Reflective practice across speech and language therapy and education: a protocol for an integrative review

Jessica McCluskey; Aoife L. Gallagher; Carol-Anne Murphy

doi:10.12688/hrbopenres.13234.2

Home Browse Reflective practice across speech and language therapy and education:...

ALL Metrics

-

Views

123

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Study Protocol

Revised

Reflective practice across speech and language therapy and education: a protocol for an integrative review

[version 2; peer review: 3 approved]

Jessica McCluskey ¹, Aoife L. Gallagher^1,2, Carol-Anne Murphy^1,2

PUBLISHED 24 Mar 2022

Author details Author details

¹ School of Allied Health, University of Limerick, Castletroy, Limerick, V94 T9PX, Ireland
² Health Implementation Science and Technology Cluster, Health Research Institute, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland

Jessica McCluskey
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Project Administration, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Aoife L. Gallagher
Roles: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing

Carol-Anne Murphy
Roles: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS

Abstract

Effective co-practice is considered a linchpin of inclusive education. Speech and language therapists (SLT), in collaboration with teachers, are amongst the professionals who have a role in ensuring inclusion for students. The challenges of collaboration are well documented, with communication considered a potential antidote. Proposals for how collaborative communication can take place often align with models of reflection. Uncertainty around a shared language for reflection within and across the professions of teaching and SLT may pose a barrier to it occurring. Reflection has long been documented as a strategy used by effective clinicians to improve practice. Hence, teachers and SLTs reflecting together could be considered ‘a port of entry’ for effective collaborative practice. This study aims to synthesise literature and knowledge on the phenomenon of reflective practice across the professions to facilitate collaboration for inclusive education.
The method of qualitative evidence synthesis will be an integrative review. A systematic search will be conducted to extract empirical studies, reviews and theoretical papers on the topic of reflection across both professions. An adapted version of the PRISMA reporting guidelines will be used in the development, design and reporting of this review. Four databases will be searched: CINAHL, SCOPUS, Education Source and ERIC. A web-based search will also be conducted to retrieve relevant policy documents. Included literature will be appraised using the M-MAT and an adapted checklist from the Joanna Briggs Institute. Deductive content analysis will endeavour to determine if a shared language exists about reflection, across the professions of teaching and speech and language therapy.
Establishing a shared language represents a first step towards the development of a framework for collaborative reflection between teachers and SLTs. This is turn serves to inform future research, policy and practice regarding how speech and language therapist can work collaboratively with teachers in schools.

Keywords

Reflection, reflective practice, Speech and Language Therapist, speech language and communication needs, teacher, education, collaboration, inclusion

Corresponding author: Jessica McCluskey

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information: This work was supported by a scholarship awarded by the School of Allied Health, University of Limerick. This was a competitively awarded student stipend for postgraduate fees.
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Copyright: © 2022 McCluskey J et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to cite: McCluskey J, Gallagher AL and Murphy CA. Reflective practice across speech and language therapy and education: a protocol for an integrative review [version 2; peer review: 3 approved]. HRB Open Res 2022, 4:29 (https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13234.2) First published: 22 Mar 2021, 4:29 (https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13234.1) Latest published: 24 Mar 2022, 4:29 (https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13234.2)

Revised Amendments from Version 1

Changes to this protocol have been to the terms used in the research question and objectives. Use of the term education has been changed to the term teaching. In the objectives, perception and use of reflection has been changed to an understanding of reflective practice.

To read any peer review reports and author responses for this article, follow the "read" links in the Open Peer Review table.

Introduction

The need to work towards inclusive education for all was recognized internationally with the publication of the Salamanca Statement (UNESCO, 1994). Effective co-practice between a variety of professionals is proposed as a means by which inclusive education can be achieved and is a term used generally in situations where staff from different professions work together (McKean et al., 2017). In professional policy (ASHA, 2001; RCSLT, 2018; SPA, 2011) and the literature (Law et al., 1999; McCartney, 1999; McCartney, 2000; McCartney, 2002) speech and language therapists (SLT) are recognised as some of the professionals who play a crucial role in the implementation of practical and strategic changes, to ensure inclusion is the norm for students with speech, language and communication needs (SLCN) in schools (Ebbels et al., 2019; McKean et al., 2017). The response to this in some countries has been the provision of SLT services as part of the education system; however, the specifics of facilitating effective collaboration between SLT’s and teachers working together in practice remains limited (Gallagher et al., 2019). What is clear, is that co-practice is challenging, and it is hard to work together, particularly in inter-professional contexts.

