MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406885971 · doi:10.1044/2024_lshss-24-00109

Speech-Language Pathology Preservice Preparation for Working in School-Age Literacy: International Perspectives

2025· review· en· W4406885971 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Caitlin Stephenson, Tanya Serry, Pamela Snow

Bibliographic record

VenueLanguage Speech and Hearing Services in Schools · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLanguage Development and Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCourseworkPsychologyCLARITYLiteracyGraduation (instrument)Medical educationAccreditationTeacher educationTeacher preparationPedagogyMathematics educationMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: This narrative review of preservice training of speech-language pathologists (SLPs) to work in school-age literacy contexts examines (a) studies regarding SLPs' perceptions of their preservice training and (b) accreditation requirements for preservice training in selected nations. METHOD: A review of the literature examining (a) SLPs' perspectives about their preservice training; (b) SLPs' beliefs, confidence, and self-efficacy; and (c) speech-language pathology preservice program content was conducted via analysis of studies published after the year 2010. Policy documents and websites outlining accreditation requirements in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand were reviewed. RESULTS: The literature search resulted in a total of 13 studies: nine from the United States and four from Australia. Twelve of the studies investigated SLP perceptions of preservice training. The perspectives of university faculty were included in one of these. One study directly examined preservice program coursework. In the United States, there appears to have been an increase in course content related to literacy in recent years. However, SLPs in both the United States and Australia consistently report feeling underprepared by their preservice training to address the full continuum of school-age literacy service provision that could be expected of SLPs on graduation. Between the different international contexts, there is significant variability in the clarity and specificity of requirements for preservice training in literacy for SLPs. CONCLUSIONS: Published research is limited to cross-sectional survey evaluations of preservice training. A qualitative lens to examine in more depth and breadth the experiences of preservice training from the perspectives of both recipients and providers is needed. Policy documents for speech-language pathology would benefit from increased coherence and accountability regarding accreditation requirements for SLPs in school-age literacy.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.374 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLanguage Speech and Hearing Services in SchoolsSame topicLanguage Development and DisordersFrench-language works237,207