Practice-Based Research With Speech-Language Pathologists: A Case Study in Evaluating an Evidence-Informed Language and Phonological Awareness Assessment Tool
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Practice-based research (PBR) is one approach to knowledge translation that involves conducting research in a clinical setting. In this project, a clinical–research partnership was established with a school board in Ontario. The research objectives were to examine the utility and validity of a board-designed language tool that assessed phonological awareness and story retell. Method: In Study 1, kindergarten children referred to the speech-language pathologist (SLP) for evaluation ( n = 108) and another not referred group ( n = 121) completed an assessment tool designed by school board SLPs at 2 points in the school year (Fall of 2017 and Spring of 2018). In Study 2, a second group of kindergarten children ( n = 37) completed an updated tool at two time points (Spring of 2019 and Fall of 2019), and at the first time point, they completed a series of standardized assessments of language. Results: Study 1 revealed that the phonological awareness component of the tool captured differences between the different groups and the Fall of 2017 and Spring of 2018 time points, whereas the narrative retell component captured differences in group but not time. Members of the partnership then revised the narrative component of the tool for Study 2, the results of which revealed that both the phonological awareness and narrative language components captured differences between groups and over time. The tool components were also found to correlate with corresponding tests of language ability, providing some evidence for its validity. Conclusions: This PBR project evaluated a bespoke clinical assessment tool and identified a needed revision. Ultimately, scores on both tool components captured expected differences in group and time and expected correlations were found with related measures. The PBR approach enabled practice capture and timely implementation of practice change.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".