Literature from the 1990s onwards outlines what makes co-practice so difficult. Developing reciprocal relationships (Field, 2003), establishing shared language (Law et al., 2001) and managing power dynamics are just some of the factors that can influence the effectiveness of co-practice between individuals. Another challenge, unique to the therapeutic and pedagogical co-practice context, is the many forms that co-practice in a school can take. Suleman et al. (2014) has proposed frameworks that detail the ways in which teachers and SLT can work together, classifying a transdisciplinary model as the most integrative. Transdisciplinary co-practice is distinctive from others due to the professional overlap (Hall & Weaver, 2001) in addition to the sharing of roles and responsibilities. Striving to work together effectively in this way requires the recognition of a potential threat to professional identity (Binyamin, 2017).

Communication is proposed as a potential solution to the challenges experienced. In the literature, this communication is characterised by an ongoing dialectal process (Bleakley & Bligh, 2008) that facilitates careful consideration of self, others, experiences and changes (Mackey, 2007). Aligned with Mackey’s proposal of ‘careful consideration’ are definitions of reflection and models of reflective practice. Boud et al. (1985) stated that reflection is ‘a conscious activity’ that can be engaged with to explore experience and understand better. “Reflective practice is the act of reflection, captured in some way (discussion, writing), on a systematic basis” (CIPD, 2020:3). It is a requirement for the development of new skills as well as developing the responsive capacity of a person to create productive relationships, manage emotions, make decisions and cope with stress (CIPD, 2020). It is therefore considered particularly useful in dealing with difficult or challenging situations (Moon, 1999). Models and frameworks exist that facilitate reflective practice in professional contexts. For example, Dr Stephen Brookfield’s Lens Theory (1995) is frequently cited in relation to teaching as a means of supporting the professional reflection of teachers, while the Reflective Theory Model of Argyris & Schӧn (1978) has been quite influential in the field of SLT (Caty et al., 2015). Reflective practice is regarded as essential to the professional role (Finlay, 2008). Despite its centrality to both professions there has been remarkably little research into the reality of how it is used by practitioners (Bray, 2020). Publications in the fields of nursing, teacher education, social care as well as across other medical professions (Boud, 2010) most often refer to the use of reflective practice with higher education students or as part of CPD.

As outlined, integrative co-practice between SLTs and teachers in schools continues to be novel and can pose a threat to professional identity. Finlay stated generally that engaging in reflective practice often forms the “bedrock of professional identity” (2008:3). Thus, the use of reflection by teachers and SLTs may be valuable in the attempt to forge new identities within a novel working context.

A potential difficulty is that across different disciplines and intellectual traditions, what is understood by ‘reflective practice’ varies considerably (Fook et al., 2006). In order to facilitate collaboration of any kind, there is a need for a shared language (Law et al., 2001). Therefore, a shared or common language for reflection must be identified if successful co-reflection between the two professions is to be considered. Reflecting together is not only required to ensure effective co-practice but also to facilitate the transition from an individual profession working comfortably in their own field to an integrative team member working clinically in the educational context. However, “the gap between the ‘high ground’ of theory and the ‘swampy lowlands’ of practice” (SkillsYouNeed, 2020) remains relatively unexplored. An initial overview of literature, policy and practice would indicate that thus far methods for reflecting together, outside of the IPE context, are at best underutilised if not completely underdeveloped. There therefore exists a need for exploration, with the literature as the first point of reference. By interrogating the literature in this research study, we hope to determine if a shared understanding of reflective practice exists between health and education.

The question guiding this research is: How is reflection understood across the professions of SLT and teaching?

