Speech-Language Pathology Graduate Admissions: Implications to Diversify the Workforce

2020 ◽  
pp. 152574012096104
Author(s):  
Mark Guiberson ◽  
Debra Vigil
Keyword(s):  
Linguistic Diversity ◽  
Graduate Programs ◽  
Survey Study ◽  
Diverse Students ◽  
Degree Programs ◽  
Speech Language Pathology ◽  
Cultural And Linguistic Diversity ◽  
Graduate Admissions ◽  
Professional Degree ◽  
Language Pathology

The purpose of this survey study was to describe screening and admission processes and considerations for graduate speech-language pathology (SLP) programs, with an eye for how programs consider cultural and linguistic diversity (CLD) in these processes. Responses were obtained from 110 graduate SLP programs. In addition to admission processes and decisions, the survey also asked specific questions about how bilingualism was considered, holistic admission processes and outcomes, and barriers to recruiting students from CLD backgrounds into programs. Based on results obtained as well as knowledge from admission considerations for other professional degree programs and trends in the field, the authors present promising undergraduate supports and holistic admission processes to recruit diverse students to graduate programs.

Student Experience Applying to Graduate School for Speech-Language Pathology

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 192-205
Author(s):  
Lesley Sylvan ◽  
Andrea Perkins ◽  
Carly Truglio
Keyword(s):  
Graduate School ◽  
Master's Degree ◽  
Graduate Programs ◽  
Student Experience ◽  
Degree Programs ◽  
Speech Language Pathology ◽  
Application Process ◽  
Master's Degree Programs ◽  
Language Pathology ◽  
Master’S Degree

Purpose The purpose of this study is to better understand the experiences faced by students during the application process for master's degree programs in speech-language pathology. Method Data were collected through administering an online survey to 365 volunteers who had applied to master's degree programs in speech-language pathology. Survey questions were designed to gain the student perspective of the application process through exploration of students' deciding factors for top choices of graduate programs, emotional involvement in the application process, biases/rumors heard, student challenges, advice to future applicants, and what students would change about the application process. Results Factors that influenced participants' reasoning for selecting their “top choice” programs were largely consistent with previous studies. Issues that shaped the student experience applying to graduate school for speech-language pathology included financial constraints, concern regarding the prominence of metrics such as Graduate Record Examinations scores in the admissions process, a perceived lack of guidance and advising from faculty, and confusion regarding variation among graduate program requirements. Conclusion Gaining insight into the student experience with the application process for graduate programs in speech-language pathology yields useful information from a perspective not frequently explored in prior literature. While the data presented in this study suggest the process is confusing and challenging to many applicants, the discussion highlights practical solutions and sheds light on key issues that should be considered carefully by individual graduate programs as well as the field as a whole.

Preliminary evaluation of applicants to master's programs in speech-language pathology using vignettes and criteria from a holistic review process

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Teresa Girolamo ◽  
Stephen Politzer-Ahles ◽  
Samantha Ghali ◽  
BRITTANY WILLIAMS
Keyword(s):  
Linguistic Diversity ◽  
Preliminary Evaluation ◽  
Barriers To Entry ◽  
Speech Language Pathology ◽  
Master's Programs ◽  
Cultural And Linguistic Diversity ◽  
Holistic Review ◽  
Language Pathology ◽  
High Level ◽  
Future Work

Purpose: Little is known about how others evaluate applicants to master’s programs in speech-language pathology along criteria used during holistic review, despite more programs adopting holistic review. This knowledge gap limits our understanding of whether holistic admissions may offer a more equitable pathway to entering speech-language pathology. This study investigated how faculty and Ph.D. students evaluated applicants to master’s speech-language pathology programs along criteria used during holistic review.Method: We administered a survey online through a Qualtrics platform. Respondents (N = 66) were faculty and Ph.D. candidates in U.S. speech-language-hearing departments. Survey blocks included demographics, professional background, and vignettes. Vignettes featured profiles of applicants to master’s programs in speech-language pathology. Vignettes systematically varied in the indicators of applicant criteria, which were specified at low, moderate, or high levels, or not specified. After reading each vignette, respondents rated the applicant and indicated their admissions decision. Analysis included descriptives.Results: Relative to an applicant who was at a high level for all indicators except cultural and linguistic diversity, respondents ranked applicants who varied in their indicators of criteria levels lower. Respondents were also less likely to make an explicit “accept” decision (versus “waitlist” or “reject”) for this latter group of applicants. Conclusion: Even when implementing criteria used during holistic review, applicants who vary from a “high-achieving” stereotype may still face barriers to entry. Future work is needed to understand the precise nature of how holistic admissions review may play out in actual practice and help increase diversity in the profession.

