Report Results Objectively The article “New Service Delivery Models: Connecting SLPs With Teachers and Curriculum” (Aug. 31, 2010) contained misleading information regarding research about classroom-based services. Cirrin et al. (2010) did not conclude that “in many instances classroom-based services were at least as effective—if not more effective—in helping to meet speech-language objectives.” Instead, ... Inbox
Free
Inbox  |   December 01, 2010
Report Results Objectively
Author Notes
  • Rita Samuelson, Bloomingdale, Illinois
    Rita Samuelson, Bloomingdale, Illinois×
Article Information
School-Based Settings / Inbox
Inbox   |   December 01, 2010
Report Results Objectively
The ASHA Leader, December 2010, Vol. 15, 2-38. doi:10.1044/leader.IN1.15152010.2
The ASHA Leader, December 2010, Vol. 15, 2-38. doi:10.1044/leader.IN1.15152010.2
The article “New Service Delivery Models: Connecting SLPs With Teachers and Curriculum” (Aug. 31, 2010) contained misleading information regarding research about classroom-based services. Cirrin et al. (2010) did not conclude that “in many instances classroom-based services were at least as effective—if not more effective—in helping to meet speech-language objectives.” Instead, they concluded that there was little viable research about classroom-based services and found only five studies that met their criteria for review. Although one study did show a significant improvement for students who were provided vocabulary instruction by both a teacher and SLP (Throneburg et al., 2000) the authors ultimately concluded that “…this is a situation in which insufficient high-quality evidence is available to support any strong conclusions about differential benefits of service delivery models used in school settings.”
As a school speech-language pathologist, I am disturbed that ASHA would allow this article to be published without reading the research article on which the author bases his conclusions. If we are to be an evidence-based profession, that evidence must be reported in an honest manner, rather than slanted to fit the author’s agenda.
It might have been more helpful to interview school SLPs about their experiences in attempting to provide services in a variety of environments, rather than giving a forum to the arbitrary viewpoint of someone who does not work in the schools.
0 Comments
Submit a Comment
Submit A Comment
Name
Comment Title
Comment


This feature is available to Subscribers Only
Sign In or Create an Account ×
FROM THIS ISSUE
December 2010
Volume 15, Issue 15