The principle aim of this study is to synthesise literature and knowledge on the phenomenon of reflective practice across the professions of speech and language therapy and teaching. This will be achieved by addressing four objectives:

(i) What is common or shared about the understanding of reflective practice across both professions?
(ii) What is different about the understanding of reflective practice across both professions?
(iii) What implication do these commonalities and differences have for collaborative practice between SLTs and teachers?
(iv) What remains unknown or needs to be investigated for collaborative reflection between the professions?

Addressing these objectives will provide insight into the value placed on reflection by both professions as well as determining the language and terms used to describe reflection and reflective practices across disciplinary contexts. New knowledge from this research can be used to inform the development of a framework to guide collaborative reflective practice between teachers and SLTs. This knowledge will be relevant to those in practice, research, management and policy development, working towards truly collaborative interdisciplinary relationships as part of an inclusive education system.

Protocol

This protocol is reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Metal-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) checklist (McCluskey et al., 2021). An integrative review (Kirkevold, 1997) has been chosen as the method for this study. This is a method that allows the integration of different types of knowledge about practice-based questions. It involves identifying, analysing and synthesising a diverse range of literature sources; empirical, theoretical and policy. It is considered an effective method to guide evidence informed practice (Crawford & Rondinelli, 2013). In this study we propose to use Souza et al.’s (2010), framework for conducting integrative reviews. This framework incorporates six phases: preparing the guiding question, searching and sampling the literature, data collection, critical analysis of the studies included, discussion of results and finally the presentation of the integrative review. Suri (2019) outlined ethical considerations when conducting a systematic review, which will also be contemplated across all six phases of this integrative study.

Preparing the guiding question

The research question and objectives above have been created based on practice knowledge and exploration of the literature. The question is specific to speech and language therapy and education in order to capture the literature pertaining to reflective practice in these fields only. Identification of additional research questions and objectives may be an iterative process, informed by continued immersion in the literature while conducting this review.

Searching and sampling

Sampling strategies. The first search strategy will be a systematic search of published, peer-reviewed literature. A comprehensive, systematic search will be conducted to extract empirical studies, reviews and theoretical papers from electronic databases. The choice of databases was informed by preliminary searches and will be confined to CINAHL, SCOPUS, Education Source and ERIC. In order to ensure key literature is not missed, noteworthy references from papers retrieved will also be traced using a snowballing (Webster & Watson, 2002) technique. Literature will also be obtained by hand searching reference lists of included articles. The second search strategy will be a manual web-based search. This search will include the websites of professional organisations and publications from government-based reports and guidelines. This will ensure a comprehensive sample of current policy documents is obtained. The web-based search will retrieve a more purposive sample of online literature and will follow systematic procedures as outlined in Stansfield et al. (2016). Seminal literature and policy known to the researchers will also be included if not retrieved through the two search strategies.

Search criteria. To support the development of search terms and the criteria to screen studies the SPIDER (Hewitt-Taylor, 2017) (Sample, Phenomenon of Interest, Design, Evaluation, and Research type) framework was used due to its specificity (Methley et al., 2014). Search terms were generated based on keywords determined by team members, and further developed by an overview of literature on the topics of reflective practice, collaboration between SLT and teachers as well as from educational policy in Ireland. Alongside the specific database headings, Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and a thesaurus were also used. The table below also outlines the inclusion and exclusion criteria using the SPIDER headings. Depending on papers retrieved, criteria for inclusion and exclusion may need to be adjusted (Levac et al., 2010).

Selection process

A sample initial search string is shown in Table 2 to guide the electronic database search. This string will continue to be developed iteratively as the search progresses (Levac et al., 2010). Once the electronic database, web-based search strategies have been completed snowballing techniques will be applied. To support the clear reporting of the search strategy procedure, an adapted version of the PRISMA statement (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols) (Moher et al., 2009) will be used to represent the integrative review process.

The final citations and literature will be uploaded to Endnote software and the duplicate citations removed. Database literature will be screened first by two reviewers (JM; first author & BF; therapists from the practice context) for title and abstract, and subsequently, by full-text review (Cooke et al., 2012) in line with the study selection criteria detailed in Table 1. Some of this literature will be double screened (20%), both by title and abstract as well as full text, to ensure the transparency of the study selection process. If opinions differ regarding the inclusion of any screened literature a discussion will take place to establish consensus. A third reviewer (AG; second author) will also be available to help facilitate a final decision if an agreement cannot be reached. All steps and decisions related to this process will be documented.

