词汇评估技术:学校言语病理学家的视角

IF 0.7 4区 医学 Q4 REHABILITATION
Sara C. Steele, L. Gibbons
{"title":"词汇评估技术:学校言语病理学家的视角","authors":"Sara C. Steele, L. Gibbons","doi":"10.1177/15257401221088241","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study documented the standardized tests and informal assessment techniques that school-based speech-language pathologists (SLPs) reported as most helpful for identifying vocabulary deficits and for monitoring progress. Speech-language pathologists (N = 142) working in U.S. public school settings completed an online survey that included multiple-choice, multiple-answer, and open-ended formats. Percentages and frequency counts were reported. For identifying vocabulary deficits, SLPs favored omnibus language tests over vocabulary-specific tests. The most frequently selected informal assessments for identifying vocabulary deficits were language samples and curricular-based measures. For monitoring progress, respondents favored creating their own tasks and using curricular-based measures. Minor differences were noted in the responses of elementary and middle-high school SLPs. Results were compared with evidence-based principles for vocabulary assessment.","PeriodicalId":46403,"journal":{"name":"Communication Disorders Quarterly","volume":"44 1","pages":"79 - 88"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Vocabulary Assessment Techniques: Perspectives of School-Based Speech-Language Pathologists\",\"authors\":\"Sara C. Steele, L. Gibbons\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/15257401221088241\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This study documented the standardized tests and informal assessment techniques that school-based speech-language pathologists (SLPs) reported as most helpful for identifying vocabulary deficits and for monitoring progress. Speech-language pathologists (N = 142) working in U.S. public school settings completed an online survey that included multiple-choice, multiple-answer, and open-ended formats. Percentages and frequency counts were reported. For identifying vocabulary deficits, SLPs favored omnibus language tests over vocabulary-specific tests. The most frequently selected informal assessments for identifying vocabulary deficits were language samples and curricular-based measures. For monitoring progress, respondents favored creating their own tasks and using curricular-based measures. Minor differences were noted in the responses of elementary and middle-high school SLPs. Results were compared with evidence-based principles for vocabulary assessment.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46403,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Communication Disorders Quarterly\",\"volume\":\"44 1\",\"pages\":\"79 - 88\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-04-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Communication Disorders Quarterly\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/15257401221088241\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"REHABILITATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Communication Disorders Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15257401221088241","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

这项研究记录了标准化测试和非正式评估技术,据学校言语语言病理学家(SLP)报告,这些测试和技术对识别词汇缺陷和监测进展最有帮助。在美国公立学校工作的言语语言病理学家(N=142)完成了一项在线调查,包括多项选择、多项回答和开放式形式。报告了百分比和频率计数。在识别词汇缺陷方面,SLP倾向于综合语言测试,而不是特定词汇测试。最常选择的用于识别词汇缺陷的非正式评估是语言样本和基于课程的测量。在监测进展方面,受访者倾向于制定自己的任务,并使用基于课程的衡量标准。小学和中学SLP的反应存在细微差异。将结果与基于证据的词汇评估原则进行比较。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Vocabulary Assessment Techniques: Perspectives of School-Based Speech-Language Pathologists
This study documented the standardized tests and informal assessment techniques that school-based speech-language pathologists (SLPs) reported as most helpful for identifying vocabulary deficits and for monitoring progress. Speech-language pathologists (N = 142) working in U.S. public school settings completed an online survey that included multiple-choice, multiple-answer, and open-ended formats. Percentages and frequency counts were reported. For identifying vocabulary deficits, SLPs favored omnibus language tests over vocabulary-specific tests. The most frequently selected informal assessments for identifying vocabulary deficits were language samples and curricular-based measures. For monitoring progress, respondents favored creating their own tasks and using curricular-based measures. Minor differences were noted in the responses of elementary and middle-high school SLPs. Results were compared with evidence-based principles for vocabulary assessment.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
27
期刊介绍: Articles for Communication Disorders Quarterly (CDQ) are accepted for review on a continual basis. The editor of CDQ welcomes submissions of previously unpublished applied and clinical research relating to typical and atypical communication across the lifespan. This includes assessment of and interventions for communicative disorders in infants, toddlers, young children, school-age children, youth, and adults. The readers of CDQ represent a breadth of viewpoints and professional interests, which is also reflected in the diversity of interests and expertise of the editorial board members. The journal is particularly of interest to speech–language pathologists and teachers of the deaf and hard of hearing. CDQ uses a masked peer review process for submissions.
×
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