Telepractice troubleshooting guide (McGill & Fiddler, 2021)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<b>Purpose: </b>Telepractice has been used as an alternative service delivery model in speech-language pathology across various settings and the scope of practice. Despite its utility and increasing demands resulting from the COVID-19 global pandemic, some clinicians and clients continue to report apprehension to adopting telepractice service delivery model due to discomfort with technology. Among currently available telepractice platforms, “ZOOM” is one of the popular platforms among speech-language pathologists (SLPs) in the United States because of its usability and subscription cost. However, many challenges have been experienced by clinicians and clients when ZOOM is used. The purpose of this article was twofold. The first goal of this article was to address barriers and challenges to implement successful telepractice SLP services. The second goal of this article was to develop four step-by-step troubleshooting manuals (one for client and one for clinician in both English and Spanish) to enhance its utility for users.<b>Conclusion:</b> Preliminary qualitative data showed that the manuals developed by the authors were useful and functional for graduate SLP students.<br><b>Supplemental Material S1. </b>Clinician English ZOOM manual. <br><b>Supplemental Material S2. </b>Client English ZOOM manual. <br><b>Supplemental Material S3. </b>Spanish manual for clinicians. <br><b>Supplemental Material S4. </b>Spanish manual for clients. <br>McGill, M., & Fiddler, K. (2021). A user's guide for understanding and addressing telepractice technology challenges via ZOOM. <i>Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups.</i> Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1044/2021_PERSP-20-00100
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.380 | 0.007 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".