Abstract
Medicine
Inddragelse af personer med udviklingsmæssig sprogforstyrrelse og deres forældre / plejere i forskningsprioritering
ERRATUM NOTICE
Important: There has been an erratum issued for this article. Read more …Abstract
En protokol til inddragelse af personer, der præsenterer med udviklingssprogforstyrrelse (DLD) (iDLD) og deres forældre / plejere (iDLDPC) i en forskningsprioriteringsøvelse præsenteres.
iDLD har problemer med kommunikationsevner, såsom forståelse af sprog, ordsøgning og diskurs. Sådanne vanskeligheder betyder, at eksisterende protokoller til fastsættelse af forskningsprioriteter er vanskelige for iDLD at få adgang til, da de kræver sofistikerede kommunikationsevner. Derfor er en ny protokol til inddragelse af iDLD i disse øvelser berettiget. Den samme protokol anbefales til brug med iDLDPC for at sikre tilgængelighed.
Protokollen præsenteres i 4 trin. Trin 1 beskriver et aktivitetsprogram leveret af uddannede, specialiserede DLD-tale- og sprogterapeuter (SLT'er), der forbereder iDLD / iDLDPC til involvering. Trin 2 skitserer en tilgang til at fremkalde iDLD/iDLDPC's udtalelser om forskningsprioriteter. Trin 3 og 4 beskriver metoder til at analysere og integrere disse data på flere stadier af forskningsprioriteringsprocessen.
9 uddannede specialiserede DLD SLT'er leverede trin 1 og 2. 17 iDLD'er og 25 iDLDPC'er gav samtykke til deltagelse. Meninger fra alle deltagere blev fremkaldt, og disse data blev brugt til at påvirke processen og outputtet af øvelsen.
En fordel ved denne protokol er, at den imødekommer heterogeniteten i supportbehovene for iDLD/iDLDPC gennem en menu med valgmuligheder, samtidig med at den giver en struktureret ramme. På grund af protokollens nyhed blev metoderne til dataintegration udviklet af forskergruppen. Dette er potentielle begrænsninger i protokollen og kan bringe pålideligheden og gyldigheden under kontrol, som endnu ikke er testet.
Denne protokol muliggør meningsfuld involvering af iDLD / iDLDPC i forskningsprioritering og kan bruges til mennesker med andre former for tale-, sprog- eller kommunikationsbehov. Yderligere forskning bør evaluere protokollens effektivitet, og om den kan tilpasses til inddragelse af sådanne populationer i andre forskningsundersøgelser.
Erratum
Erratum: Involving Individuals with Developmental Language Disorder and their Parents/Carers in Research Priority SettingAn erratum was issued for: Involving Individuals with Developmental Language Disorder and their Parents/Carers in Research Priority Setting. The tables in the Representative Results section were updated.
The tables in the Representative Results section were updated from:
| Participant (n=42) | Topic Rating | ||||||||||
| Identification | Assessment/ diagnosis | Bilingualism | Lifelong impact | Provision- primary | Provision- secondary | Provision- adults | Intervention | Working with others | Raising awareness | Technology | |
| 1 | 10 | 10 | 9 | 10 | 10 | 9 | 10 | 8 | |||
| 2 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 5 | 10 | |||
