Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34646565›Full record

ArticleSAGE open medicine2021

Towards development of guidelines for virtual administration of paediatric standardized language and literacy assessments: Considerations for clinicians and researchers.

Emily Wood, Insiya Bhalloo, Brittany McCaig, Cristina Feraru, Monika Molnar

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in SAGE open medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
4.2field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Emily WoodDepartment of Speech-Language Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1466-5615
Insiya BhallooDepartment of Speech-Language Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Brittany McCaigDepartment of Speech-Language Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Cristina FeraruDepartment of Speech-Language Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Monika MolnarDepartment of Speech-Language Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
University of Toronto · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesPrevious virtual care literature within the field of speech-language pathology has primarily focused on validating the virtual use of intervention programmes. There are fewer articles addressing the validity of conducting virtual assessments, particularly standardized assessment of oral language and literacy abilities in children. In addition, there is a lack of practical, useful recommendations available to support clinicians and researchers on how to conduct these assessment measures virtually. Given the recent rapid rise in virtual care and research as a result of the Coronavirus-19 pandemic, clinicians and researchers require guidance on best practices for virtual administration of these tools imminently. This article seeks to fill this gap in the literature by providing such recommendations.

methodsWe (a) completed a narrative review of the extant literature, and (b) conducted semi-structured interviews with a group of 12 clinicians, students and researchers who had administered standardized language and literacy assessments with a variety of monolingual and multilingual school-aged children, with and without speech and language difficulties, in clinical and research settings. Six themes: candidacy for virtual assessment, communication and collaboration with caregivers, technology and equipment, virtual administration, ethics, consent and confidentiality, and considerations for bilingual populations were identified as a result of these two processes and were used to develop a set of recommendations to guide the use of standardized assessments in a virtual setting. In line with the Guidelines International Network, these recommendations were rated by group members, and reviewed by external stakeholders. A quasi-Delphi consensus procedure was used to reach agreement on ratings for recommendations.

resultsWe have developed and outlined several recommendations for clinicians and researchers to guide their use of standardized language and literacy assessments in virtual care, across six key themes.

conclusionsThis article is one of the first to share practical recommendations for virtual assessment in the domain of oral language and literacy assessment for clinicians and researchers. We hope the current recommendations will facilitate future clinical research in this area, and as the body of research in this field grows, this article will act as a basis for the development of formal Clinical Practice Guidelines.

Indexed as

assessmentliteracyOral languagepaediatricrecommendationsspeech-language pathologytelepracticevirtual care

Identifiers

PMID34646565
PMCPMC8504279
OpenAlexW3206349757

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.