Outcomes of a Community of Practice on Quebec Speech Language Pathologists’ Voice Assessment Practices and Professional Identity

Resultados de una comunidad de práctica sobre las prácticas de evaluación de la voz y la identidad profesional de los logopedas de Quebec

Published 2024-01-29 — Updated on 2024-02-03

Open | Download
HTML Icon XML Icon PDF Icon Flip Icon
Issue
Vol. 6 No. 1 (2024)
Section
Research Article
How to Cite
1.
Outcomes of a Community of Practice on Quebec Speech Language Pathologists’ Voice Assessment Practices and Professional Identity. Rev. Investig. Innov. Cienc. Salud [Internet]. 2024 Feb. 3 [cited 2024 Dec. 21];6(1). Available from: https://riics.info/index.php/RCMC/article/view/254
DOI

https://doi.org/10.46634/riics.254
Dimensions
PlumX
license
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Ingrid Verduyckt
École d’orthophonie et d’audiologie; Faculté de médecine; Université de Montréal; Montreal; Canada
    Perfil Google Scholar
    https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1881-3216
    Lyne Defoy
    École d’orthophonie et d’audiologie; Faculté de médecine; Université de Montréal; Montreal; Canada
      https://orcid.org/0009-0005-1962-2867
      Imane Hocine
      Université de Montréal
        https://orcid.org/0009-0008-8486-0871
        Vincent Martel-Sauvageau
        Programme D’orthophonie; Département de réadaptation; Faculté de Médecine; Université Laval; Québec; Canada
          Perfil Google Scholar
          https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0152-0908
          Show authors biography

          In a context where different protocols for recommended practices in clinical voice assessment exist, while there are gaps in the literature regarding the evidence base supporting assessment procedures and measures, clinicians from regions where a strong community holding expertise in clinical and scientific voice practices lack can struggle to confidently develop their voice assessment practices. In an effort to improve voice assessment practices and strengthen professional identity among speech-language pathologists in Quebec, Canada, a community of practice (CoP) was established, with the aim of promoting knowledge sharing, implementing change in clinical practice, and improving professional identity. Thirty-nine participants took part in the CoP activities conducted over a four-month period, including virtual meetings and in-person workshops. Participants had a high rate of attendance (> 74% participation rate in virtual meetings), and were highly satisfied with their participation and intended to remain involved after the project’s end. Statistically significant changes in voice assessment practices were observed post-CoP, regarding probability of performing assessments (p < .001), and perceived importance of assessment for evaluative purposes (p <.001), as well as improvements in assessment specific confidence, specifically for procedure of auditory-perceptual assessment (p < .001) and purpose of aerodynamic assessment (p = .05). Moreover, there was an increase in professional identity post-CoP (p < .001) and participants felt they made significant learnings. The present study highlighted the need to involve SLPs in future research to identify assessments that are relevant to the specific evaluative objectives of SLPs working with voice, and suggests CoPs are an efficient tool for that purpose.

