Knowledge, Training, and Attitudes of Students and Speech-Language Pathologists About Providing Communication Services to Individuals Who Are Transgender.

Purpose Little is known about the professional knowledge, training, and attitudes of current and future speech-language pathologists (SLPs) toward serving people who are transgender. The purpose of this study was to understand the current climate of students and professionals in delivering voice and communications services to people who are transgender. An understanding of these areas is necessary to help practicing and aspiring SLPs work toward cultural competence in serving this population. Method A survey was completed by 386 speech-language pathology students and SLPs at three professional conferences. The survey assessed the professional and ethical knowledge, training experiences, and attitudes of the participants in relation to communication services for people who are transgender. Results In terms of professional knowledge, the majority of students and experienced SLP respondents agreed or strongly agreed (77.8%) that treating clients who are transgender was within the SLP scope of practice and was their ethical responsibility (82.2%). Regarding training, approximately 20% of survey respondents received training for working with people who are transgender, whereas approximately 8% of survey respondents reported having experience working with clients who are transgender. With respect to attitude, approximately 54% of survey respondents reported being comfortable treating clients who are transgender, and 37% of survey respondents reported they were likely to pursue training for treating clients who are transgender. Additional analyses were completed comparing students and experienced SLPs as well as the influence of geographic region. Discussion Students and SLPs were generally knowledgeable of professional guidelines and standards regarding serving people who are transgender. However, in this survey, very few clinicians indicated they had received training to serve this population. Recommendations to address this gap are discussed.

Improving Narrative Production in Children With Language Disorders: An Early-Stage Efficacy Study of a Narrative Intervention Program.

Purpose: As noted in this forum, more research is needed to support the work of school-based speech-language pathologists who are designing and implementing interventions for students with language disorders. This article presents the findings of a multiple-baseline, single-subject study that was conducted to assess the outcomes of an intervention designed to improve narrative discourse proficiency for children with language disorders. Method: Four school-age children with language disorders that included deficits in narration received an experimental version of a 3-phase narrative language intervention program called Supporting Knowledge in Language and Literacy (Gillam, Gillam, & Laing, 2014). Two additional children remained in baseline throughout the study and served as controls for history, testing, and maturation effects. Measures of story productivity (number of different words) and overall story complexity (Monitoring Indicators of Scholarly Language; Gillam, Gillam, Fargo, Olszewski, & Segura, 2016) were used to assess the children's self-generated narratives. Results: After the onset of treatment, all 4 children who received the narrative intervention made moderate-to-large improvements in narrative productivity (number of different words). Three of the 4 children also made moderate-to-large improvements in narrative complexity (Monitoring Indicators of Scholarly Language). The narrative abilities of the 2 children who did not receive intervention did not change over the course of the study. Conclusion: This study provides evidence for the feasibility of the Supporting Knowledge in Language and Literacy narrative instruction program for improving self-generated narratives by children with language disorders. Future research is needed to determine how gains in oral narration transfer to written narrative skills.

Classroom-based narrative and vocabulary instruction: results of an early-stage, nonrandomized comparison study.

PURPOSE: This nonrandomized feasibility study was designed to provide a preliminary assessment of the impact of a narrative and vocabulary instruction program provided by a speech-language pathologist (SLP) in a regular classroom setting. METHOD: Forty-three children attending 2 first-grade classrooms participated in the study. Children in each classroom were divided into high- and low-risk subgroups on the basis of their performance on a narrative test. Narrative and vocabulary instruction was provided by an SLP in 1 classroom for three 30-min periods per week for 6 weeks. RESULTS: The children in the experimental classroom made clinically significant improvements on narrative and vocabulary measures; children in the comparison classroom did not. Within the experimental classroom, children in the high-risk subgroup demonstrated greater gains in narration and fewer gains in vocabulary than children in the low-risk subgroup. There were no subgroup differences in the comparison classroom. CONCLUSION: These preliminary results provide early evidence of the feasibility of implementing a narrative instruction program in a classroom setting. Children at a high risk for language difficulties appeared to profit more from the narrative instruction than from the embedded vocabulary instruction. More extensive research on this instructional program is warranted.

A nonverbal phoneme deletion task administered in a dynamic assessment format.

PURPOSE: The purpose of the project was to design a nonverbal dynamic assessment of phoneme deletion that may prove useful with individuals who demonstrate complex communication needs (CCN) and are unable to communicate using natural speech or who present with moderate-severe speech impairments. METHOD: A nonverbal dynamic assessment of phoneme deletion with a systematic prompting and scoring system was developed and compared to the same measure administered using a traditional "static" format. Both versions were administered to 64 typically developing children ranging in age from 6 to 8;5. The dynamic phoneme deletion task was designed so that no verbal response was required. Children were asked to point to pictures representing each stimulus item. The same stimulus items were administered to children in a traditional static format, without the use of pictures. For example, in the dynamic assessment task, children were asked to point to 1 of 4 pictures (e.g., ice) to indicate their response when asked to delete "m" from "mice." In the static format, children were asked to "say" the real word left over after deleting "m" from "mice." Correlations between phoneme deletion tasks and word-level reading tasks were calculated. RESULTS: Internal reliability for the nonverbal dynamic phoneme deletion task was α=.88 for the total sample. Correlations between the dynamic and static formats were high (r=.84) as were correlations between the deletion tasks and the measure of word-level reading (dynamic; r=.54, static; r=.53). CONCLUSIONS: These preliminary findings suggest that the nonverbal dynamic phoneme deletion task holds promise for use with children for whom speech output is compromised. Implications for use with children who use AAC or who have significant speech impairments and recommendations for future research are discussed. LEARNING OUTCOMES: Readers will learn about a nonverbal dynamic assessment of phoneme deletion that may prove useful for measuring phoneme awareness for children who are unable to communicate using natural speech or who present with moderate-severe speech impairments. Readers will learn about the importance of accurate measurement of phoneme awareness for children with complex communication needs. Readers will also learn about how to develop and utilize reliable and valid measures of phoneme awareness for this population of children with communication impairments.