Inequity in Peer Review in Communication Sciences and Disorders.

PURPOSE: The American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) has committed to advancing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) by retaining and advancing Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) individuals in the discipline of communication sciences and disorders (CSD), amid critical shortages of faculty to train the next generation of practitioners and researchers. Publishing research is central to the recruitment, retention, and advancement of faculty. However, inequity in peer review may systematically target BIPOC scholars, adding yet another barrier to their success as faculty. This viewpoint article addresses the challenge of inequity in peer review and provides some practical strategies for developing equitable peer-review practices. First, we describe the demographics of ASHA constituents, including those holding research doctorates, who would typically be involved in peer review. Next, we explore the peer-review process, describing how inequity in peer review may adversely impact BIPOC authors or research with BIPOC communities. Finally, we offer real-world examples of and a framework for equitable peer review. CONCLUSIONS: Inequity at the individual and systemic levels in peer review can harm BIPOC CSD authors. Such inequity has effects not limited to peer review itself and exerts long-term adverse effects on the recruitment, retention, and advancement of BIPOC faculty in CSD. To uphold ASHA's commitment to DEI and to move the discipline of CSD forward, it is imperative to build equity into the editorial structure for publishing, the composition of editorial boards, and journals content. While we focus on inequity in CSD, these issues are relevant to other disciplines.

Teacher Educational Decision Making for Children With Specific Language Impairment.

PURPOSE: Children with specific language impairment (SLI) are underidentified, despite a robust literature on their language abilities and a clinical grammar marker. Adlof and Hogan (2019) call for school systems to assess oral language and provide supports through response to intervention (RTI), with the aim of identifying and supporting children with SLI and other language impairments. However, it is unknown how teachers make educational decisions for children with SLI. METHOD: A web-based survey was distributed to public school teachers nationwide (N = 304). In this observational study, teachers read six vignettes featuring profiles of children systematically varying in the linguistic characteristics relevant to SLI (e.g., difficulty with verb tense) and responded to items on the educational decisions that they would make in the absence of workplace constraints. RESULTS: Teachers were likely to identify that the children in the vignettes needed language for classroom success and to indicate that they would provide in-class intervention. However, teachers were unlikely to recommend speech-language pathology services. These outcomes were mostly consistent across all child characteristics and teacher characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Findings show that teachers were sensitive to the language-based needs of children with SLI and elected to provide in-class intervention. Future work is needed to understand how workplace characteristics, including opportunities for interprofessional collaboration, and the heterogeneity of children with SLI, inform teacher educational decision making.

Work Setting Effects on Speech-Language Pathology Practice: Implications for Identification of Children With Specific Language Impairment.

PURPOSE: Most research on language acquisition and impairments is neutral to work setting; however, work settings (e.g., schools, health care) are expected to differ in alignment with overlaid workplace models (e.g., education, medical). These differences may affect clinical service provision for individuals with specific language impairment (SLI). This article evaluates potential effects of work setting on top-down advocacy initiatives and clinical service provision for children with symptoms of SLI. METHOD: Speech-language pathologists serving pediatric populations in health care-based (n = 140) and school-based (n = 423) work settings completed a three-part survey: (a) participant demographics, (b) report of case/workload and practice patterns, and (c) clinical vignettes and eligibility belief. Data analysis included descriptives and chi-square tests. RESULTS: The work setting groups reported differences in eligibility terminology, eligibility criteria, and practice patterns from the point of referral through discharge. The reported differences aligned with overlaid workplace models. As compared to the school-based group, health care-based participants reported fewer eligibility restrictions in the workplace, agreed more often with a belief in less restrictive eligibility criteria, and reported more sensitive clinical decisions when operating under neutral workplace circumstances. Despite these findings, health care-based participants reported a smaller proportion of individuals with language impairment only on their caseload. DISCUSSION: Work setting variations influence the underidentification of individuals with SLI for speech-language pathology services. Differences in responses by workplace indicate the need for unique and targeted advocacy efforts. Shifting diagnostic terminology and criteria will be insufficient in closing the gap unless advocacy efforts also address speech-language pathologists' workplace realities.