          Article visits 298 | PDF visits 147

          1. Roy N, Barkmeier-Kraemer J, Eadie T, Sivasankar MP, Mehta D, Paul D, et al. Evidence-Based Clinical Voice Assessment: A Systematic Review. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology. 2013;22(2):212-26. doi: https://doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360(2012/12-0014)
          2. Dejonckere PH, Bradley P, Clemente P, Cornut G, Crevier-Buchman L, Friedrich G, et al. A basic protocol for functional assessment of voice pathology, especially for investigating the efficacy of (phonosurgical) treatments and evaluating new assessment techniques. European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology. 2001;258(2):77-82. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s004050000299
          3. Behrman A. Common Practices of Voice Therapists in the Evaluation of Patients. Journal of Voice. 2005;19(3):454-69. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2004.08.004
          4. Patel RR, Awan SN, Barkmeier-Kraemer J, Courey M, Deliyski D, Eadie T, et al. Recommended Protocols for Instrumental Assessment of Voice: American Speech-Language-Hearing Association Expert Panel to Develop a Protocol for Instrumental Assessment of Vocal Function. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2018;27(3):887-905. doi: https://doi.org/10.1044/2018_AJSLP-17-0009
          5. Mattei A, Desuter G, Roux M, Lee BJ, Louges MA, Osipenko E, et al. International consensus (ICON) on basic voice assessment for unilateral vocal fold paralysis. Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis. 2018;135(1s):S11-s5. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anorl.2017.12.007
          6. Roy N. Assessment and treatment of musculoskeletal tension in hyperfunctional voice disorders. Int J Speech Lang Pathol. 2008;10(4):195-209. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/17549500701885577
          7. Estes CM, Johnson AM. Practical Considerations for Instrumental Acoustic and Aerodynamic Assessment of Voice: Discussion Points From an Open Forum of Clinicians. Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups. 2023;8(6):1354-62. doi: https://doi.org/10.1044/2023_PERSP-23-00039
          8. Sackett DL, Rosenberg WMC, Gray JAM, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. BMJ. 1996;312(7023):71-2. doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.312.7023.71
          9. https://www.asha.org [Internet]. Rockville: ASHA AS-L-HA; 2023. Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) . Available from: https://www.asha.org/research/ebp/
          10. Speech-Language & Audiology Canada (SAC). Official Statement on Evidence-Based Speech-Language Pathology Practice in Schools [press release]. 22 june 2021. Available from: https://www.sac-oac.ca
          11. Fitzgerald A. Professional identity: A concept analysis. Nursing Forum [Internet]. 2020;Apr 6;55(3):447–72. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/nuf.12450
          12. Holmes C, McDonald F, Jones M, Ozdemir V, Graham JE. Standardization and omics science: technical and social dimensions are inseparable and demand symmetrical study. Omics. 2010;14(3):327-32. doi: https://doi.org/10.1089/omi.2010.0022
          13. Almklov PG, Rosness R, Størkersen K. When safety science meets the practitioners: Does safety science contribute to marginalization of practical knowledge? Safety Science. 2014;67:25-36. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2013.08.025
          14. Arcand, L. La communauté de pratique un outil pertinent : résumé des connaissances adaptées au contexte de la santé publique, Institut national de santé publique du Québec. Canada. 2018. Available from: https://policycommons.net/artifacts/2052225/la-communaute-de-pratique-un-outil-pertinent/2805316/
          15. Lof GL. Science-based practice and the speech-language pathologist. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology. 2011;13(3):189-96. doi: https://doi.org/10.3109/17549507.2011.528801
          16. Lemire N. Animer un processus de transfert des connaissances bilan des connaissances et outil d'animation / [auteures [...]. Montréal. 2009.
          17. Li LC, Grimshaw JM, Nielsen C, Judd M, Coyte PC, Graham ID. Evolution of Wenger's concept of community of practice. Implementation Science. 2009;4(1):11. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-4-11
          18. https://www.asha.org [Internet]. Rockville: ASHA AS-L-HA; 2023. About Special Interest Group 3, Voice and Upper Airway Disorders [cited 2023 15th of July]. Available from: https://www.asha.org/sig/03/about-sig-3/
          19. Wenger E, McDermott R, Snyder W. Cultivating Communities of Practice: A Guide to Managing Knowledge. Boston: Harvard Business School; 2002.
          20. Renaud L, Caron Bouchard M, Gaudreault-Perron J, Gayraud H. Communauté de pratique dans le domaine de la promotion de la santé : analyse du sentiment d’appartenance et des pratiques de leadership. Communiquer Revue de communication sociale et publique. 2017;19:29-45. doi: https://doi.org/10.4000/communiquer.2147
