↓ Skip to main content

Evidence-based practice in speech-language pathology curricula: A scoping study

Overview of attention for article published in Advances in Speech Language Pathology, November 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
70 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Evidence-based practice in speech-language pathology curricula: A scoping study
Published in
Advances in Speech Language Pathology, November 2011
DOI 10.3109/17549507.2011.595825
Pubmed ID
Authors

Leanne Togher, Corina Yiannoukas, Michelle Lincoln, Emma Power, Natalie Munro, Patricia Mccabe, Pratiti Ghosh, Linda Worrall, Elizabeth Ward, Alison Ferguson, Elisabeth Harrison, Jacinta Douglas

Abstract

This scoping study investigated how evidence-based practice (EBP) principles are taught in Australian speech-language pathology (SLP) teaching and learning contexts. It explored how Australian SLP university programs: (1) facilitate student learning about the principles of EBP in academic and clinical settings, and (2) self-evaluate their curricula in relation to EBP. The research involved two surveys. Survey 1 respondents were 131 academic staff, program coordinators, and on-campus and off-campus clinical educators. This survey gathered information about EBP teaching and learning in SLP programs as well as future EBP curriculum plans. Survey 2 investigated how clinical educators incorporated EBP into the way they taught clinical decision-making to students. Surveys responses from 85 clinical educators were analysed using descriptive and non-parametric statistics and thematic grouping of open-ended qualitative responses. Both surveys revealed strengths and gaps in integrating EBP into Australian SLP curricula. Perceived strengths were that respondents were positive about EBP, most had EBP training and access to EBP resources. The perceived gaps included the academic staff's perceptions of students' understanding and application of EBP, respondents' understanding of research methodologies, communication and collaboration between academic staff and clinical educators, and a lack of explicit discussion by clinical educators and students of EBP in relation to clients.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 3%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Hong Kong 1 1%
Spain 1 1%
Unknown 65 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 9%
Lecturer 3 4%
Other 13 19%
Unknown 18 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 16 23%
Social Sciences 13 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 16%
Psychology 4 6%
Arts and Humanities 3 4%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 18 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 July 2014.
All research outputs
#17,286,379
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Advances in Speech Language Pathology
#646
of 832 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#107,152
of 155,018 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in Speech Language Pathology
#4
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 832 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.6. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 155,018 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.