Perceptions about cultural competency among Speech and Language Therapists in New Zealand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
International research has explored SLT practice with culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) clients. SLT practice and confidence in working with CLD caseloads in Canada, Australia, the UK and the USA is reported to differ according to variables such as SLTs linguistic background, education and caseload demographics. Perceived barriers to service to CLDs include the availability of assessments and other necessary resources, a linguistic mismatch between bilingual SLTs and SLT caseloads and inadequate training in the area of practice to CLDs. This paper presents the results of a research project which explored the beliefs and degrees of confidence reported by SLTs working in New Zealand with CLD clients, via an online survey. The results indicated that in the NZ context overall clinicians appear to have a higher degree of confidence working with a diverse caseload than studies from other countries have reported. Differences between participants related to a range of factors including SLTs bilingual status, their degree of experience in the field, their educational background, and the characteristics of those on their caseload. Possible explanations for the pattern of responses will be discussed. Issues such as shifts in content of training programmes over time, the implications and implementations of te Tiriti o Waitangi, and the makeup of the unique NZ context are raised . The authors discuss the implications of these results for SLT practice in NZ. Finally, we will present possible future directions for the development of cultural competency in NZ practitioners, and directions for further research.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".