/pdf/adhd-in-adults-what-the-science-says-4x86l0haz3.pdf

ADHD in Adults—What the Science Says

Successful completion of their degree is important for both speech-language pathology (SLP) students and their university program. One way of supporting students to achieve the required level of co...

A scoping review of predictors of speech-language pathology student success

A-32Depression-Severity Impairs Perceptual Reasoning in Wisconsin Card Sort Task

PURPOSE
To identify clinician-perceived barriers and facilitators to the delivery of outcome measurement and evidence-based treatment practices and integration of these practices in aphasia rehabilitation.


MATERIALS AND METHODS
Using a convergent mixed methods design, aphasia clinicians (n = 87) across care settings in the United States completed an online survey designed within the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Participants responded to open-ended questions and rated Likert scale statements. Qualitative data were analyzed using content analysis and quantitative data were summarized using descriptive statistics.


RESULTS
Factors related to the TDF domain of "environmental context and resources" (priority and productivity demands; characteristics of resources) were cited as primary barriers in 70% of qualitative responses for both outcome and treatment practices and were consistent with Likert rating statements. Facilitators were associated with TDF domains of "memory, attention, decision-making" (decision-making processes), "knowledge" (awareness of evidence) and "social influences" (client and caregiver preferences).


CONCLUSIONS
Organizational-level factors and the misalignment of the research evidence with clinical needs are barriers to delivering evidence-based care in aphasia rehabilitation. Theoretically informed strategies such as establishing organizational infrastructure for practice change, developing clinically relevant evidence through research-practice partnerships, and implementing algorithms to support clinical decision-making can address barriers and leverage facilitators.

Barriers and facilitators to outcome measurement and treatment practices in aphasia rehabilitation in the USA: a mixed methods approach using the Theoretical Domains Framework.

Purpose: Aphasia rehabilitation is a learning process that unfolds over time. Previous group studies have examined aphasia treatment response using pre- to posttreatment comparison, largely ignoring the unfolding learning response that occurs session-to-session. We aimed to (a) characterize the shape of learning while individuals with aphasia received intensive anomia intervention and (b) identify the cognitive predictors of this learning response. Method: Individuals ( N = 39) with chronic poststroke aphasia received intensive semantic feature analysis (SFA). Naming accuracy for trained and semantically related, untrained words was probed daily. We used Bayesian generalized linear mixed-effects models to estimate the shape of learning during SFA treatment and to measure the influence of key cognitive functions on treatment response. Results: Most treatment gains appeared early during treatment, after the first 4 hr of intervention. Verbal recognition and visuospatial memory were associated with the magnitude of those early treatment gains, favoring strong cognitive performers. Treatment generalization to untrained targets was present but modest, with some evidence suggesting that visuospatial recall performance may be associated with treatment generalization. Conclusions: Monitoring SFA treatment response early could help inform clinicians whether patients will respond optimally to intervention. Verbal recognition and visuospatial recall support learning during treatment, helping elucidate cognitive underpinnings of learning during aphasia rehabilitation. Supplemental Material: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.30213520 

Cognitive Functions Supporting Learning Over Time in Naming Treatment for Aphasia

