JCPSLP Vol 21 No 2 2019 DIGITAL Edition

Table 1. Technology test ratings for telepractice group training

Category

Component

Score Researcher comments

Device

Personal computer

4 Trainer: Larger screen helpful for managing applications and seeing/interacting with trainees. Trainees: Good for visibility; however, decreased portability limits flexibility with positioning. 4 Trainer: Smaller screen less efficient for managing applications and interaction. Trainees: Portability improves flexibility in location for receiving training and necessary for parent–child interaction coaching sessions. Trainer: Additional space and monitor supports management of PowerPoint presentation, annotation, video-sharing and trainee interaction while sharing application screens. Trainees: Additional screen not required. Trainer: Small size significantly limits delivery of group training. Parent coaching sessions may be possible. Trainees: Small size limits visibility of training materials plus other trainees. Reduced quality in receiving video footage compared with other devices. Trainer: Computer audio enabled adequate sound quality with minimal background noise. Trainees: Computer audio enabled adequate sound quality with minimal background noise. Audio quality of individual laptop computers impacted clarity. Trainer: Necessary to enable adequate sound quality in background noise. External microphone testing was discontinued as configuration with other audio-enabled devices was complex and led to feedback. Trainees: Necessary to enable adequate sound quality in background noise. Trainer: Provided adequate video quality. Trainees: Generally provided adequate video quality; however, webcam quality for individual laptops varied. Some personal computers do not have internal webcams. Trainer: Not required; however, physical set up of clinic space and/or internal webcam quality may impact. Trainees: May be required depending on quality or availability of internal webcam. 2 Tested to assess suitability for use during parent–child interaction coaching sessions. Tracking was slow and unreliable. 2 4 4 4 4

Laptop computer

Computer dual screen

iPad/tablet

Audio quality

Internal microphone and speakers

External headsets

Video quality

Internal webcam

External fixed webcam 4

External tracking webcam Internet protocol camera

1

Tested to assess clinician’s ability to remotely track movement during parent–child coaching sessions. Remote tracking and video feed was very unreliable.

Sharing video

Video files with media player

4

Videos were received smoothly and reliably by trainees most of the time.

PowerPoint with embedded videos

2

Video footage was of poor quality and unreliable for trainees.

2 Video footage was of poor quality for trainees and technology set-up was complex and resource-intensive.

Video displayed on screen and streamed via external webcam

Sharing images

PowerPoint

5

No problems noted. Dual screen allowed clinician to use “presenter mode” which assisted delivery. Worked well for taking trainee feedback. Power point slides required formatting to enable annotation.

Annotation

PowerPoint with editable slides

4

Graphics tablet

2

Tablet was cumbersome for clinician to use during group facilitation and was somewhat unreliable.

Score definitions: 5 (“perfect quality”); Great experience – no problems encountered. 4 (“good quality”); Imperfections can be perceived but no real impact. 3 (“fair quality”); Slightly annoying – minor problems encountered. 2 (“poor quality”); Annoying – major problems encountered. 1 (“bad quality”); Impossible to use.

74

JCPSLP Volume 21, Number 2 2019

Journal of Clinical Practice in Speech-Language Pathology