Table 1. Search terms.

	Provisional Search Terms	Inclusion Criteria	Exclusion Criteria
Sample	speech therapy, speech and language therapy, speech pathology, speech and language pathology, speech and language pathologist, speech and language therapist, speech therapist teacher, primary school teacher, post-primary school teacher, secondary school teacher, kindergarten teacher, middle school teacher, high school teacher, teaching, educator, education	Speech and language therapists, student therapists and fully qualified Educators; primary and/or post primary teachers preservice or fully qualified.	Other allied health professionals Early years providers, lecturers, school support staff, speech and language therapy assistants who have engaged in reflection or reflective practice.
Phenomenon of Interest	Reflection, mental process, reflective practice, personal reflection, self-review, self-awareness, self- critique, self-appraisal, self-analysis, intra-personal awareness, personal cognizance reflective dialogue, critical evaluation	Empirical studies must involve teachers and/or Speech and Language therapists engaging in reflective practice either independently, within their discipline or in a transdisciplinary way. Theoretical literature and policy must pertain to reflection or reflective practice wholly or in part.	Reflection of other disciplines or professions Reflection of clients or those being educated Reflections of parent/guardians of those engaged in SLT or education.
Design	n/a	Empirical studies; qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods Systematic reviews; secondary research Theoretical papers
Evaluation	n/a	Theory on reflection in the fields of SLT or education, experience and/or feelings of sample population when engaged in reflection, impact or outcomes of engaging in reflection, guidance on reflection from professional websites, policy and resources.	Reflection on the history of the profession.
Research type	n/a	Peer reviewed journals Full text In English Published: no date limit -2021 Policy from professional bodies of teachers and speech therapists.	Thesis Dissertations Opinion pieces Protocols Editorials Policies on reflection or reflective practice not related to teaching or speech and language therapy

Table 2. Search string.

Search number	Search strategy
S1	speech therapy OR speech and language therapy OR speech pathology OR speech and language pathology OR speech and language pathologist OR speech and language therapist OR speech therapist OR Teacher OR primary school teacher OR post-primary school teacher OR secondary school teacher OR kindergarten teacher OR middle school teacher OR high school teacher OR teaching, educator OR education
S2	Reflect* OR reflection OR mental processes OR reflective practice OR personal reflection OR self-review OR self-awareness OR self-critique OR self-appraisal OR self-analysis OR intra-personal awareness OR personal cogni#ance OR reflective dialogue OR critical evaluation
S3	S1 + S2

Quality appraisal and data extraction

The final papers will be read in-depth several times by the first author (JM) to facilitate initial data extraction. The date of the study, author(s) as well as the sample population or context will be extracted from all included literature. Additional data extracted will vary depending on the literature type; empirical, review study, theoretical etc. For example, data extracted from theoretical literature will focus on the theories or models of reflection referenced, constructs and pathways of these theories and disciplinary origins. Data extracted from empirical literature may include information about the study design and a description of how reflection was be used. To support this process, data extraction frameworks for each literature type will be developed based on those proposed by the Joanna Briggs Institute and trialled on 5–6 papers and pieces of policy before applying broadly to all literature included in this study.

Literature included in the final synthesis will also be appraised for quality. The appraisal tool selected will be determined by the literature, likely calling for the use of different tools. The mixed method appraisal tool (M-MAT) (Hong et al., 2018) will be used to assess the methodological quality of empirical research. This is a validated tool that allows for the appraisal of qualitative, quantitative and mixed-method studies (Gallagher et al., 2019). The quality of theoretical literature will be ascertained/appraised using a tool based on the ‘Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Checklist for ‘text and opinion’ (Johanna Briggs Institute – Critical Appraisal Tools).

All literature will be critically appraised independently by two reviewers. Appraisal will give consideration to how the interests of different stakeholders are represented in the literature. Reviewers will also recognise the importance of critically reflecting on the contextual positioning of the authors of primary research being analysed. Appraisal decisions will be recorded and the reason for exclusion reported. Where there is a lack of agreement, the involvement of a third reviewer will be called upon. Studies which do not adequately meet the appraisal criteria will be discarded.