PREDICTING SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY GRADUATE STUDENT SUCCESS: EXECUTIVE FUNCTIONS AND STANDARDIZED ADMISSION TESTS Jane E. Roitsch Old Dominion University, 2018 Director: Dr. Anastasia Raymer Within the next three years, the number of available speech-language pathology (SLP) jobs is projected to increase by 18% (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2018). The most logical response to the escalating market demand would be to increase the number of students admitted into SLP graduate programs. However, this may not be as simple as it sounds. Successful training of graduate SLP clinicians requires the professional, emotional, financial, and time commitments of the program’s clinical and academic faculty. The accreditation status of graduate SLP programs is based in part on graduation completion rates and students passing the national examination in SLP, the Praxis II. Such benchmarks and the pressure to increase a program’s admission class size place greater importance on the need to ensure the best students are selected for admission. Thus, graduate SLP programs need to be certain that their vetting process for graduate school admission is effective and appropriate if they plan to increase the number of students who successfully complete programs and meet certification and accreditation requirements. Undergraduate grade point average (UGPA) and Graduate Record Exam (GRE) scores are standardized means used commonly to predict graduate students’ academic ability. However, SLP graduate programs require students to demonstrate competence not only academically, but also clinically. Tests of executive functions (EFs) have been used as predictors of ability as they PREDICTING SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY GRADUATE STUDENT SUCCESS 2 assess areas of cognitive ability essential for decision-making (Vestberg, Gustafson, Maurex, Ingvar, & Petrovic, 2012; Kirova, Bays, & Lagalwar, 2015). This research study examined EF measures as unique, additional means to predict student ability to succeed in SLP graduate programs. The purpose of this study was to investigate what relationships, if any, exist between: (a) academic admissions criteria, (b) tests of EFs, and (c) academic and (d) clinical outcomes. An observational design using stepwise multiple regressions was used to determine the strength of the relationship between the variables (i.e., current SLP graduate school admissions criteria, tests of EFs, and clinical and academic outcomes) by identifying the model(s) of best fit. Findings indicated that objective and subjective EF measures were highly predictive of successful academic and clinical outcomes for graduate SLP students. Implications for future research are also provided. PREDICTING SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY GRADUATE STUDENT SUCCESS iii Copyright, 2018, by Jane E. Roitsch, All Rights Reserved PREDICTING SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY GRADUATE STUDENT SUCCESS iv Continuous effort – not strength or intelligence – is the key to unlocking our potential.

/pdf/predicting-speech-language-pathology-graduate-student-1jvzd2qlvy.pdf

Predicting Speech-Language Pathology Graduate Student Success: Executive Functions and Standardized Admission Tests

This study examines the results of the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF2) (Gioia et al., 2015) reported by parents of children with Specific Learning Disability (LD) and/or other comorbid disabilities. LD is most notably associated with comorbid attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) (Alloway & Stein, 2014; Westby &Watson, 2004; Willcutt et al., 2013). A total of 43 parents completed the BRIEF-2 rating scale. Findings suggest children with LD and ADHD display greater challenges with inhibition, working memory, planning, along with greater challenges in organization and metacognition. Parents of children with LD reported their children have greater levels of executive function difficulties in comparison to children with LD who do not have a secondary diagnosis of ADHD.

Parent Reports of Executive Functions in Students With Learning Disability

Risk Factors for Severe Dysphagia in Patients with Respiratory Etiologies Following Prolonged Intubation

