JCPSLP Vol 17 No 1 2015_lores

participants’ responses also yielded information about other service delivery concerns such as SLP staffing, interpreter adequacy, and working with families, information about these results will be reported elsewhere. Demographics All participants we required to have some clinical experience with aphasia. The average number of years spent working with PWA was 6.1 ( SD = 4.6) with a range of less than 1 to 15 or more years. The majority of respondents (60.6%) reported providing services in acute settings and 54.9% in inpatient rehabilitation. Sixty-one per cent of respondents reported 10% or more of their caseloads comprised CALD clients. A large proportion of respondents indicated that they worked with clients who spoke LOTE, with the 5 most common languages encountered being Chinese, 67.6%, Italian, 66.2%, Greek, 46.5%, Vietnamese, 35.2%, and Arabic, 27.8%. Just over a third of SLPs (37.5%) indicated they spoke one or more LOTE. The most common LOTE known by respondents was Italian. There were a number of languages spoken by their clients for which no SLP reported proficiency. Of the respondents who reported speaking LOTEs, only 26% (n = 7) indicated they were able to provide aphasia assessment and intervention in these languages. Knowledge, skills and education With respect to their knowledge and skills, over half the participants indicated having less than adequate (i.e., very limited or limited) knowledge regarding the impact of aphasia on the neurolinguistic basis of bilingual processing (52%) and the impact of aphasia on linguistic systems other than English (63%). A smaller but still sizeable proportion reported having less than adequate knowledge and/or skills regarding strategies for assessment (32%) and intervention (33%). With regards to working with interpreters, the large majority (94%) of respondents indicated having adequate to very good level of knowledge and/or skills. Table 2 presents a summary of the descriptive statistics for these results and Figure 1 displays the amalgamated results. As for the respondents’ perceptions of their university education and training, the majority indicated receiving very limited to limited education regarding the impact of aphasia on neurolinguistic bases of bilingual language processing (69%), the impact of aphasia on languages with linguistic systems different from English (81.7%), strategies for assessment (70.4%), strategies for intervention (77.5%), and working with interpreters (64.3%). Table 2 provides a

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Impact of aphasia on languages with linguistic systems different from English

Strategies for assessment

Strategies for intervention

Working with interpreters

Impact of aphasia on neurolinguistic

bases of bilingual language processing

Very limited Limited Adequate Good Very good

Figure 1. Respondents’ perceived knowledge and/or skill levels

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Impact of aphasia on languages with linguistic systems different from English

Strategies for assessment

Strategies for intervention

Working with interpreters

Impact of aphasia on neurolinguistic

bases of bilingual language processing

Very limited Limited Adequate Good Very good

Figure 2. Respondents’ perceptions of university education levels

summary of the descriptive results and Figure 2 displays the amalgamated results. Ninety per cent of respondents indicated they felt they would benefit from participating in professional development (PD) opportunities regarding CALD in aphasia rehabilitation/management. Many respondents reported feeling interested to very interested in participating in PD

Table 2. Means, standard deviations and range of scores for knowledge and/or skills and university education levels

Knowledge and/or skill levels

Perceived university education levels

Variable

Mean

SD

Range

Mean

SD

Range

Neurolinguistic bases

2.6

1

1–5

2.09

1.03

1–5

Languages with different linguistic systems

2.3

.9

1–4

1.8

0.88

1–5

Assessment

3

.9

1–5

2.09

0.99

1–5

Intervention

2.9

.9

1–5

1.96

0.93

1–5

Interpreters

3.8

.9

1–5

2.23

1.02

1–5

SD = standard deviation

22

JCPSLP Volume 17, Number 1 2015

Journal of Clinical Practice in Speech-Language Pathology