JCPSLP Vol 23 Issue 2 2021

Table 2. Number and percentage of caregiver and professionals responses to usability questions

5

4

3

2

1

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Neither agree nor disagree

Somewhat disagree

Strongly disagree

I was able to:

n (%)

n (%)

n (%)

n (%)

n (%)

access and begin each of the modules easily.

Caregiver

22 (75.9)

5 (17.2)

0 (0)

0 (0)

2 (6.9)

Professional

6 (85.7)

1 (14.3)

0 (0)

0 (0)

0 (0)

watch the videos and complete activities within the modules easily.

Caregiver

20 (70.0)

6 (20.7)

1 (3.4)

0 (0)

2 (6.9)

Professional

7 (100.0)

0 (0)

0 (0)

0 (0)

0 (0)

create and respond to posts on the online forum easily.

Caregiver

13 (44.8)

1 (3.4)

12 (41.4)

0 (0)

3 (10.3)

Professional

4 (57.1)

0 (0)

3 (42.9)

0 (0)

0 (0)

engaging. Professionals believed the online forum to be valuable while half of the caregivers were unsure of its value. 90% of caregivers and all professionals reported they would recommend Language Together to other caregivers of young children. Participant ratings of satisfaction are reported in Table 3. Relationship between demographics and ratings A correlational analysis was used to explore the association between participants’ demographic factors, and overall satisfaction and usability scores of Language Together. Given a lack of normality, a non-parametric correlational analysis, Kendall’s tau-b, was used. For caregivers, there was a significant correlation between ranked education level and overall scores of satisfaction, = –.517, p = <.001, two-tailed, N = 27. There was no significant correlation between overall scores of usability and ranked age ( = .011, p = .946, two-tailed, N = 29), or education level ( = −.133, p = .43, two-tailed, N = 27). There was no significant correlation between overall scores of satisfaction and ranked age ( = −.057, p = .715, two-tailed, N = 29). No significant correlations were found between the professionals’ ranked education level, age, and overall usability or satisfaction. Recommendations for future programs When asked how the training program could be improved, ten caregivers suggested elements to add to Language Together, including more resources ( n = 1), more videos ( n = 2), information relating to bilingualism ( n = 1) and additional modules about language development ( n = 1). A group of caregivers ( n = 10) perceived the video examples of strategies being implemented as the most beneficial part. One participant felt that too many videos were included and two others commented that it would have been useful to see a variety of children. When asked to identify favourite parts of the program, caregivers named the downloadable and printable resources ( n = 10), information about practical strategies to implement at home ( n = 8), and the quizzes ( n = 2). It was suggested that the quizzes could be increased in difficulty. Additionally, difficulty with accessibility on a mobile phone was identified by three caregivers. Suggestions for improvement among the professionals mirrored the recommendations made by caregivers. For favourite parts of Language Together, the professionals listed videos ( n = 3) and downloadable resources ( n = 3).

n = 29). When specifying concerns, 59% reported speech, language or both. Of the 29 caregivers, five reported their concern was uncertainty for whether a child was developing typically. Other concerns included social and emotional well-being ( n = 1), multilingualism ( n = 1), family history ( n = 2), medical history ( n = 1), literacy ( n = 1) and learning ( n = 1). In response to the question, “What was your main motivation for participating in this online language training programme?”, 62% of caregivers ( n = 18) selected, “I have an interest in language development and how I can facilitate it”, while 34% selected, “I have concerns about the language development of a child in my care” ( n = 10). One participant, a foster carer, reported her motivation was both interest and concern for a child in her care. Of the caregivers, 28% ( n = 8) were waiting to access speech- language pathology services for a child under 5 years of age in their care. 34% of caregivers ( n = 10) had a child under 5 years of age in their care that had been assessed by a speech-language pathologist, including 7 who had received treatment from a speech-language pathologist. 62% of caregivers had completed online training before ( n = 18), but only 10% about of them had completed online language development training’ but only 10% of caregivers had completed online training specifically focusing on language development ( n = 3). Professionals rated their concern for their child’s language development on a 5-point scale ( M = 3.0, SD = 1.91, n = 7). When specifying their concerns for their child’s language development, four professionals reported speech and/or language. Other concerns included medical history ( n = 1) and learning ( n =1). Six professionals reported their main motivation for completing the program was an interest in language development and how it can be facilitated. 86% of the professionals had completed online training before but only two had completed previous training about language development. Post-training caregiver responses Usability Most caregivers and all professionals agreed the program was easy to access and begin, and the videos and activities were accessible. Close to half of the caregivers (48%) and professionals (57%) positively rated ease of the online forum. Participant ratings of usability are reported in Table 2. Satisfaction Most caregivers and all professionals enjoyed the inclusion of videos and quizzes and found the programming to be

91

JCPSLP Volume 23, Number 2 2021

www.speechpathologyaustralia.org.au