Preliminary Evaluation of Applicants to Master's Programs in Speech-Language Pathology Using Vignettes and Criteria From a Holistic Review Process.

PURPOSE: Little is known about how others evaluate applicants to master's programs in speech-language pathology along criteria used during holistic review despite more programs adopting holistic review. This knowledge gap limits our understanding of whether holistic admissions may offer a more equitable pathway to entering speech-language pathology. This study investigated how faculty and PhD students evaluated applicants to master's speech-language pathology programs along criteria used during holistic review. METHOD: We administered a survey online through a Qualtrics platform. Respondents (N = 66) were faculty and PhD candidates in U.S. speech-language-hearing departments. Survey blocks included demographics, professional background, and vignettes. Vignettes featured profiles of applicants to master's programs in speech-language pathology. Vignettes systematically varied in the indicators of applicant criteria, which were specified at low, moderate, or high levels or not specified. After reading each vignette, respondents rated the applicant and indicated their admissions decision. Analysis included descriptives. RESULTS: Relative to an applicant who was at a high level for all indicators except cultural and linguistic diversity, respondents ranked applicants who varied in their indicators of criteria levels lower. Respondents were also less likely to make an explicit "accept" decision (vs. "waitlist" or "reject") for this latter group of applicants. CONCLUSIONS: Even when implementing criteria used during holistic review, applicants who vary from a "high-achieving" stereotype may still face barriers to entry. Future work is needed to understand the precise nature of how holistic admissions review may play out in actual practice and help increase diversity in the profession.

Developing, Implementing, and Learning from a Student-Led Initiative to Support Minority Students in Communication Sciences and Disorders.

PURPOSE: The Student Equity and Inclusion Workgroup is a student-led initiative at the University of Kansas that aims to advance equity and inclusion. Within this structure, the workgroup is entirely student-led and independent of any institutional initiatives. It has developed three themes - recognizing minority student leadership, ensuring equitable access to opportunities, and meaningfully supporting students - and used those themes to develop comprehensive programming in the way of research, institutional advocacy, mentorship, and fellowship. Research initiatives included creating research opportunities for minority students by developing independent research projects. Institutional advocacy initiatives focused on policy change and developing a uniquely situated network of allies at and beyond the university. Mentorship centered student-to-student transmission of knowledge, skills, and support. Fellowship entailed creating opportunities for community-building and recognition of minority student excellence. CONCLUSIONS: Student-led initiatives such as those of the workgroup may be an effective way of supporting minority students in CSD. Institutions endeavoring to advance equity and inclusion should consider empowering students through facilitation of self-directed development, using institutional supports to support minority students on their terms, and recognizing students as capable partners in rethinking equity and inclusion.

Assessment of Language Abilities in Minority Adolescents and Young Adults With Autism Spectrum Disorder and Extensive Special Education Needs: A Pilot Study.

Purpose Little is known about the language abilities of adolescents and young adults with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) despite the importance of language in their other life outcomes. Even less is known about the language abilities of racial/ethnic minorities with ASD and extensive special education needs. These gaps limit our understanding of adolescents and young adults with ASD. Method A pilot study evaluated the efficacy of individualized age-referenced language assessment for minority adolescents and young adults with ASD in self-contained special education settings. Participants (n = 10) completed the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals-Third Edition, Test for Early Grammatical Impairment (TEGI), Columbia Mental Maturity Scale, and Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Third Edition Digit Span. Results Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals-Third Edition scores showed little variation, with most participants showing a floor effect. TEGI, Columbia Mental Maturity Scale, and Digit Span scores showed greater variation. Some participants had ceiling TEGI scores, and some had variable assessment profiles. Conclusion Assessment was sensitive to variability across some measures. The pilot study outcomes support the feasibility and potential informativeness of additional investigation of conventional language assessments and change over time.