MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2906030560 · doi:10.1044/leader.wb.14012009.34

Ireland, New Zealand Join International Agreement

2009· article· en· W2906030560 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Patti Tice, Marat Moore

Notice bibliographique

RevueASHA Leader · 2009
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
ThématiqueOccupational and Professional Licensing Regulation
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésAshaCertificationPolitical scienceAmerican Speech-Language-Hearing AssociationWorkforceMedicineFamily medicineMedical educationLinguisticsLaw

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

You have accessThe ASHA LeaderWorld Beat1 Jan 2009Ireland, New Zealand Join International AgreementSix Nations Now Participate in Certification Recognition Patti Tice and Marat Moore Patti Tice Google Scholar More articles by this author and Marat Moore Google Scholar More articles by this author https://doi.org/10.1044/leader.WB.14012009.34 SectionsAbout ToolsAdd to favorites ShareFacebookTwitterLinked In Ireland and New Zealand are the latest nations to join ASHA’s international Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA) for certification to include the speech-language professional associations in those countries. The MRA also includes the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada. Representatives of associations in all six nations signed the agreement on Nov. 20, 2008, during the ASHA annual convention in Chicago. The associations included in the revised agreement are ASHA, the Canadian Association of Speech-Language Pathologists and Audiologists (CASLPA), the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists (RCSLT) in the United Kingdom, the Speech Pathology Association of Australia Limited, the Irish Association of Speech and Language Therapists (IASLT), and the New Zealand Speech-Language Therapists’ Association (NZSTA). The agreement sets the stage for international workforce mobility and exchange of ideas, said 2008 ASHA President Kate Gottfred. “We believe that this agreement benefits speech-language pathologists who wish to travel and work in other countries,” she said. “It facilitates the exchange of theoretical and clinical research and encourages the flow of information on best clinical practices.” The agreement was one of the first to be developed among professional associations and sets a precedent for utilizing a systematic, multi-national system for comparing and contrasting academic and other professional qualifications, noted Arlene Pietranton, ASHA executive director. “This is exciting for ASHA because the mutual recognition agreement helps to fulfill the association’s vision of globalization as articulated in our Strategic Pathway to Excellence, which calls for the exchange of clinical research, clinical education, and clinical practice information and resources with colleagues in other countries,” she said. This revised agreement is the product of two years of negotiations among the six countries. Representatives from each association worked diligently to identify the areas of substantial equivalence and differences among the professional requirements of the participating organizations. Discussions began at the ASHA annual convention in San Diego in November 2006, when IASLT and NZSTA petitioned to become a part of the agreement. Negotiations have continued since that time via e-mail, teleconferences, and a face-to-face meeting in conjunction with the International Association of Logopedics and Phoniatrics meeting in Copenhagen, Denmark, in August 2007. The negotiating team included John Bernthal and Patti Tice (ASHA); Sharon Fotheringham (CASLPA); Calum Delaney (RCSLT); Anne Geraghty and Martine Smith (IASLT); Colette Maier, Clare McCann, and Stella Ward (NZSTA); and Vickie Dawson, Gail Mulcair, and Cori Williams (Speech Pathology Australia). Key Requirements Credentialed SLPs from all six countries will not be required to have all of their academic course work and clinical experience evaluated when they apply for certification from or full membership in another of those organizations. Any professional or credentialing requirements that were determined to be substantially inequivalent are identified as conditions, as described in more detail in the Mutual Recognition Agreement posted on ASHA’s Web site. It should be noted also that the MRA pertains only to certification by the specific association and does not entitle an individual to practice. The agreement does not supersede national, state, or provincial licensing or registration requirements for practice. Individuals wishing to practice in an MRA country must contact the appropriate national, state, or provincial licensing agencies to determine whether or not they will meet requirements, including obtaining the appropriate visa to work in the U.S. The South African Speech-Language-Hearing Association has recently expressed interest in developing a similar agreement with the current signatories, Pietranton noted, saying, “It is hoped that other countries will follow in the years ahead.” Benefits of the Agreement Benefits of the Mutual Recognition Agreement include: Assisting the academic community, continuing education providers, industry, regulatory authorities, and the public by identifying common standards of clinical competence Facilitating the ongoing exchange of knowledge as it relates to research, continuing professional development, emerging technologies, and other aspects of professional practice Promoting greater international understanding of the role of SLPs Improving the mobility of individuals with approved credentials for employment Streamlining the mutual recognition process for individuals who are credentialed by the signatory associations Author Notes Patti Tice, director of credentialing, can be reached at [email protected]. Marat Moore, managing editor of The ASHA Leader, can be reached at [email protected]. For more information, contact Georgia McMann, administrative director of certification, at [email protected] or 800-498-2071, ext. 5782. Advertising Disclaimer | Advertise With Us Advertising Disclaimer | Advertise With Us Additional Resources FiguresSourcesRelatedDetails Volume 14Issue 1January 2009 Get Permissions Add to your Mendeley library History Published in print: Jan 1, 2009 Metrics Downloaded 108 times Topicsasha-topicsleader_do_tagleader-topicsasha-article-typesCopyright & Permissions© 2009 American Speech-Language-Hearing AssociationLoading ...

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,008
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Autre · Signal consensuel: Autre
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,351
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,926

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0080,012
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0060,002
Communication savante0,0140,008
Science ouverte0,0020,009
Intégrité de la recherche0,0090,008
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,3510,262

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,045
Tête enseignante GPT0,259
Écart entre enseignants0,214 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreAutre

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations2
Publié2009
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueASHA LeaderMême sujetOccupational and Professional Licensing RegulationTravaux en français237 207