Paraeducators often support students with the most intensive academic, life, and behavioral needs, which includes students with intellectual and other developmental disabilities (IDD; e.g., autism spectrum disorder; ASD), yet they typically enter the classroom with inadequate preparation to perform their roles effectively. Using a multiple-baseline research design replicated across participants, we evaluated the effects of job-embedded bug-in-ear (BIE) coaching delivered by the teacher on paraeducators’ use of behavior specific praise (BSP) while teaching transition-age students with ASD. Findings confirmed each of the three paraeducators immediately increased the percentage of occurrence and rate per minute in which they offered BSP. They sustained these high levels during fading. Further, the special education teacher, who served as the eCoach, and the paraeducators reported BIE was an effective form of paraeducator professional development. Finally, changes in expressive social and communicative behaviors were observed in student participants as a result of the intervention. These results extend literature on BSP and also help establish BIE coaching as an evidence-based practice for paraeducators. Paraeducators play a critical role in supporting and providing individualized services to students with intellectual and other developmental disabilities (IDD; e.g., autism spectrum disorder; ASD; Rosenberg et al., 2020). According to the U.S. Department of Education (2019), approximately 435,817 paraeducators are employed nationwide to provide support to school-aged students who receive special education services. Despite the growing presence of paraeducators in schools, providing adequate professional development (PD), including coaching, to these valuable staff members remains a challenge (Brock & Carter, 2013). That is, many paraeducators are hired to support students with intensive learning, life, and behavioral needs, yet they lack adequate knowledge and support to do so effectively (Brock & Carter, 2013; Rosenberg et al., 2020). The absence of formal preservice paraeducator training intensifies the need to offer quality inservice learning and development opportunities (Horn, 2021). Effective Professional Learning and Development for Paraeducators Based on results from a foundational, systematic review of the literature on paraeducator-delivered teaching practices, Brock and Carter (2013) found paraeducators’ implementation of evidence-based practices (EBP) feasible with effective PD. Correspondingly, recommendations for preparing paraeducators include providing clear and focused directions on a specific EBP and offering follow-up support to promote the transfer of skills to the classroom (Brock & Carter, 2013). Unfortunately, paraeducator-focused PD Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Annemarie L. Horn, Department of Communication Disorders and Special Education, Old Dominion University, 4501 Hampton Blvd., 103 Lion's Child Study Center, Norfolk, VA 23529. E-mail: ahorn@odu.edu Teacher-Delivered eCoaching with Paraeducators / 287 Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 2022, 57(3), 287–302 © Division on Autism and Developmental Disabilities does not typically follow these principles. Instead, training often consists of one-day workshops, which have been shown to be ineffective for increasing classroom-based application (Brock & Anderson, 2021; Joyce & Showers, 2002). While researchers have explored what paraeducators’ professional learning and development should entail, less is known about how to effectively put ideologies to practice when working with students with IDD (Brock & Anderson, 2021). Consequently, special education teachers are often expected to assume the responsibility of training and supporting paraeducators in the classroom (Brock & Anderson, 2021). The Promise of Bug-In-Ear Coaching with Paraeducators Performance feedback delivered through coaching has been shown to be a promising approach to paraeducator-based PD, including those who support students with IDD (Brock & Anderson, 2021). eCoaching is an empirically validated method for providing preand in-service special education teachers with immediate feedback delivered via bug-in-ear (BIE) technology (Coogle et al., 2015; Ploessl & Rock, 2014; Scheeler et al., 2012), and there is a growing body of eCoaching literature specific to teaching students with IDD (Horn et al., 2020; Horn, 2021; Rosenberg, 2020). Initially, the individual receiving coaching (e.g., teacher, paraeducator; herein and after referred to as coachee) participates in a brief training specific to the target teaching behavior (e.g., Horn et al., 2020; Scheeler et al., 2018). Next, the coachee, wears a Bluetooth earpiece facilitating two-way communication with the eCoach (e.g., trained teacher or specialist) while they are actively teaching (Rock et al., 2009). Feedback delivery occurs in real-time, and is positive, instructive, and corrective; thus, enabling the coachee not only to change their practice immediately but also to continue making improvements through ongoing implementation opportunities (Scheeler et al., 2004). Positive outcomes have been documented as a result of BIE interventions wherein special education preand in-service teachers are the coachees (e.g., Horn et al., 2020; Ploessl & Rock, 2014; Rock et al., 2009, 2012, 2014). Less is known, however, about the efficacy of BIE on paraeducator behavior when working with students with IDD, yet, preliminary findings suggest BIE is a viable method for improving paraeducator-delivered instruction (Rosenberg et al., 2020; Scheeler et al., 2018). To date, only two paraeducator-focused BIE investigations (i.e., paraeducator coachees), have been published (Rosenberg et al., 2020; Scheeler et al., 2018), both of