| 3 | 10 | 4 | 6 | 9 | 8 | 2 | 1 | 7 | 5 | 11 | 3 |
| 4 | 8 | 7 | 1 | 11 | 9 | 3 | 2 | 10 | 5 | 6 | 4 |
| 5 | 7 | 11 | 10 | 9 | 8 | 6 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 4 | 1 |
| 6 | 10 | 8 | 2 | 6 | 9 | 7 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 11 | 1 |
| 7 | 1 | 2 | 10 | 7 | 9 | 5 | 6 | 4 | 3 | 8 | 11 |
| 8 | 10 | 1 | 6 | 11 | 2 | 7 | 9 | 5 | 8 | 4 | 3 |
| 9 | 1 | 2 | 11 | 7 | 3 | 9 | 10 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 8 |
| 10 | 1 | 4 | 11 | 10 | 3 | 6 | 9 | 2 | 8 | 5 | 7 |
| 11 | 1 | 2 | 11 | 8 | 3 | 9 | 10 | 4 | 6 | 5 | 7 |
| 12 | 10 | 8 | 3 | 6 | 7 | 6 | 9 | 11 | 8 | 5 | 4 |
| 13 | 2 | 3 | 11 | 6 | 4 | 7 | 8 | 10 | 5 | 9 | 1 |
| 14 | 2 | 5 | 9 | 11 | 10 | 7 | 3 | 6 | 1 | 8 | 5 |
| 15 | 6 | 3 | 5 | 10 | 9 | 7 | 8 | 4 | 2 | ||
| 16 | 10 | 8 | 3 | 6 | 9 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 1 | |
| 17 | 11 | 9 | 2 | 7 | 3 | 6 | 1 | 8 | 10 | 4 | 5 |
| 18 | 8 | 9 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 10 | |
| 19 | 10 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | |
| 20 | 10 | 10 | 1 | 9 | 10 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 10 | 8 | 7 |
| 21 | 10 | 7 | 10 | 7 | 6 | 1 | 9 | 6 | 8 | 6 | |
| 22 | 10 | 1 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 5 | |||||
| 23 | 1 | 10 | 10 | 5 | 10 | ||||||
| 24 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 9 | ||||
| 25 | 10 | 9 | 10 | 10 | 6 | 9 | 10 | 8 | 7 | 10 | 8 |
| 26 | 10 | 9 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | |
| 27 | 10 | 9 | 2 | 3 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 8 | 7 | 1 | |
| 28 | 10 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 8 | 5 | 1 | 9 | 6 | 7 | |
| 29 | 10 | 6 | 2 | 4 | 7 | 5 | 3 | 9 | 8 | 1 | |
| 30 | 10 | 2 | 1 | 9 | 8 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 6 | |
| 31 | 10 | 10 | 7 | 10 | 9 | 10 | 9 | 10 | 9 | 8 | 9 |
| 32 | 8 | 7 | 1 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 9 | 10 | 5 |
| 33 | 5 | 6 | 4 | 10 | 8 | 10 | 7 | 10 | 8 | 9 | 5 |
| 34 | 9 | 10 | 6 | 8 | 10 | 1 | 7 | 10 | 4 | 10 | 10 |
| 35 | 7 | 5 | 6 | 10 | 9 | 7 | 5 | 10 | 1 | 10 | 1 |
| 36 | 11 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 8 | 6 |
| 37 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 |
| 38 | 7 | 5 | 6 | 8 | 5 | 6 | 4 | 10 | 5 | ||
| 39 | 10 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 8 | 9 | 6 | 10 | 10 | ||
| 40 | 7 | 3 | 7 | 8 | 7 | 8 | 6 | 6 | 9 | ||
| 41 | 8 | 5 | 4 | 6 | 8 | 6 | 7 | 5 | 1 | ||
| 42 | 8 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 8 | 5 | 7 | 5 | 8 | ||
| Corrector value | 26 | 16 | 14 | 24 | 23 | 15 | 15 | 24 | 13 | 20 | 12 |
Table 3: Unadjusted and adjusted top ten research priorities lists. Table to show the top ten research priorities without adjustment (left column) and with adjustment (right column). * depict defined research areas which are not represented in the top ten of the other columns (i.e., where priorities were different).