Analysis

Content analysis, using the Nvivo computer software, will be used to analyse the extracted data in an attempt to describe and quantify the phenomenon (Downe-Wamboldt, 1992; Krippendorff, 1980; Sandelowski, 1995) of reflection across the speech and language therapy and educational contexts. To facilitate iterative comparison and interpretation, data extracted will be reduced in accordance with a reflection framework. While theories about the phenomenon of reflection, and frameworks for its application, exist in both the educational and speech therapy contexts, little or fragmented knowledge exists about reflection occurring between these professionals when working together. In the selection of a framework, the author considered the context in which reflection between teachers and SLTs is most likely to occur. Hence, the lenses of reflection proposed by Stephen Brookfield often used in educational contexts, will guide analysis.

Within his Lens theory, Brookfield (1995) promotes reflecting on practice (work/life experiences) through other lenses, not only from our own perspective but from multiple perspectives, including reflecting on theory. Brookfield also calls attention to the importance of emotions in the process of reflection, which is a limitation identified in the work of earlier theorists. However, Lens Theory is not without its own limitations. It does not take into consideration the context of the practitioner and it lacks the explicit link of reflection for future. Brookfield also appears to see all teaching and learning taking place in the classroom and does not consider the more informal settings for teaching and learning. As collaboration between the professions of SLT and teachers takes place primarily in the educational setting, the concepts or lenses of Brookfield’s framework will be used to create a strict categorisation matrix for deductive analysis. This framework will be trialed on a number of papers initially, before applying to the final collection of literature, which will then be reviewed for content and coded for reference to these lenses in the description of or engagement with reflection. There is the potential that new concepts could be derived from the data due to the novel nature of considering co-reflection between teachers and SLT. The data that do not fit with Brookfield’s lenses will also be considered, with a view to creating new concepts using an inductive analysis process.

It is anticipated that the results from this analysis will be represented in a visual way. This visual representation will depict what is shared and what is different about how SLTs and teachers reflect. It is predicted that this visual will either build upon the framework of reflection posed by Stephen Brookfield or will propose a new framework for collaborative reflection within the educational context. The development of a new or adapted framework will also allow for navigation of some of the identified limitations to Lens Theory.

Addressing rigour will be an essential aspect when conducting this integrative review. To ensure this research can be considered reliable, detailed descriptions of the literature search, quality appraisal and analysing process will be given when reporting results along with the use of appendices and tables to demonstrate links between the data and results (Polit & Beck, 2004). The researcher will also be aware of issues related to combining empirical and theoretical reports. During analysis, consideration will be given to how the primary researcher’s contextual positioning (an SLT working in education) may influence the understanding derived from evidence in the literature. Any unavoidable bias will be acknowledged in the limitations of the final study.

Discussion

From reviewing the literature to date, it appears that this will be the first integrative review seeking to synthesise what is shared and what is different in terms of how speech and language therapists and educators engage with reflection in their practice. The findings of this review will be relevant for researchers, practitioners and policymakers working towards truly collaborative relationships in education. This review will also contribute to the growing body of literature regarding SLT and teachers working in collaboration with those who have SLCN (Ebbels et al., 2019; Gascoigne, 2006; McCartney, 2002; McKean et al., 2017; Starling et al., 2012). It also seeks to contribute to the literature surrounding best practice for inclusive education by developing a framework for collaborative reflection. Adding to the research knowledge in this area will simultaneously reduce research waste by synthesising and conceptualising available evidence that can be used to describe the phenomenon of reflection amongst and between these professionals.

Presentation of findings

In order to disseminate the findings from this research, a review paper will be written for publication in a peer reviewed journal such as Journal of Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools (LSHSS) or the Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies in Education (JISE). Opportunities to disseminate at conferences will also be sought providing an opportunity to share knowledge and findings on this topic with a range of professionals, outside of speech and language therapy. Conferences may also provide the opportunity to network with teachers and practitioners to establish the value other professions place on collaborative reflection as a way to enhance practice for inclusive education.

