{"title":"Speech-Language Pathologists' Language Practices during Speech-Language Therapy for Bilingual Children.","authors":"Megan C Gross, Kylie Dubé","doi":"10.1044/2024_persp-24-00194","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Previous research and clinical practice guidelines indicate that it is best practice to support bilingual children with communication disorders in both of their languages. However, there is a shortage of bilingual speech-language pathologists (SLPs) in the United States. Therefore, it is important to examine how SLPs with varying linguistic backgrounds serve their bilingual clients. This study investigated the language practices of SLPs during intervention with bilingual children and identified needed resources.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>This convergent mixed-methods study included a survey and semi-structured interviews, with interviewees sampled purposively based on survey responses. Quantitative analyses were examined alongside qualitative themes to address each research question.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, 21.5% of the bilingual clients described by survey respondents were reported to receive intervention in both of their languages. SLPs who shared both languages with their clients and had a professional level of proficiency were more likely to provide services in both languages and to engage in code-switching during sessions. Qualitative analysis revealed creative strategies that SLPs used to overcome their own linguistic limitations when they lacked skills in a client's heritage language. Although practices varied based on the SLP's linguistic background, respondents identified similar priorities, including more bilingual providers and access to training, multilingual materials, and interpreters.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study contributes insights into <i>how</i> SLPs serve their bilingual clients and what resources are needed to improve services. Although this study focused on Massachusetts and had a small sample, the findings may apply to other states, and there may be benefits to addressing these questions at a state level to provide targeted advocacy, training, and resources.</p>","PeriodicalId":74424,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives of the ASHA special interest groups","volume":"10 1","pages":"288-311"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12327431/pdf/","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-24-00194","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/10 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: Previous research and clinical practice guidelines indicate that it is best practice to support bilingual children with communication disorders in both of their languages. However, there is a shortage of bilingual speech-language pathologists (SLPs) in the United States. Therefore, it is important to examine how SLPs with varying linguistic backgrounds serve their bilingual clients. This study investigated the language practices of SLPs during intervention with bilingual children and identified needed resources.
Method: This convergent mixed-methods study included a survey and semi-structured interviews, with interviewees sampled purposively based on survey responses. Quantitative analyses were examined alongside qualitative themes to address each research question.
Results: Overall, 21.5% of the bilingual clients described by survey respondents were reported to receive intervention in both of their languages. SLPs who shared both languages with their clients and had a professional level of proficiency were more likely to provide services in both languages and to engage in code-switching during sessions. Qualitative analysis revealed creative strategies that SLPs used to overcome their own linguistic limitations when they lacked skills in a client's heritage language. Although practices varied based on the SLP's linguistic background, respondents identified similar priorities, including more bilingual providers and access to training, multilingual materials, and interpreters.
Conclusion: This study contributes insights into how SLPs serve their bilingual clients and what resources are needed to improve services. Although this study focused on Massachusetts and had a small sample, the findings may apply to other states, and there may be benefits to addressing these questions at a state level to provide targeted advocacy, training, and resources.