which used an experimental, single-case methodology to measure the effects of BIE coaching when teaching students with IDD. Scheeler et al. (2018) measured the effects of BIE on increasing contingent specific praise, also referred to as behavior specific praise (BSP), given by paraeducators to secondary students with ASD. Findings revealed a functional relationship between BIE coaching and paraeducator-delivered specific praise statements. Rosenberg et al. (2020) measured the effects of a BIE coaching package on paraeducators’ use of incidental teaching to increase self-advocacy statements for students with IDD. Paraeducator coachees successfully implemented the EBP as a result of the intervention, and student achievement data revealed positive learning outcomes resulted from paraeducatordelivered instruction (Rosenberg et al., 2020). Both paraeducator-focused investigations not only extended BIE research, but also the two different researcher teams (i.e., Rosenberg et al., 2020; Scheeler et al., 2018) contributed significantly to the paucity of literature on effective training methods for paraeducators who support students with IDD. Further, their findings supported the notion that paraeducators are capable of implementing EBPs with fidelity when provided with job-embedded guidance and support (Brock & Carter, 2013; Rosenberg et al., 2020; Scheeler et al., 2018). Despite similarities in the Scheeler et al. (2018) and Rosenberg et al. (2020) studies, there are important differences that warrant attention. As noted above, Rosenberg et al. (2020) provided BIE coaching to increase paraeducators’ use of incidental teaching strategies, whereas Scheeler et al., (2018) sought to improve paraeducators’ use of BSP. Although both are important, the latter is recognized as a potential evidence-based practice that can be used quickly, easily, and often to increase students’ engagement, decrease challenging behaviors, and improve attendance (Royer et al., 2019; Zoder-Martell et al., 2019). BSP requires teachers and/or paraeducators to communicate 288 / Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities-September 2022 verbally or in writing “explicitly what malleable factor within the student’s locus of control is being praised” (e.g., “Good job studying for this science test, your effort paid off”), rather than uncontrollable factors such as intelligence (e.g., “You’re so smart”) or ability (e.g., “You’re a natural-born leader”; Royer et al., 2019, p. 113). Moreover, Markelz et al. (2021) cautioned when students repeatedly receive general praise (e.g., good job), they are likely to become immune to it thereby diminishing the impact markedly. Yet, in most classrooms, BSP does not meet recommended standards (Markelz et al., 2021) –18–30 BSP per hour (Floress et al., 2020; Floress & Jenkins, 2015). As a result, a need exists not only to increase practical application of BSP but also to conduct studies investigating the effects of BSP when teaching students with IDD and include students measures (Royer et al., 2019; ZoderMartell et al., 2019). Another notable methodological difference between the two investigations centered on who provided the BIE coaching (i.e., performancebased feedback). In Rosenberg et al. (2020), a university-based eCoach provided on-the-spot feedback to paraeducators. In contrast, Scheeler et al. (2018) measured the effects of a teacherdelivered BIE intervention whereby two special education teachers were trained to eCoach four paraeducator participants. Though positive effects were observed in each study, the latter was unique in that a teacher, who is natural to the environment, was the eCoach (i.e., interventionist), rather than an outside researcher. Investigating the effects of teacher-delivered, job-embedded, coaching interventions is critical, as paraeducator training in schools tends to be the responsibility of special education teachers (Brock & Anderson, 2021; Horn, 2021). Additionally, Scheeler and her colleagues (2018) found BIE to be an advantageous paraeducator coaching method precisely because it was job-embedded (i.e., carrie

Effects of Teacher-Delivered eCoaching on Paraeducators and Students with Autism Spectrum Disorder


 
 The purpose of this study was to survey communication sciences and disorders (CSD) faculty in the United States to determine their perspectives and knowledge about freedom of speech on college campuses.
 
 
 
 An online, anonymous survey was presented to interested CSD faculty, recruited from the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association Higher Education Special Interest Group 10, who answered Likert-style questions regarding demographics, perceptions, and university experiences pertaining to free speech.
 
 
 
 The 91 respondents represented mostly White female faculty and administrators from across the United States. The vast majority valued free speech, felt their free speech was supported at their university, considered that free speech must be balanced with respect for others, and valued ideological diversity. Respondents reported differing opinions regarding how supported they felt about their freedom of speech in all cases. More hostility was reported for conservative over liberal beliefs.
 
 
 
 This study's findings suggest that although perceptions regarding free speech vary for faculty and administrators, most respondents felt their free speech was supported by their university. However, as some individuals do not feel supported, consideration of ways to welcome open discussions with differing opinions within academic programs is warranted.


Perceptions of Freedom of Speech on College Campuses: A Survey of Communication Sciences and Disorders Faculty

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

Jane E. Roitsch

Author Tools

Chat about Author