          21. Ranmuthugala G, Plumb JJ, Cunningham FC, Georgiou A, Westbrook JI, Braithwaite J. How and why are communities of practice established in the healthcare sector? A systematic review of the literature. BMC Health Services Research. 2011;11(1):273. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-11-273
          22. Bandura A. Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman/Times Books/ Henry Holt & Co; 1997..
          23. Holland K, Middleton L, Uys L. Professional confidence: A concept analysis. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy. 2012;19(2):214-24. doi: https://doi.org/10.3109/11038128.2011.583939
          24. Pasupathy R, Bogschutz RJ. An Investigation of Graduate Speech-Language Pathology Students' SLP Clinical Self-Efficacy. Contemporary Issues in Communication Science and Disorders. 2013;40(Fall):151-9. doi: https://doi.org/10.1044/cicsd_40_F_151
          25. Tremblay D-G. Les communautés de pratique: quels sont les facteurs de succès. Revue internationale sur le travail et la société. 2005;3(2):692-722.
          26. Mishra P, Pandey CM, Singh U, Gupta A, Sahu C, Keshri A. Descriptive statistics and normality tests for statistical data. Ann Card Anaesth. 2019;22(1):67-72. doi: https://doi.org/10.4103/aca.ACA_157_18
          27. Pallant J. SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using IBM SPSS. London: McGraw-Hill Education; 2020. doi: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003117445
          28. Desjardins M, Halstead L, Cooke M, Bonilha HS. A Systematic Review of Voice Therapy: What “Effectiveness” Really Implies. Journal of Voice. 2017;31(3):392.e13-.e32. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2016.10.002
          29. Speyer R. Effects of voice therapy: a systematic review. Journal of Voice. 2008;22(5):565-80. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2006.10.005
          30. Kenny C. Assessment practices of Irish speech and language therapists in the evaluation of voice disorders. Logopedics Phoniatrics Vocology. 2017;42(1):12-21. doi: https://doi.org/10.3109/14015439.2015.1121291
          31. McAlister S, Yanushevskaya I. Voice assessment practices of speech and language therapists in Ireland. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics. 2020;34(1-2):29-53. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/02699206.2019.1610798
          32. Patel RR, Ternström S. Quantitative and Qualitative Electroglottographic Wave Shape Differences in Children and Adults Using Voice Map-Based Analysis. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2021;64(8):2977-95. doi: https://doi.org/10.1044/2021_JSLHR-20-00717
          33. Herbst CT. Electroglottography - An Update. J Voice. 2020;34(4):503-26. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2018.12.014
          34. Cheyne HA, Nuss RC, Hillman RE. Electroglottography in the pediatric population. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1999;125(10):1105-8. doi: https://doi.org/10.1001/archotol.125.10.1105
          35. Ramig LO, Dromey C. Aerodynamic mechanisms underlying treatment-related changes in vocal intensity in patients with Parkinson disease. J Speech Hear Res. 1996;39(4):798-807. doi: https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.3904.798
          36. Vaca M, Cobeta I, Mora E, Reyes P. Clinical Assessment of Glottal Insufficiency in Age-related Dysphonia. Journal of Voice. 2017;31(1):128.e1-.e5. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2015.12.010
          37. Mayes RW, Jackson-Menaldi C, DeJonckere PH, Moyer CA, Rubin AD. Laryngeal Electroglottography as a Predictor of Laryngeal Electromyography. Journal of Voice. 2008;22(6):756-9. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2007.03.005
          38. Ramírez DAM, Jiménez VMV, López XH, Ysunza PA. Acoustic Analysis of Voice and Electroglottography in Patients With Laryngopharyngeal Reflux. Journal of Voice. 2018;32(3):281-4. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2017.05.009
          39. Albudoor N, Peña ED. Factors influencing US speech and language therapists’ use of technology for clinical practice. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders. 2021;56(3):567-82. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/1460-6984.12614
          40. Oates J. Auditory-perceptual evaluation of disordered voice quality: pros, cons and future directions. Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2009;61(1):49-56. doi: https://doi.org/10.1159/000200768
          41. Kreiman J, Gerratt BR. Perceptual assessment of voice quality: Past, present, and future. Perspectives on Voice and Voice Disorders. 2010;20(2):62-7. doi: https://doi.org/10.1044/vvd20.2.62