A Comparison of Entrance and Graduation Requirements for the Au.D. with Other First Professional Degrees

2006 ◽  
Vol 17 (05) ◽  
pp. 321-330
Author(s):  
Mark G. Smith ◽  
Ian M. Windmill
Keyword(s):  
Graduation Requirements ◽  
Degree Programs ◽  
Clinical Experiences ◽  
Speech Language Pathology ◽  
Entrance Examinations ◽  
Health Care Professions ◽  
Professional Degree ◽  
Language Pathology ◽  
Professional Degrees ◽  
Certification Requirements

Over the past several years there has been increasing reference to the Doctor of Audiology degree (Au.D.) as a "first professional degree." Currently, first professional degrees are awarded in the fields of chiropractic, dentistry, law, medicine, optometry, osteopathic medicine, pharmacy, podiatry, theology, and veterinary medicine. General entrance requirements, clinical experiences, and graduation requirements for the Au.D. degree were compared to the health-care professions awarding first professional degrees. Comparisons were also made to the professions of pharmacy, psychology and speech-language pathology. For all first professional degree occupations, unique entrance and competency examination processes have been developed. The four-year postbachelor's Au.D. degree model is similar in length to first professional degree programs, although most of the other occupations provide the opportunity to specialize after graduation. For the factors examined in this study, including entrance requirements, entrance examinations, program length, graduation requirements, and certification requirements, the Au.D. continues to be more similar to the nonprofessional degree models of psychology and speech-language pathology. The comparison with first professional degree programs yields information for possible further evolution of the education of audiologists.

Opportunities to Learn Transgender Voice and Communication Therapy in Graduate Speech-Language Pathology Education: Preliminary E-Survey Findings

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 876-883
Author(s):  
Jordan R. Jakomin ◽  
Aaron Ziegler ◽  
Cassie Rio ◽  
Rachael Suddarth
Keyword(s):  
Online Survey ◽  
Graduate Programs ◽  
The United States ◽  
Learning Opportunities ◽  
Survey Study ◽  
Speech Language Pathology ◽  
Communication Services ◽  
Graduate Curriculum ◽  
Gender Diverse ◽  
Language Pathology

Purpose Clear guidelines are needed for the inclusion of transgender voice and communication services in speech-language pathology graduate curriculum. Standardized training on how to support gender diverse individuals' communication appears to be lacking in graduate curriculum. To better understand current trends in transgender voice and communication training in speech-language pathology graduate programs across the United States, this cross-sequential e-survey study assessed experience with, attitudes toward, and student learning opportunities in transgender voice and communication services among voice instructors and clinic directors. Method An open online survey distributed in 2015 was completed by 24 voice instructors and 13 clinic directors. The same survey was completed by 15 voice instructors in 2018. Results Based on 2015 findings, a majority of voice instructors and clinic directors in speech-language pathology graduate programs reported that services for transgender voice and communication were not addressed in their graduate education curriculum. Findings from 2018 were similar to results in 2015. Almost all voice instructors included transgender voice and communication therapy in their graduate voice course. There is unanimous agreement that transgender voice and communication services should be part of SLPs' scope of practice. Conclusions Findings from 2015 to 2018 suggested an improvement in instruction time spent on transgender voice and communication. Yet, some voice instructors continued to report that the topic was not covered in their coursework. A need exists to adjust guidelines on voice and communication services for gender diverse individuals and offer learning opportunities for this area in graduate speech-language pathology curriculum. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.12640409

Preliminary Evaluation of Applicants to Master's Programs in Speech-Language Pathology Using Vignettes and Criteria From a Holistic Review Process

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-26
Author(s):  
Teresa M. Girolamo ◽  
Stephen Politzer-Ahles ◽  
Samantha Ghali ◽  
Brittany Theresa Williams
Keyword(s):  
Linguistic Diversity ◽  
Preliminary Evaluation ◽  
Barriers To Entry ◽  
Speech Language Pathology ◽  
Master's Programs ◽  
Cultural And Linguistic Diversity ◽  
Holistic Review ◽  
Language Pathology ◽  
High Level ◽  
Future Work

