Parents’ perspectives on speech-language assessment for their preschool-aged children: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Assessment allows speech-language pathologists to identify clients' strengths and needs while laying the foundation for the therapeutic relationship. However, the extent to which parents' experiences with assessment has been explored in the literature is unclear. The purposes of this review were to: a) Identify and summarise the available literature on parents' experiences with speech-language assessment for their preschool-aged children, and b) identify gaps in the literature. METHOD: Using an established framework for scoping reviews, the authors conducted a search of seven databases including literature up to April 2024. Two researchers independently reviewed articles for inclusion and discussed discrepancies, and a third researcher provided input when consensus could not be reached. Data extracted included study aims, participant information, and the aspects of the assessment process including the lead-up to the assessment, the assessment itself, receiving a diagnosis, and interim supports following the assessment. RESULT: Ten studies met inclusion criteria, however, only three studies were focussed on parents' experiences with speech-language assessment. CONCLUSION: In the included studies, aspects of assessment have been addressed but with limited depth and breadth. To date, the perspectives studied have primarily been those of monolingual, English-speaking mothers. Proposed reporting considerations are discussed, and clinical and research implications are explored.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".