Outcomes management practices in tiered school‐based speech–language therapy: A Canadian example
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Measuring, assessing and managing outcomes in school practice environments is difficult due to the complex nature of school communities as well as the recent shift in service-delivery models towards tiered approaches. In tiered approaches, multiple levels of service are offered to better match students' needs. Each level of service may require different outcomes and management techniques. Research to date on outcomes has focused on measuring outcomes in medical settings, leaving a substantive gap in the literature regarding practice in schools. AIMS: The first aim was to explore how school-based speech-language therapists approached outcomes management as their clinical programmes transitioned to tiered service-delivery models The second aim was to describe the successes and challenges in outcomes management reported by clinicians in this context. METHODS & PROCEDURES: A secondary deductive-inductive content analysis was performed using qualitative interviews with 24 clinical managers and senior therapists from schools across Ontario, Canada. Using a framework of outcomes measurement, assessment and management in schools based on previous research studies, data were grouped into broad categories deductively, and then the content of each category was further explored using inductive coding. Iterative peer debriefing and reflexive journaling were key strategies to increase the trustworthiness of the results. FINDINGS & RESULTS: Participants reported measuring and qualitatively assessing seven key outcomes for school-based practice. These included: (1) student progress and achievement, (2) student participation and inclusion in the school community, (3) stakeholder perspectives, (4) 'buy-in', (5) expanded capacities, (6) responsiveness to needs and (7) accountability to systems. Participants reported more challenges than successes in outcomes management during this transition to tiered services. Challenges were attributed to idiosyncratic organizational barriers, the transition to tiered models and the philosophy of working within the educational system. CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS: School-based speech-language therapists measure, assess and manage multiple outcomes relevant to school-based practice in tiered service-delivery models. Many challenges remain. Solutions to support meaningful, systematic and proactive outcomes management in schools should address the broader set of outcomes relevant to tiered service-delivery models and the unique practice context of the educational system, while remaining responsive to idiosyncratic organizational factors. Sustained clinical-research collaboration and knowledge exchange is recommended. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on the subject Systematic, proactive collection and interpretation of outcomes has long been encouraged within speech-language therapy. However, implementing outcomes management in clinical practice remains a substantial challenge. Additionally, research on outcomes to date has focused on medical practice environments, to the exclusion of school-based practice. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? Outcomes management is valued in school practice environments; however, the current repertoire of techniques for outcomes management are a poor match for school-based practice. Clinicians in schools would benefit from the development of contextually relevant, meaningful and feasible outcomes management tools.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,007 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».