Learning about Literacy: Speech-Language Pathologists' Pre-Service and In-Service Training Experiences in the United States.

To better understand speech-language pathologists' (SLPs') pre-service and in-service training experiences in literacy and the relationship between their literacy training experiences and current practice, self-efficacy, and beliefs regarding their roles in literacy assessment and treatment, a web-based survey of SLPs was conducted (n = 444). Responses revealed that 60% of respondents completed at least one literacy course in their graduate programs: 55% took courses that embedded content in literacy assessment or treatment, and 23% took courses dedicated to literacy. These results varied based on the decade of graduation. Although 73.5% of respondents felt that their graduate programs trained them well or very well to assess and treat spoken language, only 8.5% felt the same about literacy. Most respondents (80%) reported completing in-service literacy training, and 89% reported wanting more literacy training. Completion of in-service training was positively, significantly related to respondents' current literacy-related clinical practice, self-efficacy, and beliefs regarding their roles; however, pre-service literacy training was not significantly related to any of these. Though in-service training appears to play a role in helping SLPs deliver literacy services, more emphasis on increasing the quantity and quality of pre-service and in-service training in the assessment and treatment of literacy is needed.

Written Language Practice, Self-Efficacy, and Beliefs: A Survey of Speech-Language Pathologists Working With School-Aged Clients.

PURPOSE: This study examined the clinical practice, self-efficacy, and beliefs about assessing and treating written language among speech-language pathologists (SLPs) working with school-aged clients (aged 5-21 years) in school and nonschool settings in the United States. METHOD: A survey was completed by a nationwide sample of 344 SLPs working with school-aged clients in the United States. Statistical analyses were conducted to determine differences between (a) SLPs' self-efficacy in assessing and treating spoken versus written language and (b) school-based and non-school-based SLPs' clinical practice, self-efficacy, and beliefs about their roles with written language. RESULTS: All respondents reported significantly lower rates of self-efficacy in assessing and treating written language compared to spoken language, and their self-efficacy had a significant, positive relationship with the amount of clinical time devoted to written language. School-based SLPs devoted a significantly lower percentage of clinical time to written language, had significantly lower self-efficacy in addressing written language, and had lower rates of agreement on statements about their roles and responsibilities with written language compared to non-school-based SLPs. These differences were not found with spoken language. The most prevalent written language needs on respondents' workloads were reported as written expression (69.3%) and reading comprehension (66%). CONCLUSIONS: School-based and non-school-based SLPs report different levels of clinical time devoted to written language, self-efficacy in addressing written language, and beliefs about their roles in addressing written language. There is a need to investigate the reasons for these differences and the potential impact of preservice and in-service training in ameliorating them. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.25511047.