Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42020682›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of language & communication disorders

How Do Speech-Language Pathologists (SLPs) Know? A Survey of SLPs' Disciplinary Epistemology.

Shanda Duggleby Wenzel, Monique Charest, Lesley Pritchard

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of language & communication disorders. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Shanda Duggleby WenzelDepartment of Rehabilitation Science, Faculty of Rehabilitation Medicine, College of Health Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-5164-8619
Monique CharestDepartment of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Faculty of Rehabilitation Medicine, College of Health Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0678-6249
Lesley PritchardDepartment of Physical Therapy, Faculty of Rehabilitation Medicine, College of Health Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6684-376X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLearning to think like a member of your profession is a crucial aspect of joining its ranks. One important but potentially hidden influence on professional thinking is the discipline's epistemology, or the beliefs that its members share about knowledge and learning. These beliefs impact clinical decision making, advocacy and research, and understanding a discipline's epistemology is thus critical to disciplinary education. However, speech-language pathologists' (SLPs') disciplinary epistemology remains largely unexplored.

aimsThe purpose of this study was to explore possible elements of SLPs' beliefs about knowledge and learning, and potential ways that these beliefs may vary. METHODS AND PROCEDURES: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of Canadian SLPs, informed by the literature on potential ways of knowing in clinical contexts. Participants ranked and rated importance, use, and agreement with statements related to seven ways of knowing. We explored rationales for the rankings, barriers to use, and other possible ways of knowing via open-ended questions, and examined associations between respondent characteristics and ratings of least and most important ways of knowing. OUTCOMES AND

resultsSeventy-four SLPs completed the survey. Respondents agreed with the statements associated with all the ways of knowing, except for statements suggesting a preference for quantitative research. There were a small number of significant associations between demographic characteristics of participants and ways of knowing rated as most or least important. Open-ended survey data provided insight into what respondents value in knowledge; ways of knowing beyond those presented in our survey were suggested. Learning from others appears to be valued by SLPs. Scientific approaches, though clearly valued, were questioned. SLP disciplinary epistemology may be both focused on, and shaped by, clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: SLPs' disciplinary epistemology appears to be multifaceted and application-focused, informed by science and shaped by practice. Implications for professional education, practice and future research are discussed. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on this subject What we believe about knowledge and learning, as SLPs, underpins how we create and evaluate knowledge for our profession. Other professions (e.g., nursing, occupational therapy) have published explorations of their disciplinary epistemology; however, little has been published on this topic for SLPs. What this paper adds to the existing knowledge In this study, we explored possible elements of SLPs' disciplinary epistemology. Our findings suggest that SLPs' disciplinary epistemology includes a mixture of relational, practical, scientific and contextual components. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? Deeply-held, often covert beliefs about knowing and learning influence how we evaluate and use knowledge. Potential mismatches between SLP's disciplinary epistemology and the underpinnings of evidence-based practice may contribute to difficulty with its implementation, while potential mismatches between disciplinary epistemology and training program curricula may influence student preparedness for clinical education and practice.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeKnowledgeSpeech-Language PathologyAdultCanadaCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and Questionnairesclinical decision makingepistemologyevidence‐based practiceprofessional educationsurvey

Identifiers

PMID42020682
PMCPMC13102992

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.