MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2906030560 · doi:10.1044/leader.wb.14012009.34

Ireland, New Zealand Join International Agreement

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

Bibliographic record

VenueASHA Leader · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicOccupational and Professional Licensing Regulation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAshaCertificationPolitical scienceAmerican Speech-Language-Hearing AssociationWorkforceMedicineFamily medicineMedical educationLinguisticsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from 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 ...

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.351
Threshold uncertainty score0.926

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.002
Scholarly communication0.0140.008
Open science0.0020.009
Research integrity0.0090.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.3510.262

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.214 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueASHA LeaderSame topicOccupational and Professional Licensing RegulationFrench-language works237,207