JCPSLP Vol 23 Issue 2 2021

for preschools in Ontario, Canada. A strength of this research implementation study is that the researchers collaborated with various stakeholders—managers, policy makers, preschool SLPs—to develop webinar workshops to support SLPs’ implementation of the new program: Focus on Outcomes of Communication Under Six (FOCUS). The effectiveness of the workshops with 46 experienced SLPs was evaluated using the Knowledge to Action framework (Graham et al., 2006), employing quantitative research methods using a 15-item online survey with Likert scales pre- and post-workshops. Items evaluated changes in increased knowledge and perceptions about FOCUS, and importantly, intentions for practice. Significant changes were found for all but 1 of the 15 items. The researchers discussed strengths of their study as research conducted in a clinical setting, good stakeholder engagement, and high participation rates in the webinars. They noted limitations in terms of the passive learning involved in webinars, and a simple pre-/post-intervention design which did not allow them to tease out contributing factors to change or lack of change. I would suggest that a further limitation of their study was that they stopped at the level of intentions. Research has repeatedly shown that participants often do not or cannot translate intentions after training into practice. Future research might use the Kirkpatrick framework (1998) or other frameworks for educational evaluations to examine actual translation of improved knowledge of FOCUS into practice—perhaps using mixed methods with interviews to examine with stakeholders some of the barriers to implementation translation identified in the current study. The second paper I reviewed is that by Fulcher-Rood, Castilla-Earls, and Higginbotham (2019) who used qualitative research methods to understand what evidence-based practice meant to SLPs working in the USA. The researchers conducted semi-structured phone interviews with 25 female SLPs of diverse ages and with more than 5 years of clinical experience. Interviews were analysed using (an unnamed) type of content analysis. Results revealed a number of clinician-based factors and organisational factors that limit EBP. Researchers found a limited understanding of what EBP is in their participants. SLPs valued research relevant to their caseload for intervention, but not for assessment. They turned to the evidence base when they had cases beyond their clinical expertise levels, or when they wanted to argue for new strategies for intervention. Results also showed that the majority of participants did not use database searches to source research literature. They reported relying on google searches or keyword searches of the ASHA website. The SLPs reported organisational barriers that made it difficult for them to translate research into practice. They reported several barriers including restrictions in their employment setting, large caseloads, and administrative commitments leading to insufficient time to engage with the research literature. They felt that implementing the evidence base needed to be easy to do within these constraints. The authors recommended more clinically based research to address the practice needs of SLPs in schools. Such research should target assessments as well as intervention strategies. The results of this study also have clear implications for policy makers, managers of SLPs in school settings, and also for universities who prepare students to be evidence-based practitioners. The four papers reviewed for this column show a range of approaches to implementation science in SLP. They also highlight the critical importance of evaluating the translation

of research evidence into practice, and understanding barriers for SLPs in engaging in evidence-based practice. References Birman, B. F. (2000). Designing professional development that works. Educational Leadership , 57 (8), 28–33. Cameron, S., & Turtle-Song, I. (2002). Learning to write case notes using the SOAP format. Journal of Counseling & Development , 80 (3), 286–292. https://doi. org/10.1002/j.1556-6678.2002.tb00193.x Caty, M. È., Kinsella, E. A., & Doyle, P. C. (2015). Reflective practice in speech-language pathology: A scoping review. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology , 17 (4), 411–420. https://doi.org/10.3109/17549507.2014.979870 Chu, S. Y., Hara, Y., Wong, C.H., Higashikawa, M., McConnell, G. E., & Lim, A. (2021). Exploring attitudes about evidence-based practice among speech-language pathologists: A survey of Japan and Malaysia. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology . https//doi: 10.1080/17549507.2021.1877816 Colquhoun, H.L., Squires, J.E., Kolehmainen, N., Fraser, C., & Grimshaw, J.M. (2017). Methods for designing interventions to change health care professionals’ behaviour: A systematic review. Implementation Science , 12 (1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0560-5 Cowie, M., Wanger, K. M., Cartwright, A., Bailey, H., Millar, J. A., & Price, M. (2001). A review of Clinical Terms Version 3 (ReadCodes) for speech and language record keeping. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders , 36 (1),117–126. https://doi. org/10.1080/13682820116848 Flottorp, S. ., Oxman, A. ., Krause, J., Musila, N. ., Wensing, M., Godycki-Cwirko, M., Baker, R., & Eccles, M. . (2013). A checklist for identifying determinants of practice: a systematic review and synthesis of frameworks and taxonomies of factors that prevent or enable improvements in healthcare professional practice. Implementation Science: IS, 8(1), 35–35. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-8-35 Graham, I. D., Logan, J., Harrison, M. B., Straus, S. E., Tetroe, J., Caswell, W., & Robinson, N. (2006). Lost in knowledge translation: Time for a map? Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions , 26 (1), 13–24. Kirkpatrick, D.L. (1998). Evaluating training programs: The four levels . (2nd edn.) Berrett-Koehler. Olswang, L. B., & Goldstein, H. (2017). Collaborating on the development and implementation of evidence-based practices: Advancing science and practice. Evidence- Based Communication Assessment and Intervention , 11 (3- 4), 61–71. https//doi:10.1080/17489539.2017.1386404 Roulstone, S. (2015). Exploring the relationship between client perspectives, clinical expertise and research evidence. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology , 17 (3), 211–222. https://doi.org/10.3109/175495 07.2015.1016112 Walsh, R., & International Group on Terminology Frameworks—Communication Science and Disorders. (2006). A history of terminology: International group on terminology frameworks—Communication science and disorders. http://www.dhrs.uct.ac.za/sites/default/files/ image_tool/images/147/History_of_CSD.pdf Wandersman, A., Duffy, J., Flaspohler, P., Noonan, R., Lubell, K., Stillman, L., Blachman, M., Dunville, R., & Saul, J. (2008). Bridging the gap between prevention research and practice: The interactive systems framework for dissemination and implementation. American Journal of Community Psychology , 4 (3–4), 171–181. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10464-008-9174-z

105

JCPSLP Volume 23, Number 2 2021

www.speechpathologyaustralia.org.au