JCPSLP Vol 17 No 1 2015_lores

First page Previous page 25 Next page Last page

Table 3. Means, standard deviations and range of scores for interest levels in PD opportunities and frequency levels of PD opportunities sought

Interest levels in PD opportunities

Frequency levels of which PD opportunities are sought

Variable

Mean

Range

Mean

Range

Neurolinguistic bases

4.2

1–5

1.6

1.2

0–4

Languages with different linguistic systems

4.1

0.9

1–5

1.6

1.2

0–4

Assessment

4.2

1.1

1–5

1.9

1.3

0–4

Intervention

4.2

1.1

1–5

1.9

1.2

0–4

Interpreters

1.1

1–5

1.5

1.2

0–4

SD = standard deviation

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

Strategies for intervention

Working with interpreters

Impact of aphasia on neurolinguistic

bases of bilingual language processing

Very uninterested

Never

Very rarely

Rarely

Frequently

Very frequently

Somewhat unintersted

Neutral

Interested Very

intersted

Figure 3. Respondents’ levels of interest in professional development opportunities

Figure 4. Frequency respondents seek professional development opportunities

having adequate policies in place might “lead to overly stereotypical response to CALD families, everyone is an individual and not all Arabic families require the same approach, as don’t Chinese as don’t Caucasian”. Sixty per cent of respondents targeted both English and the LOTE during assessment. Thirty-six per cent reported targeting the LOTE alone, 4% reported targeting English alone and 46% reported targeting LOTE and English. With respect to intervention, 46% reported targeting LOTE alone, 41% reported targeting both the LOTE and English, and 13% reported targeting English alone. The majority of respondents indicated that they very frequently or frequently identified the pattern of language use before aphasia (91%) and client preferences (87%) to determine which languages to target for assessment and intervention. Fewer respondents indicated using family member preferences (35%) and the most intact language following aphasia (56%) frequently or very frequently . Most respondents (76%) indicated using interpreters very rarely , rarely or sometimes to determine the target language. These results are summarised in Figure 5. Challenges and changes When asked about the challenges they faced when working with CALD populations, respondents noted that a lack of

regarding the impact of aphasia on neurolinguistic bases of language processing (86%), the impact of aphasia on linguistic systems of LOTE (87%), and assessment (83%) and intervention (83%) strategies. Yet, the large majority of respondents indicated either never, rarely, or very rarely seeking PD opportunities in the same areas (60–77%). These results are summarised in Table 3 and Figures 3 and 4. Rehabilitation practices used Forty-one per cent of respondents reported there were no service delivery policies in place in their current workplace specifically regarding CALD in speech-language pathology. Twenty-six per cent reported there were policies in place and 33% reported not knowing whether there were policies in place. Of the 26% who reported having policies in place, 29% reported not being able to comply with these policies. The main reasons for non-compliance included the respondents’ “lack of access to and availability of interpreters”, with some specifically commenting on the difficulty of finding interpreters familiar with the clients’ language and/or culture. The limited availability of speech- language pathology resources and time to conduct aphasia assessments were also reasons for non-compliance with CALD policies. One respondent reported concerns that not

JCPSLP Volume 17, Number 1 2015

www.speechpathologyaustralia.org.au

Made with FlippingBook