to:
| Participant (n=42) | Topic Rating | ||||||||||
| Identification | Assessment/ diagnosis | Bilingualism | Lifelong impact | Provision- primary | Provision- secondary | Provision- adults | Intervention | Working with others | Raising awareness | Technology | |
| 1 | 10 | 10 | 9 | 10 | 10 | 9 | 10 | 8 | |||
| 2 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 5 | 10 | |||
| 3 | 10 | 4 | 6 | 9 | 8 | 2 | 1 | 7 | 5 | 11 | 3 |
| 4 | 8 | 7 | 1 | 11 | 9 | 3 | 2 | 10 | 5 | 6 | 4 |
| 5 | 7 | 11 | 10 | 9 | 8 | 6 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 4 | 1 |
| 6 | 10 | 8 | 2 | 6 | 9 | 7 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 11 | 1 |
| 7 | 1 | 2 | 10 | 7 | 9 | 5 | 6 | 4 | 3 | 8 | 11 |
| 8 | 10 | 1 | 6 | 11 | 2 | 7 | 9 | 5 | 8 | 4 | 3 |
| 9 | 1 | 2 | 11 | 7 | 3 | 9 | 10 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 8 |
| 10 | 1 | 4 | 11 | 10 | 3 | 6 | 9 | 2 | 8 | 5 | 7 |
| 11 | 1 | 2 | 11 | 8 | 3 | 9 | 10 | 4 | 6 | 5 | 7 |
| 12 | 10 | 8 | 3 | 6 | 7 | 6 | 9 | 11 | 8 | 5 | 4 |
| 13 | 2 | 3 | 11 | 6 | 4 | 7 | 8 | 10 | 5 | 9 | 1 |
| 14 | 2 | 5 | 9 | 11 | 10 | 7 | 3 | 6 | 1 | 8 | 5 |
| 15 | 6 | 3 | 5 | 10 | 9 | 7 | 8 | 4 | 2 | ||
| 16 | 10 | 8 | 3 | 6 | 9 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 1 | |
| 17 | 11 | 9 | 2 | 7 | 3 | 6 | 1 | 8 | 10 | 4 | 5 |
| 18 | 8 | 9 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 10 | |
| 19 | 10 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | |
| 20 | 10 | 10 | 1 | 9 | 10 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 10 | 8 | 7 |
| 21 | 10 | 7 | 10 | 7 | 6 | 1 | 9 | 6 | 8 | 6 | |
| 22 | 10 | 1 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 5 | |||||
| 23 | 1 | 10 | 10 | 5 | 10 | ||||||
| 24 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 9 | ||||
| 25 | 10 | 9 | 10 | 10 | 6 | 9 | 10 | 8 | 7 | 10 | 8 |
| 26 | 10 | 9 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | |
| 27 | 10 | 9 | 2 | 3 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 8 | 7 | 1 | |
| 28 | 10 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 8 | 5 | 1 | 9 | 6 | 7 | |
| 29 | 10 | 6 | 2 | 4 | 7 | 5 | 3 | 9 | 8 | 1 | |
| 30 | 10 | 2 | 1 | 9 | 8 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 6 | |
| 31 | 10 | 10 | 7 | 10 | 9 | 10 | 9 | 10 | 9 | 8 | 9 |
| 32 | 8 | 7 | 1 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 9 | 10 | 5 |
| 33 | 5 | 6 | 4 | 10 | 8 | 10 | 7 | 10 | 8 | 9 | 5 |
| 34 | 9 | 10 | 6 | 8 | 10 | 1 | 7 | 10 | 4 | 10 | 10 |
| 35 | 7 | 5 | 6 | 10 | 9 | 7 | 5 | 10 | 1 | 10 | 1 |
| 36 | 11 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 8 | 6 |
| 37 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 |
| 38 | 7 | 5 | 6 | 8 | 5 | 6 | 4 | 10 | 5 | ||
| 39 | 10 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 8 | 9 | 6 | 10 | 10 | ||
| 40 | 7 | 3 | 7 | 8 | 7 | 8 | 6 | 6 | 9 | ||
| 41 | 8 | 5 | 4 | 6 | 8 | 6 | 7 | 5 | 1 | ||
| 42 | 8 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 8 | 5 | 7 | 5 | 8 | ||
| Corrector value | 26 | 16 | 14 | 24 | 23 | 15 | 15 | 24 | 13 | 20 | 12 |
Table 1: Topic ratings from all iDLD/iDLDPC participants with corrector values. Corrector value = frequency of topic rated above 7 (identified as cut-off). Corrector values transform survey data to integrate iDLD/iDLDPC data. Ratings above cut-off are in bold-italic. Blank spaces indicate topics not discussed or rated by iDLD/iDLDPC.
