Many school-based SLPs do not routinely use LSA. Further, many did not report engaging in evidence-based practices, such as recording samples, using established protocols, or using tasks designed to elicit complex syntax. These results indicate a continued need for professional development regarding evidenced-based practices relative to LSA use.

Purpose This study examined the models of collaboration used by school-based speech-language pathologists (SLPs) during the provision of special education services including factors predicting use of the interprofessional collaborative practice (IPP) model and barriers to collaboration. Method School-based SLPs responded to a survey on models of collaboration within their work setting. Anchored vignettes were created to determine their engagement in 3 different models (i.e., multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, and interprofessional) used in the provision of special education services during evaluation and intervention. Predictive factors supporting and/or hindering the use of IPP were identified. Results Results demonstrated low percentages of school-based SLPs engaging in IPP during initial evaluations (8%), eligibility meetings (43%), and intervention sessions (14%). Three factors predicted use of IPP in schools: prior training in collaboration, years of experience, and educational setting. The most frequently cited barriers to SLPs' engagement in collaboration included time constraints/scheduling (48%), resistance from other professionals (23%), and lack of support from employers/administration (11%). Conclusions The results of the current study indicated that systemic change is needed at both the university and public school levels. At the university level, preprofessional students need collaborative learning opportunities that are integrated across programs and colleges. School-based SLPs and other education professionals could benefit from job-embedded learning focused on IPP to increase their knowledge and engagement in IPP and improve student outcomes. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.9340760

MLUS, TNW, CPS, and WPS may be used with other assessment data to document age-related changes in children's language. When used as part of an assessment, the results from all of the metrics should be considered. Considering results from only 1 individual metric is not encouraged. These results suggest LSA may be completed in approximately 20 min, which is less than the average time to administer a standardized, norm-referenced language assessment.

BACKGROUND Among the elicited and observed procedures used to describe, classify, diagnose, measure change, quantify severity, and plan intervention for persons with aphasia, the measurement of connected spoken language has become a stable and valued procedure for many of these purposes. Though recognized, the most valid, reliable, and efficient methods for sampling connected language has received relatively little experimental attention from clinical and experimental aphasiologists. The recently developed Story Retell Procedure (SRP) (Doyle, et al, 2000) has the unique measurement advantage of predetermined targets for the retold stories thus increasing the validity of measuring the accuracy of the connected sample. However, linguistic measures of SRP performance reflect both comprehension and production processing. While the reliability and concurrent validity of the scoring methods for the forms of the SRP have been investigated (McNeil, et al, 2001; McNeil, et al, 2002), concurrent validation of this procedure with other established connected language sampling procedures has not been investigated. This study sought to compare several aspects of the language generated from one of the four forms of the SRP with two other published procedures for eliciting spoken language in persons with aphasia; the "Cinderella Story" (Berndt, Wayland, Rochon, Saffran, & Schwartz, 2000) and the five elicitation tasks (WAB & BDAE picture, two sequenced picture; two novel pictures, two procedural language tasks, and two personal information tasks) published by Nicholas and Brookshire (1993). METHOD To date, thirteen persons with aphasia who were defined by their performance on the Porch Index of Communicative Ability (Porch, 1981), the Revised Token Test (McNeil & Prescott, 1978) and on an immediate and delayed language recall task of the Assessment Battery of Communication in Dementia (Bayles & Tomoeda, 1993) have completed the seven language elicitation procedures describe above and their data have been analyzed. The data from seven additional subjects will be included for the final presentation. Biographical and selection data are summarized for each subjects in Table 1. The experimental tasks were administered in random order across participants and later transcribed and analyzed using SALT (Miller & Chapman, 1998) software. Eight measures of verbal productivity [number of story propositions (#Prop), number, percent, and number per minute Correct Information Units (# and %CIU and CIU/Min), number and percent Story Propositions (# and %SP), number of Utterances (#U), number of words (#W), and number of words per minute (#WPM), mean length of utterance (MLU), type-token ratio (TTR)]; two measures of syntactic complexity [number of conjunctions (#C), number of grammatically well-formed sentences (#GWF)], and three measure of verbal disruption [number of mazes (#Mz), number of abandoned sentences (#AS), percent of intelligible words (%IW)] were calculated for each of the seven language elicitation tasks. Data were analyzed within...

No abstract