Clinical Education Outcomes and Research Directions in Speech-Language Pathology: A Scoping Review

George W Wolford, S. Brannick, S. Strother, Laura L. Wolford
{"title":"Clinical Education Outcomes and Research Directions in Speech-Language Pathology: A Scoping Review","authors":"George W Wolford, S. Brannick, S. Strother, Laura L. Wolford","doi":"10.30707/tlcsd5.2.1624983591.656565","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: To describe what researchers are investigating and how they are measuring the constructs of their investigations within the speech-language pathology (SLP) clinical education literature. Method: A scoping review methodology (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005) was employed to develop a picture of clinical education articles which reported a measured outcome. Articles that met criteria were categorized by the purpose of the investigation and the outcome measures reported. Result: 124 articles met inclusion criteria. Analysis of study purposes revealed a wide breadth of foci that were grouped into four broad clusters: Outcome Measures, Student Perspectives, Educational Contexts, and Teaching Methods. Most of the studies in the corpus relied only on student self-report measures. In addition, any specific outcome measure was typically used only once and not found in subsequent studies. Trends indicate a variety of constructs are being studied at an exploratory level with limited in-depth investigation. Conclusion: Given the inconsistency of outcome measures and reliance on self-report measures, more research is needed to validate recommendations of best practices in clinical education. Areas of need include developing and implementing validated outcomes, more frequent investigation of clinical education using measures other than student self-reports, and testing theories found in other fields.","PeriodicalId":202254,"journal":{"name":"Teaching and Learning in Communication Sciences and Disorders","volume":"20 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Teaching and Learning in Communication Sciences and Disorders","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30707/tlcsd5.2.1624983591.656565","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Purpose: To describe what researchers are investigating and how they are measuring the constructs of their investigations within the speech-language pathology (SLP) clinical education literature. Method: A scoping review methodology (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005) was employed to develop a picture of clinical education articles which reported a measured outcome. Articles that met criteria were categorized by the purpose of the investigation and the outcome measures reported. Result: 124 articles met inclusion criteria. Analysis of study purposes revealed a wide breadth of foci that were grouped into four broad clusters: Outcome Measures, Student Perspectives, Educational Contexts, and Teaching Methods. Most of the studies in the corpus relied only on student self-report measures. In addition, any specific outcome measure was typically used only once and not found in subsequent studies. Trends indicate a variety of constructs are being studied at an exploratory level with limited in-depth investigation. Conclusion: Given the inconsistency of outcome measures and reliance on self-report measures, more research is needed to validate recommendations of best practices in clinical education. Areas of need include developing and implementing validated outcomes, more frequent investigation of clinical education using measures other than student self-reports, and testing theories found in other fields.
语言病理学临床教育成果与研究方向综述
目的:描述研究人员在言语语言病理学(SLP)临床教育文献中正在调查的内容以及他们如何测量他们调查的结构。方法:采用范围审查方法(Arksey & O 'Malley, 2005)对报告测量结果的临床教育文章进行分析。符合标准的文章按调查目的和报告的结果措施进行分类。结果:124篇文章符合纳入标准。研究目的分析揭示了广泛的焦点,分为四大类:结果测量、学生观点、教育背景和教学方法。语料库中的大多数研究仅依赖于学生的自我报告测量。此外,任何特定的结果测量通常只使用一次,在随后的研究中没有发现。趋势表明,在有限的深入调查下,各种结构正在探索性水平上进行研究。结论:考虑到结果测量的不一致性和对自我报告测量的依赖,需要更多的研究来验证临床教育中最佳实践的建议。需要的领域包括开发和实施有效的结果,使用学生自我报告以外的方法更频繁地调查临床教育,以及测试在其他领域发现的理论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信