as phonological awareness and vocabulary. They were least confident as they moved away from this core. While the respondents tended to feel 'fairly' well supported in their literacy practice by the administrators, they were less so with colleagues and in assessing their own practice. Years of practice and taking literacy-based coursework had a strong positive correlation to the greatest number of literacy knowledge and skills. The size of caseload had no strong correlations in terms of the practitioners' feeling of the importance of literacy instruction and feeling of competence. Employment in a post elementary setting had several significant negative correlations. Clinical Implications: The extent to which SLPs in Vermont are currently participating in literacy development, as well as identification of some of the practices that may support their involvement in fostering literacy are discussed.