Purpose Little is known about how others evaluate applicants to master's programs in speech-language pathology along criteria used during holistic review despite more programs adopting holistic review. This knowledge gap limits our understanding of whether holistic admissions may offer a more equitable pathway to entering speech-language pathology. This study investigated how faculty and PhD students evaluated applicants to master's speech-language pathology programs along criteria used during holistic review. Method We administered a survey online through a Qualtrics platform. Respondents ( N = 66) were faculty and PhD candidates in U.S. speech-language-hearing departments. Survey blocks included demographics, professional background, and vignettes. Vignettes featured profiles of applicants to master's programs in speech-language pathology. Vignettes systematically varied in the indicators of applicant criteria, which were specified at low, moderate, or high levels or not specified. After reading each vignette, respondents rated the applicant and indicated their admissions decision. Analysis included descriptives. Results Relative to an applicant who was at a high level for all indicators except cultural and linguistic diversity, respondents ranked applicants who varied in their indicators of criteria levels lower. Respondents were also less likely to make an explicit “accept” decision (vs. “waitlist” or “reject”) for this latter group of applicants. Conclusions Even when implementing criteria used during holistic review, applicants who vary from a “high-achieving” stereotype may still face barriers to entry. Future work is needed to understand the precise nature of how holistic admissions review may play out in actual practice and help increase diversity in the profession.

scholarly journals Cultural and linguistic diversity in speech-language pathology

2016 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 109-110 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah Verdon ◽  
Helen L. Blake ◽  
Suzanne C. Hopf ◽  
Ben Phạm ◽  
Sharynne McLeod
Keyword(s):  
Linguistic Diversity ◽  
Speech Language Pathology ◽  
Cultural And Linguistic Diversity ◽  
Language Pathology

A Proposal to Establish Standardized Learning Outcomes for Resonance Across Graduate Programs in Speech-Language Pathology

2014 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 21-26
Author(s):  
Helen M. Sharp ◽  
Mary O'Gara
Keyword(s):  
Learning Outcomes ◽  
Training Programs ◽  
Graduate Training ◽  
Graduate Programs ◽  
Core Knowledge ◽  
Speech Language Pathology ◽  
Entry Level ◽  
The Public ◽  
Language Pathology ◽  
Graduate Training Programs

The Council for Clinical Certification in Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology (CCFC) sets accreditation standards and these standards list broad domains of knowledge with specific coverage of “the appropriate etiologies, characteristics, anatomical/physiological, acoustic, psychological, developmental, and linguistic and cultural correlates” and assessment, intervention, and methods of prevention for each domain” (CCFC, 2013, “Standard IV-C”). One domain in the 2014 standards is “voice and resonance.” Studies of graduate training programs suggest that fewer programs require coursework in cleft palate, the course in which resonance was traditionally taught. The purpose of this paper is to propose a standardized learning outcomes specific to resonance that would achieve the minimum knowledge required for all entry-level professionals in speech-language pathology. Graduate programs and faculty should retain flexibility and creativity in how these learning outcomes are achieved. Shared learning objectives across programs would serve programs, faculty, students, accreditation site visitors, and the public in assuring that a consistent, minimum core knowledge is achieved across graduate training programs. Proficiency in the management of individuals with resonance disorders would require additional knowledge and skills.

scholarly journals A Viewpoint on Accent Services: Framing and Terminology Matter

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Vikas Grover ◽  
Aravind Namasivayam ◽  
Nidhi Mahendra
Keyword(s):  
Scoping Review ◽  
Linguistic Diversity ◽  
Speech Language Pathology ◽  
Review Of The Literature ◽  
Speech Language Pathologists ◽  
Critical Attention ◽  
Language Pathology ◽  
Accent Modification ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Way

Purpose: The purpose of this article is to offer a contemporary viewpoint on accent services and contend that an equity-minded reframing of accent services in speech-language pathology is long overdue. Such reframing should address directly the use of nonpejorative terminology and the need for nurturing global linguistic diversity and practitioner diversity in speech-language pathology. The authors offer their perspective on affirmative and least-biased accent services, an in-depth scoping review of the literature on accent modification, and discuss using terms that communicate unconditional respect for speaker identity and an understanding of the impact of accent services on accented speakers. Conclusions: Given ongoing discussions about the urgent need to diversify the profession of speech-language pathology, critical attention is needed toward existing biases toward accented speakers and how such biases manifest in the way that accent services are provided as well as in how clinicians conceptualize their role in working with accented speakers. The authors conclude with discussing alternate terms and offer recommendations for accent services provided by speech-language pathologists.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document