Program intensity and service delivery models in the schools: Slp survey results

Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools

Volumn 42, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 461-490

  Brandel, Jayne ^a   Loeb, Diane Frome ^b  

^a Fort Hays State University   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS   (United States)

Author keywords

Dosage; School intervention; Service delivery; Survey

Indexed keywords

EID: 85047687396     PISSN: 01611461     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1044/0161-1461(2011/10-0019     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. American Speech-Language Hearing Association. (2000). Guidelines for the roles and responsibilities of the school-based speech-language pathologist. Available from www.asha.org/policy.
2. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2002). A workload analysis approach for establishing speech-language caseload standards in the school: Position statement. Available from www.asha.org/policy.
3. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2005). Evidence-based practice in communication disorders [Position statement]. Available from www.asha.org/policy.
4. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2006). 2006 Schools survey report: Caseload characteristics. Rockville, MD: Author.
5. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2008). 2008 Schools survey report: Caseload characteristics. Rockville, MD: Author.
6. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2009). Highlights and trends: ASHA counts for year end 2009. Retrieved from http://www.asha.org/uploadedFiles/2009MemberCounts.pdf.
7. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2010). 2010 Schools survey report: SLP caseload characteristics. Retrieved from www.asha.org/research/memberdata/SchoolsSurvey.htm.
8. Baumann, J. F. (2009). Intensity in vocabulary instruction and effects on reading comprehension. Topics in Language Disorders, 29, 312-328.
9. Cirrin, F. M., & Gillam, R. B. (2008). Language intervention practices for school-age children with spoken language disorders: A systematic review. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 39, S110-S137.
10. Cirrin, F. M., Schooling, T. L., Nelson, N. W., Diehl, S. F., Flynn, P. F., Staskowski, M., Adamczyk, D. F. (2010). Evidence-based systematic review: Effects of different service delivery models on communication outcomes for elementary school-age children. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 41, 233-264.
11. Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2009). Internet, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
12. Dowden, P., Alarcon, N., Vollan, T., Cumley, G. D., Kuehn, C. M., & Amtmann, D. (2006). Survey of SLP caseloads in Washington state schools: Implications and strategies for action. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 37, 104-117.
13. Hoffman, L. M. (2009). Narrative language intervention intensity and program intensity: Telling the whole story. Topics in Language Disorders, 29(4), 329-343.
14. Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-446, § 118 Stat. 2647 (2004).
15. Katz, L. A., Maag, A., Fallon, K. A., Blenkarn, K., & Smith, M. K. (2010). What makes a caseload manageable? School-based speech-language pathologists speak. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 41, 139-151.
16. McCauley, R. J., & Fey, M. E. (2006). Treatment of language disorders in children. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
17. Mullen, R., & Schooling, T. (2010). The National Outcomes Measurement System for pediatric speech-language pathology. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 41, 44-60.
18. No Child Left Behind Act. Pub. Law. No. 107-110, § 115 Stat. 1425 (2001).
19. Praisner, C. L. (2003). Attitudes of elementary school principals toward the inclusion of students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 69(2), 135-145.
20. Proctor-Williams, K. (2009). Program intensity and distribution in morphosyntax intervention: Current evidence and future needs. Topics in Language Disorders, 29(4), 291-311.
21. Salisbury, C. L. (2006). Principals' perspectives on inclusive elementary schools. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 31(1), 70-82.
22. Sax, L. J., Gilmartin, S. K., & Bryant, A. N. (2003). Assessing response rate and nonresponsive bias in web and paper surveys. Research in Higher Education, 44(4), 409-432.
23. Schraeder, T. (2008). A guide to school services in speech-language pathology. San Diego, CA: Plural.
24. Ukrainetz, T. A. (2009). Phonemic awareness: How much isenough within a changing picture of reading instruction? Topics in Language Disorders, 29(4), 344-359.
25. Ukrainetz, T. A., Ross, C. L., & Harm, H. M. (2009). An investigation of treatment scheduling for phonemic awareness with kindergarteners who are at risk for reading difficulties. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 40(1), 86-100.
26. Warren, S. F., Fey, M. E., & Yoder, P. J. (2007). Differential treatment intensity research: A missing link to creating optimally effective communication interventions. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 13, 70-77.
27. Zipoli, R. P., Jr., & Kennedy, M. (2005). Evidence-based practice among speech-language pathologists: Attitudes, utilization, and barriers. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 14, 208-220.