The Acquisition of Static and Dynamic Intervention Skills by Graduate Speech-Language Pathology Students.

PURPOSE: Speech-language pathology programs use simulated learning experiences (SLEs) to teach graduate student clinicians about fidelity to therapeutic interventions, including static skills (clinical actions that are delivered in a prespecified way regardless of the client's behavior) and dynamic skills (contingent responses formulated in response to a client's behavior). The purpose of this study was to explore student learning of static and dynamic skills throughout SLEs and live clinical practice. METHOD: Thirty-three speech-language pathology graduate students participated in this study. Students were first trained to deliver an intervention before having their treatment fidelity measured at three time points: an initial SLE, actual clinical practice, and a final SLE. Treatment fidelity was first summarized using an overall accuracy score and then separated by static and dynamic skills. We hypothesized that (a) overall accuracy would increase from the initial simulation to treatment but remain steady from treatment to the final simulation and that (b) students would acquire dynamic skills more slowly than static skills. RESULTS: In line with our hypotheses, students' overall accuracy improved over time. Although accuracy for static skills was mostly established after the first simulation, dynamic skills remained less accurate, with a slower acquisition timeline. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate that SLEs are efficacious in teaching students the clinical skills needed for actual clinical practice. Furthermore, we show that dynamic skills are more difficult for students to learn and implement than static skills, which suggests the need for greater attention to dynamic skill acquisition during clinical education.

The Impact of Treating Bilingual Clients on Speech-Language Pathology Students' Cultural Responsiveness.

PURPOSE: Graduate programs often use practicum experience with clients from nonmajority cultures to improve students' cultural responsiveness. Yet, it is not clear whether simply working with a client from a nonmajority culture actually confers this benefit or whether students are thinking about how to include culturally responsive behaviors when they are considering how to address a clinical case. METHOD: Twenty first-year speech-language pathology graduate students (10 Spanish-English bilinguals, 10 monolingual English speakers) were split into three groups: monolingual experimental (n = 4), bilingual experimental (n = 4), and control (n = 12). The experimental groups completed a structured practicum with bilingual Hispanic/Latino clients. They received a 1-hr training in cultural responsiveness and then implemented a systematic language intervention in English or Spanish. Changes to cultural responsiveness were measured via think-aloud cases, and changes to confidence were measured with published, self-report scales. Reflective journal entries revealed what aspects of the clinical practicum students found most salient. RESULTS: Experience working with bilingual clients did not have a substantial effect on students' confidence in their cultural competence. No substantial change was found in cultural responsiveness on the think-aloud for any group. Cultural responsiveness did not appear to be top-of-mind for the students. CONCLUSIONS: Simply working with clients from nonmajority cultures does not create a scenario where cultural responsiveness is likely to improve. Additional targeted, purposeful training in cultural responsiveness is necessary.

How does training format and clinical education model impact fidelity and confidence in a speech-language pathology rotation?

Clinical education rotations typically involve an initial training phase followed by supervised clinical practice. However, little research has explored the separate contributions of each component to the development of student confidence and treatment fidelity. The dual purpose of this study was to compare the impact of clinical training format (synchronous vs. asynchronous) and education model (traditional vs. collaborative) on student confidence and treatment fidelity. Thirty-six speech-language pathology graduate students completed this two-phase study during a one-term clinical rotation. Phase 1 investigated the impact of training condition (synchronous, asynchronous guided, asynchronous unguided) on student confidence and treatment fidelity. Phase 2 explored the impact of education model (traditional vs. collaborative) on student confidence and treatment fidelity. Treatment fidelity was measured at the conclusion of Phases 1 and 2. Students rated their confidence at six-time points throughout the study. Our results indicate that training condition did not differentially impact student confidence or treatment fidelity; however, education model did: students in the collaborative education model reported increased confidence compared to students in the traditional education model. Students in the collaborative education model also trended towards having higher treatment fidelity than students in the traditional education model. These results demonstrate that pre-clinical trainings can be effective in several different formats provided they cover the discrete skills needed for the clinical rotation. While preliminary, our results further suggest that students may benefit from working with peers during their clinical rotations.

What Is Clinical Evidence in Speech-Language Pathology? A Scoping Review.

PURPOSE: Two disparate models drive American speech-language pathologists' views of evidence-based practice (EBP): the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association's (2004a, 2004b) and Dollaghan's (2007). These models discuss evidence derived from clinical practice but differ in the terms used, the definitions, and discussions of its role. These concepts, which we unify as clinical evidence, are an important part of EBP but lack consistent terminology and clear definitions in the literature. Our objective was to identify how clinical evidence is described in the field. METHOD: We conducted a scoping review to identify terms ascribed to clinical evidence and their descriptions. We searched the peer-reviewed, accessible, speech-language pathology intervention literature from 2005 to 2020. We extracted the terms and descriptions, from which three types of clinical evidence arose. We then used an open-coding framework to categorize positive and negative descriptions of clinical expertise and summarize the role of clinical evidence in decision making. RESULTS: Seventy-eight articles included a description of clinical evidence. Across publications, a single term was used to describe disparate concepts, and the same concept was given different terms, yet the concepts that authors described clustered into three categories: clinical opinion, clinical expertise, and practice-based evidence, with each described as distinct from research evidence, and separate from the process of clinical decision making. Clinical opinion and clinical expertise were intrinsic to the clinician. Clinical opinion was insufficient and biased, whereas clinical expertise was a positive multidimensional construct. Practice-based evidence was extrinsic to the clinician-the local clinical data that clinicians generated. Good clinical decisions integrated multiple sources of evidence. CONCLUSIONS: These results outline a shared language for SLPs to discuss their clinical evidence with researchers, families, allied professionals, and each other. Clarification of the terminology, associated definitions, and the contributions of clinical evidence to good clinical decision-making informs EBP models in speech-language pathology. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.21498546.