Advocacy Engagement and Self-Efficacy of School-Based Speech-Language Pathologists.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate advocacy engagement and self-efficacy of school-based speech-language pathologists (SLPs) and their perceptions of key issues in education and challenges to advocacy. METHOD: A 75-item survey was used to solicit information about advocacy-related experiences of 194 school-based SLPs. The survey included subsections on advocacy engagement, identity, training, and self-efficacy and solicited open-ended responses regarding perceived issues and hindrances. RESULTS: Results demonstrated low percentages of respondents had received training in advocacy (15%) and participated in an event (14%). A high percentage of respondents (45%) reported feeling ill-equipped to advocate but viewed their role as advocates to be important. Overall, respondents self-rated as moderately efficacious advocates. Age and perceived advocacy importance were significant predictors of self-efficacy. Frequently cited issues in education included lack of resources and support for educators and students, teachers' rights, and mental health. Common challenges to advocacy included time constraints, lack of knowledge and support, and fear of retaliation. CONCLUSIONS: Based on reported challenges to advocacy, more research is necessary to further investigate the extent these factors influence engagement and self-efficacy. As SLPs in this study viewed their advocacy role to be important but perceived themselves to be unprepared, additional training and professional development opportunities could support the degree to which SLPs engage in advocacy and perceive themselves to be effective advocates. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.19111532.

State of the Practice of Team Science in Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology.

Purpose The purpose of this study was to investigate engagement in collaborative research (team science) and perceptions of related knowledge and skills to inform personnel preparation and workforce development efforts. Method A questionnaire was used to solicit information about the team science-related experiences of 220 doctoral students, faculty, and research scientists in speech-pathology and audiology. Additionally, the questionnaire surveyed participants' perceptions of readiness, benefits, and challenges to team science. Results Results demonstrated low percentages of respondents had received training in collaborative research (17%), and those with training were more likely to engage in cross-disciplinary collaborative research. Group differences were found with female researchers reporting lower psychological safety than male researchers. The most frequently cited advantages of team science included diverse perspectives, collective expertise, innovative ideas, and productivity. Conversely, common challenges included time constraints, finding collaborators, and differing expectations. Implications Because this study yielded group difference in psychological safety between groups that differed in gender and position, results suggest additional efforts may be necessary to ensure that imbalances in the power structure of members are not allowed to dissuade members from actively contributing to team activities. Additional training opportunities in team science could support the degree to which professionals in communication science and disorders engage in collaborative research. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.15506034.