PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: Previous 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.
METHODS: We (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.
RESULTS: We 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.
CONCLUSIONS: This 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.
METHODS: We (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.
RESULTS: We 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.
CONCLUSIONS: This 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.
摘要：
■语音-语言病理学领域的先前虚拟护理文献主要集中在验证干预计划的虚拟使用。关于进行虚拟评估的有效性的文章较少，特别是对儿童口语和识字能力的标准化评估。此外,缺乏实际，有用的建议可用于支持临床医生和研究人员如何虚拟地进行这些评估措施。鉴于最近由于冠状病毒-19大流行而导致虚拟护理和研究的迅速增长，临床医生和研究人员需要有关虚拟管理这些工具的最佳实践的指导。本文旨在通过提供此类建议来填补文献中的这一空白。
■我们（a）完成了对现有文献的叙述性回顾，和(b)对一组12名临床医生进行半结构化访谈，对各种单语和多语种学龄儿童进行标准化语言和识字评估的学生和研究人员，有或没有言语和语言障碍，在临床和研究环境中。六个主题:虚拟评估候选人资格，与护理人员的沟通和合作，技术和设备，虚拟管理，伦理,同意和保密，作为这两个过程的结果，确定了双语人群的考虑因素，并用于制定一套建议，以指导在虚拟环境中使用标准化评估。根据国际网络准则，这些建议由小组成员评分，并由外部利益相关者审查。使用准德尔菲共识程序就建议的评级达成协议。
我们为临床医生和研究人员制定并概述了一些建议，以指导他们在虚拟护理中使用标准化的语言和识字评估。跨越六个关键主题。
■本文是为临床医生和研究人员分享口头语言和识字评估领域虚拟评估的实用建议之一。我们希望目前的建议将促进该领域未来的临床研究，随着该领域研究的发展，本文将作为制定正式临床实践指南的基础.
■我们（a）完成了对现有文献的叙述性回顾，和(b)对一组12名临床医生进行半结构化访谈，对各种单语和多语种学龄儿童进行标准化语言和识字评估的学生和研究人员，有或没有言语和语言障碍，在临床和研究环境中。六个主题:虚拟评估候选人资格，与护理人员的沟通和合作，技术和设备，虚拟管理，伦理,同意和保密，作为这两个过程的结果，确定了双语人群的考虑因素，并用于制定一套建议，以指导在虚拟环境中使用标准化评估。根据国际网络准则，这些建议由小组成员评分，并由外部利益相关者审查。使用准德尔菲共识程序就建议的评级达成协议。
我们为临床医生和研究人员制定并概述了一些建议，以指导他们在虚拟护理中使用标准化的语言和识字评估。跨越六个关键主题。
■本文是为临床医生和研究人员分享口头语言和识字评估领域虚拟评估的实用建议之一。我们希望目前的建议将促进该领域未来的临床研究，随着该领域研究的发展，本文将作为制定正式临床实践指南的基础.
