MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4289800053 · doi:10.1044/2022_ajslp-21-00286

Cultural Adaptation of Parent-Implemented Early Communication Interventions: A Scoping Review

2022· review· en· W4289800053 on OpenAlexaff
Maya Albin, Samantha Micsinszki, Michelle Phoenix

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Speech-Language Pathology · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLanguage Development and Disorders
Canadian institutionsHolland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation HospitalMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOperationalizationPsycINFOPsychological interventionAdaptation (eye)PsychologyCLARITYApplied psychologyIntervention (counseling)Health communicationGrey literatureMEDLINEMedicineNursingCommunicationPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Parent-implemented early communication interventions are commonly delivered to culturally and linguistically diverse families. Although there is evidence from fields such as public health or psychology, there is little guidance regarding what elements to culturally adapt for parent-implemented speech-language pathology interventions. This scoping review addresses this gap by identifying parent-implemented early communication interventions that have been culturally adapted and describing which intervention components were adapted. Definitions of culture, use of adaptation frameworks, and adaptation guidelines, policies, and recommendations are also reported. METHOD: The databases Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Embase via OVID were searched. Supplementary search methods, including hand-searching of references and a gray literature search, were also conducted. Covidence software was used to deduplicate, collate, and review articles. Population, intervention, study, and cultural adaptation data were extracted and synthesized using the Ecological Validity Framework. RESULTS: Twenty-one articles were included from the database and supplementary searches. No studies defined culture, and only three used cultural adaptation models or frameworks to guide adaptation. Studies varied greatly in what they adapted; language adaptations, such as translation, were conducted most frequently, and intervention goals were rarely adapted. Only three studies obtained parent feedback to inform cultural adaptation for future recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: More clarity in the reporting of cultural adaptation for communication interventions is required. Cultural adaptation frameworks are useful tools to guide adaptation but can be difficult to operationalize. Additional research in this area is necessary to help clinicians provide culturally responsive, parent-implemented communication interventions. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.20416107.

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)0.056
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.220
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.295

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0560.220
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.005
Bibliometrics0.0140.014
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.131
GPT teacher head0.466
Teacher spread0.334 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations25
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Speech-Language PathologySame topicLanguage Development and DisordersFrench-language works237,207