Diversity of Research Participant Gender, Race, and Ethnicity in Communication Sciences and Disorders: A Systematic Review and Quantitative Synthesis of American Speech-Language-Hearing Association Publications in 2020

Ryan A. Millager, Jacob I. Feldman, Zachary J. Williams, Kiiya Shibata, Keysha A. Martinez-Torres, K. Bryan, Dillon G. Pruett, Jade T. Mitchell, Jennifer E. Markfeld, Brandon Merritt, Derek E. Daniels, Robin M. Jones, Tiffany Woynaroski
{"title":"Diversity of Research Participant Gender, Race, and Ethnicity in Communication Sciences and Disorders: A Systematic Review and Quantitative Synthesis of American Speech-Language-Hearing Association Publications in 2020","authors":"Ryan A. Millager, Jacob I. Feldman, Zachary J. Williams, Kiiya Shibata, Keysha A. Martinez-Torres, K. Bryan, Dillon G. Pruett, Jade T. Mitchell, Jennifer E. Markfeld, Brandon Merritt, Derek E. Daniels, Robin M. Jones, Tiffany Woynaroski","doi":"10.1044/2024_persp-23-00204","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n One manifestation of systemic inequities in communication sciences and disorders (CSD) is the chronic underreporting and underrepresentation of sex, gender, race, and ethnicity in research. The present study characterized recent demographic reporting practices and representation of participants across CSD research.\n \n \n \n We systematically reviewed and extracted key reporting and participant data from empirical studies conducted in the United States with human participants published in the year 2020 in journals by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA; 407 articles comprising a total of 80,058 research participants, search completed in November 2021). Sex, gender, race, and ethnicity were operationalized per National Institutes of Health guidelines.\n \n \n \n Sex or gender was reported in 85.5% of included studies; race in 33.7%; and ethnicity in 13.8%. Sex and gender were clearly differentiated in 3.4% of relevant studies. Where reported, median proportions for race and ethnicity were significantly different from the U.S. population, with underrepresentation noted for all non-White racial groups and Hispanic participants. Moreover, 64.7% of studies that reported sex or gender and 67.2% of studies that reported race or ethnicity did not consider these respective variables in analyses or discussions.\n \n \n \n At present, research published in ASHA journals frequently fails to report key demographic data summarizing the characteristics of participants. Moreover, apparent gaps in the representation of minoritized racial and ethnic groups threaten the external validity of CSD research and broader health care equity endeavors in the United States. Although our study is limited to a single year and publisher, our results point to several steps for readers that may bring greater accountability, consistency, and diversity to the discipline.\n \n \n \n \n https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.25718412\n \n","PeriodicalId":74424,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives of the ASHA special interest groups","volume":"111 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Perspectives of the ASHA special interest groups","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1044/2024_persp-23-00204","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

One manifestation of systemic inequities in communication sciences and disorders (CSD) is the chronic underreporting and underrepresentation of sex, gender, race, and ethnicity in research. The present study characterized recent demographic reporting practices and representation of participants across CSD research. We systematically reviewed and extracted key reporting and participant data from empirical studies conducted in the United States with human participants published in the year 2020 in journals by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA; 407 articles comprising a total of 80,058 research participants, search completed in November 2021). Sex, gender, race, and ethnicity were operationalized per National Institutes of Health guidelines. Sex or gender was reported in 85.5% of included studies; race in 33.7%; and ethnicity in 13.8%. Sex and gender were clearly differentiated in 3.4% of relevant studies. Where reported, median proportions for race and ethnicity were significantly different from the U.S. population, with underrepresentation noted for all non-White racial groups and Hispanic participants. Moreover, 64.7% of studies that reported sex or gender and 67.2% of studies that reported race or ethnicity did not consider these respective variables in analyses or discussions. At present, research published in ASHA journals frequently fails to report key demographic data summarizing the characteristics of participants. Moreover, apparent gaps in the representation of minoritized racial and ethnic groups threaten the external validity of CSD research and broader health care equity endeavors in the United States. Although our study is limited to a single year and publisher, our results point to several steps for readers that may bring greater accountability, consistency, and diversity to the discipline. https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.25718412
交流科学与障碍领域研究参与者的性别、种族和民族多样性:对 2020 年美国言语-语言-听力协会出版物的系统回顾和定量综述
沟通科学与障碍(CSD)中系统性不公平的表现之一是研究中长期存在性别、种族和民族的报告不足和代表性不足的问题。本研究描述了最近的人口统计报告实践和 CSD 研究中参与者的代表性。 我们系统地回顾并提取了 2020 年在美国进行的、有人类参与者参与的实证研究中的关键报告和参与者数据,这些研究发表在美国言语-语言-听力协会(ASHA;407 篇文章,共计 80,058 名研究参与者,搜索工作于 2021 年 11 月完成)的期刊上。根据美国国立卫生研究院的指导原则,对性别、种族和民族进行了操作。 85.5%的纳入研究报告了性别;33.7%的纳入研究报告了种族;13.8%的纳入研究报告了民族。3.4%的相关研究明确区分了性别。在有报告的研究中,种族和人种比例的中位数与美国人口有显著差异,所有非白人种族群体和西班牙裔参与者的比例都偏低。此外,64.7% 的研究报告了性或性别,67.2% 的研究报告了种族或民族,但在分析或讨论中并未考虑这些变量。 目前,在 ASHA 期刊上发表的研究常常没有报告总结参与者特征的关键人口统计学数据。此外,少数种族和民族群体在代表性方面的明显差距威胁着美国 CSD 研究和更广泛的医疗保健公平努力的外部有效性。虽然我们的研究仅限于单一年份和单一出版商,但我们的研究结果为读者指出了几个步骤,这些步骤可能会为该学科带来更大的责任感、一致性和多样性。https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.25718412。
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信