          42. Barnett S, Jones SC, Bennett S, Iverson D, Bonney A. Perceptions of family physician trainees and trainers regarding the usefulness of a virtual community of practice. J Med Internet Res. 2013;15(5):e92. doi: https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2555
          43. Barnett S, Jones SC, Caton T, Iverson D, Bennett S, Robinson L. Implementing a virtual community of practice for family physician training: a mixed-methods case study. J Med Internet Res. 2014;16(3):e83. doi: https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.3083
          44. Grol R, Wensing M. Implementation of Change in Healthcare. In: Wensing M, Grol R, Grimshaw J, editors. Improving Patient Care. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons Ltd; 2020. p. 1-20. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119488620.ch1
          45. Mehta D, Hillman RE. Use of aerodynamic measures in clinical voice assessment. Perspectives on voice and voice disorders. 2007;17(3):14-8 doi: https://doi.org/10.1044/vvd17.3.14
          46. Pillot-Loiseau C. Pression sous-glottique et débit oral d'air expiré comme aides à la pose du diagnostic de dysodie; implications pour la rééducation vocale. Entretiens d'orthophonie. 2011;32-45. Available from: https://shs.hal.science/halshs-00609092/
          47. Lim KH, Ward LM, Benbasat I. An Empirical Study of Computer System Learning: Comparison of Co-Discovery and Self-Discovery Methods. Information Systems Research. 1997;8(3):254-72. doi: https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.8.3.254
          48. Neufeld D, Fang Y, Wan Z. Community of Practice Behaviors and Individual Learning Outcomes. Group Decision and Negotiation. 2013;22(4):617-39. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-012-9284-8
          49. Cook JM, O’Donnell C, Dinnen S, Coyne JC, Ruzek JI, Schnurr PP. Measurement of a model of implementation for health care: toward a testable theory. Implementation Science. 2012;7(1):1-15 doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-7-59
          50. Hajian S. Transfer of learning and teaching: A review of transfer theories and effective instructional practices. IAFOR Journal of education. 2019;7(1):93-111. doi: https://doi.org/10.22492/ije.7.1.06
          51. Correia AMR. Virtual communities of practice: Investigating motivations and constraints in the processes of knowledge creation and transfer. Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management. 2010;8(1):11-20. Available from: https://academic-publishing.org/index.php/ejkm/article/view/885
          52. Fahey R, Vasconcelos AC, Ellis D. The impact of rewards within communities of practice: a study of the SAP online global community. Knowledge Management Research & Practice. 2007;5(3):186-98. doi: https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.kmrp.8500140
          53. Ikioda F, Kendall S, Brooks F, De Liddo A, Buckingham Shum S. Factors That Influence Healthcare Professionals’ Online Interaction in a Virtual Community of Practice. Social Networking. 2013;02:174-84. doi: https://doi.org/10.4236/sn.2013.24017
          54. McLoughlin C, Patel KD, O’Callaghan T, Reeves S. The use of virtual communities of practice to improve interprofessional collaboration and education: findings from an integrated review. Journal of interprofessional care. 2018;32(2):136-42 doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820.2017.1377692
          55. Jackson BN, Purdy SC, Cooper-Thomas HD. Role of Professional Confidence in the Development of Expert Allied Health Professionals: A Narrative Review. J Allied Health. 2019;48(3):226-32. Available from: https://tinyurl.com/yutyqxcp
          56. Grimm P. Social Desirability Bias. In: Wiley International Encyclopedia of Marketing. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons Ltd; 2010. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444316568.wiem02057
          57. van Mersbergen M, Ostrem J, Titze IR. Preparation of the speech-language pathologist specializing in voice: an educational survey. J Voice. 2001;15(2):237-50. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0892-1997(01)00024-8
          58. Procter T, Codino J, Rubin A. Finding Voice: A Survey of Clinical Fellows and Early Career Clinicians Specializing in Voice and Voice Disorders. Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups. 2021;6(5):1073-84. doi: https://doi.org/10.1044/2021_PERSP-21-00115
          59. Rumbach AF, Dallaston K, Hill AE. Student perceptions of factors that influence clinical competency in voice. Int J Speech Lang Pathol. 2021;23(2):124-34. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/17549507.2020.1737733
          60. OOAQ. Pourquoi consulter un orthophoniste? [internet]. n.d. cited 2023. Available from: https://www.ooaq.qc.ca/consulter/orthophoniste/pourquoi-consulter-orthophoniste/
          Publish with RIICS

          Scimago

          Most read in the last 30 days

          Sistema OJS 3.4.0.7 - Metabiblioteca |