| Research topic | Survey score | Topic Corrector Values | Final score | ||||
| Specific characteristics of evidence-based DLD interventions which facilitate progress towards the goals of an individual with DLD | 462 | Intervention | 486 | ||||
| 24 | |||||||
| Effective tools to assist accurate diagnosis of DLD in early years children with significant SLCN | 418 | Assessment/diagnosis | 434 | ||||
| 16 | |||||||
| Implementation of SLT recommendations in the classroom by teaching staff: confidence levels, capacity, capability and levels of success | 441 | Working with others | 454 | ||||
| 13 | |||||||
| Effective ways of teaching self-help strategies to children with DLD | 414 | Intervention | 438 | ||||
| 24 | |||||||
| Effective interventions for improving receptive language in terms of intervention characteristics and mode of delivery | 434 | Intervention | 458 | ||||
| 24 | |||||||
| Impact of including speech, language and communication needs (SLCN)/ developmental language disorder (DLD) in teacher training course curriculums on referral rates and level of support for children with DLD | 409 | Working with others | Identification | 448 | |||
| 13 | 26 | ||||||
| Effectiveness of a face-to-face versus indirect approach to intervention for individuals with DLD | 417 | Provision- primary | Provision- secondary | Provision- adult | 470 | ||
| 23 | 15 | 15 | |||||
| Outcomes for individuals with DLD across settings (e.g. language provision, mainstream school), in relation to curriculum access, language development and social skills | 415 | Lifelong impact | Provision- primary | Provision- secondary | 477 | ||
| 24 | 23 | 15 | |||||
| Impact of SLT interventions for adolescents and adults with DLD, on wider functional outcomes (e.g. quality of life, access to the curriculum, social inclusion and mental health) | 392 | Lifelong impact | Intervention | 440 | |||
| 24 | 24 | ||||||
| Impact of targeted vocabulary interventions for individuals with DLD on curriculum access | 410 | Intervention | 434 | ||||
| 24 | |||||||
Table 2: Top ten research topics from survey with unadjusted scores, with application of corrector values and adjusted scores. Each defined research area is assigned to one or more topic, and adjusted proportionately. The final column indicates final score which is used to identify top ten highest scoring research priorities
| Rank | Unadjusted top ten research priorities (Correctors not applied, survey data only) | Adjusted top ten research priorities (Corrector values applied) | ||||
| 1 | Specific characteristics of evidence-based DLD interventions which facilitate progress towards the goals of an individual with DLD | Outcomes for individuals with DLD across settings (e.g. language provision, mainstream school), in relation to curriculum access, language development and social skills | ||||
| 2 | Effective tools to assist accurate diagnosis of DLD in early years children with significant SLCN* | Specific characteristics of evidence-based DLD interventions which facilitate progress towards the goals of an individual with DLD | ||||
| 3 | Implementation of SLT recommendations in the classroom by teaching staff: confidence levels, capacity, capability and levels of success | Effectiveness of a face-to-face versus indirect approach to intervention for individuals with DLD | ||||
| 4 | Effective ways of teaching self-help strategies to children with DLD | Effective interventions for improving receptive language in terms of intervention characteristics and mode of delivery | ||||
| 5 | Effective interventions for improving receptive language in terms of intervention characteristics and mode of delivery (402) | Impact of including speech, language and communication needs (SLCN)/ developmental language disorder (DLD) in teacher training course curriculums on referral rates and level of support for children with DLD | ||||
| 6 | Impact of including speech, language and communication needs (SLCN)/ developmental language disorder (DLD) in teacher training course curriculums on referral rates and level of support for children with DLD | Impact of SLT interventions for adolescents and adults with DLD, on wider functional outcomes (e.g. quality of life, access to the curriculum, social inclusion and mental health)* | ||||
| 7 | Effectiveness of a face-to-face versus indirect approach to intervention for individuals with DLD | Implementation of SLT recommendations in the classroom by teaching staff: confidence levels, capacity, capability and levels of success | ||||
| 8 | Outcomes for individuals with DLD across settings (e.g. language provision, mainstream school), in relation to curriculum access, language development and social skills | Effective ways of teaching self-help strategies to children with DLD | ||||
| 9 | Impact of SLT interventions for adolescents and adults with DLD, on wider functional outcomes (e.g. quality of life, access to the curriculum, social inclusion and mental health) | Impact of targeted vocabulary interventions for individuals with DLD on curriculum access | ||||
| 10 | Impact of targeted vocabulary interventions for individuals with DLD on curriculum access | Impact of teacher training (on specific strategies/ language support) on academic attainment in adolescents with DLD in secondary schools | ||||
Table 3: Unadjusted and adjusted top ten research priorities lists. Table to show the top ten research priorities without adjustment (left column) and with adjustment (right column). * depict defined research areas which are not represented in the top ten of the other columns (i.e., where priorities were different).
ABOUT JoVE
Copyright © 2024 MyJoVE Corporation. All rights reserved