Meaghan McKenna

Purpose: Most pediatric speech-language therapists (SLTs) will serve bilingual children. This article reports findings from the National Survey of SLTs' Training, Confidence, and Barriers When Serving Bilingual Children . This survey was created for SLTs to self-report training, confidence, and barriers when assessing and delivering interventions to bilingual children. Method: The 58-question survey was developed using commonly accepted procedures for questionnaire development to establish content validity: (a) identification of the purpose of the survey, (b) creation of a blueprint of items, (c) expert panel review, and (d) cognitive interviews with end-users. Upon completing initial development, 567 bilingual and monolingual SLTs responded to survey items. Internal structure validity was assessed using a confirmatory factor analysis. A three-factor model with the following dimensions—linguistically matched, not linguistically matched, and barriers when not linguistically matched—resulted. Results: Descriptive findings uncovered an ongoing need for SLTs to receive training to support bilingual children on their caseload, especially to communicate with families who speak languages other than English and embed children's home language in therapy sessions. While bilingual SLTs were more confident in serving bilingual children than monolingual SLTs were, both groups identified inadequate resources, along with other barriers that impacted their perceived confidence and competence. Conclusions: Survey results reveal the continued need to support preservice and practicing SLTs to enhance their competence and confidence when assessing and treating bilingual children. The findings from the present study have the potential of informing American Speech-Language-Hearing Association's leadership, institutes of higher education, and continuing education initiatives. Supplemental Material: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.29409923

Purpose: While there is overwhelming support from clinical texts, journal articles, and our national organization for the implementation of multi-tiered system of supports (MTSS) in school-based speech and language practice, the reality is that many speech-language pathologists (SLPs) may be unfamiliar with how to fully engage with this framework. In this clinical focus article, we identify potential misconceptions related to MTSS and explore the degree to which these misconceptions may be prevalent and the driving factors that influence SLPs. We also discuss what next steps the field can take to support accurate beliefs about MTSS and refudiate potential misconceptions in order to best position SLPs to successfully participate in an MTSS framework. Method: Twelve potential misconceptions related to MTSS and SLPs were identified by the authors of this clinical focus article. Nineteen school-based SLPs who worked in public schools in the United States participated in a 75-min focus group where they were asked to rate the degree to which they agreed or disagreed with the identified misconceptions and explain their reactions. Focus groups ranged in size from three to four SLPs. Results: The focus groups produced both quantitative and qualitative data about SLPs' perspectives related to MTSS and provided insights into which misconceptions may be prevalent or influential in how SLPs frame, approach, and reflect on MTSS. Conclusions: Although roles and responsibilities of school-based SLPs support engagement with MTSS, there is growing concern regarding the gap between research, policy, and practice related to MTSS implementation. Identifying and addressing potential misconceptions SLPs hold related to MTSS will bolster efforts to support SLP involvement in MTSS, resulting in high-quality services and supports matched to strengths and needs of all students.

Researchers and practitioners continue to call for professional learning (PL) for multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS) to promote implementation with fidelity. Different PL interventions and MTSS frameworks raise questions about what types of PL support educators to engage in key practices. Questions also remain regarding educators’ perspectives and experiences with PL for MTSS and factors that facilitate or hinder educators’ learning. In this paper, we report findings from a qualitative research synthesis on PL for MTSS in the United States. We found 46 studies that explored educators’ perspectives and experiences with PL. Findings illuminated educators’ positive experiences with ongoing, job-embedded PL, particularly PL communities and coaching. Studies also illustrated the importance of collaboration and trust within learning communities as well as leaders who empower and trust educators. We discuss the implications of these findings in K–12 school settings.

Research on how COVID-19 school closures impacted the learning of young children is still sparse, and the broader implications of these findings have yet to be fully explored. In this study, we examine the impacts of COVID-19 school closures on language and literacy development in a state-funded pre-K program in a Florida school district. Using COVID closures as a natural experiment, we additionally explore the implications of these findings for the literature on the efficacy and dosage of state-funded pre-K programs. We used propensity score matching to compare children from the COVID cohort ( n = 1,211) to children from a pre-COVID cohort ( n = 1,167). Results revealed no significant difference on the Florida Kindergarten Readiness Screener (FLKRS) assessment between the two cohorts at kindergarten entry. The COVID cohort had significantly higher scores on each of the individual subdomains of the FLKRS than the pre-COVID cohort, with especially large positive effect sizes for constrained literacy skills. Results indicate that COVID-19 closures did not have significant negative impacts on pre-K children’s language and literacy skills at kindergarten entry. Findings further suggest that state-funded pre-K programs with comparatively less funding and lower quality ratings may not provide adequate support for children’s language and literacy outcomes.

This article describes the development of the Early Elementary Writing Rubric (EEWR), an analytic assessment designed to measure kindergarten and first-grade writing and inform educators’ instruction. Crocker and Algina’s (1986) approach to instrument development and validation was used as a guide to create and refine the writing measure. Study 1 describes the development of the 10-item measure (response scale ranges from 0 = Beginning of Kindergarten to 5 = End of First Grade). Educators participated in focus groups, expert panel review, cognitive interviews, and pretesting as part of the instrument development process. Study 2 evaluates measurement quality in terms of score reliability and validity. Data from writing samples produced by 634 students in kindergarten and first-grade classrooms were collected during pilot testing. An exploratory factor analysis was conducted to evaluate the psychometric properties of the EEWR. A one-factor model fit the data for all writing genres and all scoring elements were retained with loadings ranging from 0.49 to 0.92. Internal consistency reliability was high and ranged from .89 to .91. Interrater reliability between the researcher and participants varied from poor to good and means ranged from 52% to 72%. First-grade students received higher scores than kindergartners on all 10 scoring elements. The EEWR holds promise as an acceptable, useful, and psychometrically sound measure of early writing. Further iterative development is needed to fully investigate its ability to accurately identify the present level of student performance and to determine sensitivity to developmental and instruction gains.

This article describes the development and administration of a survey to identify early childhood educators’ successes and barriers when delivering remote instruction (e.g., online whole or small group instruction) during the COVID-19 pandemic to children 2–5 years old. The survey was developed using procedures outlined by the commonly accepted stages of an instrument development process. Content validity was established using four approaches: (a) identification of the purpose of the survey, (b) creation of a blueprint of items, (c) cognitive interviews, and (d) expert panel review. A total of 1,053 early childhood educators began the survey, with 808 (77%) of the responses included because educators met the inclusion criteria of working in the United States and responding to at least one question related to remote instruction. The survey contained 37 closed-ended and six open-ended items covering eight domains: (a) demographic information; (b) preparation, guidelines, and materials for remote learning; (c) caregiver communication and engagement; (d) assessment; (e) instruction; (f) educators’ levels of confidence before and after remote learning; (g) access to services (i.e., wraparound and/or special education); and (h) planning for the return to face-to-face instruction. Both quantitative (descriptive, t-test, regression, ANOVA, and Chi-square tests) and consensual qualitative research analyses were applied to summarize the survey results. Findings from this survey indicated that even with limited or no guidance from administrators, educators successfully adapted to remote instruction and their levels of confidence increased over time. Ongoing improvements need to be made to sustain regular communication with all families, to offer access to technology (i.e., devices and internet), to administer assessments or universal screeners, and to provide cohesive guidelines and expectations. Results from this study begin to shed light on early childhood educators’ adaptation to remote instruction as a result of COVID-19.