MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6907668813 · doi:10.23641/asha.16968097

The trauma & attachment gap in SLP (Rupert & Bartlett, 2021)

2021· article· en· W6907668813 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfant Development and Preterm Care
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThematic analysisRelevance (law)Identification (biology)Best practiceQualitative researchService delivery frameworkClinical Practice

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: Previous research demonstrates the relevance of childhood trauma and attachment to communication development. This study aimed to understand speech-language pathology (SLP) practitioners’ knowledge, beliefs, training, and current practices regarding developmental trauma and attachment.Method: An online survey was administered to SLP practitioners (N = 97) who work primarily with children from birth to age 6 years in Canada. Quantitative (univariate and bivariate) analysis was performed with SPSS. Qualitative responses were coded by two reviewers using thematic analysis to identify key themes.Results: SLP practitioners are working with children who have experienced trauma and adapt their practice when they are aware of this history. Practitioners also indicated, however, that they lack training with respect to trauma and attachment, their understanding of the concepts is narrow, they do not have standardized practices for obtaining trauma history, and they do not adapt their practice in consistent ways. The results show there is interest in understanding how trauma affects communication development, the relevance to their work, and that additional training is needed to support practitioners to identify and respond to trauma in early childhood.Conclusions: Findings from this study support SLP practitioners’ involvement in early identification of trauma and the development of best practices regarding trauma-informed SLP assessment and intervention. The results also inform how systems and areas of service need to be adjusted to be more accessible, flexible, and collaborative in order to support children and families whose lives have been impacted by trauma and indicate additional areas of research in the area. Supplemental Material S1. Survey. Rupert, A. C., & Bartlett, D. E. (2021). The childhood trauma and attachment gap in speech-language pathology: Practitioner's knowledge, practice, and needs. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1044/2021_AJSLP-21-00110

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.007
Open science0.0010.009
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.281 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen MIND→Same topicInfant Development and Preterm Care→French-language works237,207→