Exploring the valued outcomes of school-based speech-language therapy services: a sequential iterative design
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Achieving outcomes that community members value is essential to high-quality, family-centred care. These valued outcomes should inform the production and interpretation of research evidence. To date, outcomes included in studies of service delivery models for speech-language services in schools have been narrowly defined, and do not match the outcomes suggested as important by families, teachers, and children. The most important outcomes of school-based, speech-languages services have not been directly and systematically investigated. We aimed to address this gap by asking school community members what outcomes were most relevant to evaluating and improving the delivery of speech-language services in schools. Methods: A sequential, iterative mixed-method study was conducted using interviews with 14 family members, educators, and speech-language therapists that asked what outcomes or impacts of school-based services they considered most important or valuable. Summative content analysis was used to analyse the data. Structural topic modelling between rounds of qualitative analysis was used to describe both the quality and the quantity of the interview content. School community members' perspectives were compared through estimation of topic proportions within interviews from each member group and through qualitative comparison. Results: Structural topic modelling diagnostics and qualitative interpretation of topic output suggested a six-topic solution. This solution was estimated successfully and yielded the following topics: (1) meeting all needs appropriately, (2) teamwork and collaboration, (3) building capacities, (4) supporting individual student needs in context, (5) coordinating care, and finally (6) supporting core educational goals. Families focused on school-based services meeting all needs appropriately and coordinating care, while educators highlighted supporting individual student needs in context. By contrast, speech-language therapists emphasized building capacities and supporting core educational goals. All school community members agreed that current assessment tools and outcome measures were inadequate to capture the most important impacts of school-based services. Conclusions: Outcomes identified by school community members as important or valuable were broad, and included individual student outcomes, interpersonal outcomes, and systems-level outcomes. Although these outcomes were discussed by all member groups, each group focused on different outcomes in the interviews, suggesting differences in the prioritization of outcomes. We recommend building consensus regarding the most important outcomes for school-based speech-language services, as well as the prioritization of outcomes for measure development.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,095 | 0,106 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,005 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,005 | 0,006 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,007 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,001 |
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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».