Study status

The research question, aims and objectives are now soundly developed, along with the research design. Search terms have been developed as illustrated in this protocol and will continue to be iteratively developed throughout the literature search phase. Inclusion and exclusion criteria have been determined for literature retrieved. Similar to the development of search terms, inclusion and exclusion criteria will be informed by the search process. Methods for appraising literature have been noted, as well as methods for extraction, analysis and data synthesis. The database and web-based search phases of this research are almost complete. Screening and appraisal of literature will shortly commence followed by data extraction.

Data availability

No data are associated with this article.

Reporting guidelines

Figshare: PRISMA-P Checklist_McCluskey et al. 2021. https://www.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.14170169.v1 (McCluskey et al., 2021).

Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0).

Faculty Opinions recommended

References

American Speech-Language-Hearing Association: Roles and responsibilities of speech-language pathologists with respect to reading and writing in children and adolescents [Position Statement]. 2001. Reference Source
Argyris C, Schon D: Organisational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading, Mass: Addison Wesley. 1978. Reference Source
Binyamin G: Growing from Dilemmas: Developing a Professional Identity through Collaborative Reflections on Relational Dilemmas with Role Partners. Israeli J Occup Ther. 2017; 26(1).
Bleakley A, Bligh J: Students learning from patients: Let’s get real in medical education. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2008; 13(1): 89–107. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Boud D: Relocating Reflection in the Context of Practice. In H. Bradbury, N. Frost, & S. Kilminster (Eds.), Beyond Reflective Practice. New York: Routledge. 2010; 25–36. Reference Source
Boud D, Keogh R, Walker D: Reflection: Turning Experience into Learning. London: Kogan Page, 1985. Reference Source
Bray A: Condensed Learning Diaries for Reflective Development. Presented at Argyll College. 2020. Reference Source
Brookfield S: Becoming a Critically Reflective Teacher. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 1995. Reference Source
Caty MÈ, Kinsella EA, Doyle PC: Reflective practice in speech-language pathology: A scoping review. Int J Speech Lang Pathol. 2015; 17(4): 411–420. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
CIPD: What is Reflective Practice (Produced in collaboration with Grace Owen and Alison Fletcher). 2020; Accessed 20/6/2020.
Cooke A, Smith D, Booth A: Beyond PICO: the SPIDER tool for qualitative evidence synthesis. Qual Health Res. 2012; 22(10): 1435–1443. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Crawford CL, Rondinelli JL: The integrative review process: Yes you can!!(Powerpoint slides). 2013.
Downe-Wamboldt B: Content analysis: method, applications, and issues. Health Care Women Int. 1992; 13(3): 313–321. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Ebbels SH, McCartney E, Slonims V, et al.: Evidence‐based pathways to intervention for children with language disorders. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2019; 54(1): 3–19. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Field J: Social Capital. (Abingdon: Routledge). 2003. Reference Source
Finlay L: Reflecting on reflective practice. PBPL paper. 2008; 52: 1–27. Reference Source
Fook J, White S, Gardner F: Critical reflection: a review of contemporary literature and understandings. In S.White, J.Fook and F.Gardner (eds.) Critical reflection in health and social care. Maidenhead, Berks: Open University Press. 2006; 3–20. Reference Source
Gallagher AL, Murphy CA, Conway P, et al.: Consequential differences in perspectives and practices concerning children with developmental language disorders: an integrative review. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2019; 54(4): 529–552. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Gascoigne M: Supporting children with speech, language and communication needs within integrated children's services. London, RCSLT Position Paper, RCSLT. 2006. Reference Source
Hall P, Weaver L: Interdisciplinary education and teamwork: A long and winding road. Med Educ. 2001; 35(9): 867–875. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Hewitt-Taylor J: The Essential Guide to Doing a Health and Social Care Literature Review. London: Routledge, 2017. Publisher Full Text
Hong QN, Pluye P, Fabreuges S, et al.: MIXED METHODS APPRAISAL TOOL (MMAT) VERSION 2018. Department of Family Medicine. 2018. Reference Source
Johanna Briggs Institute - Critical Appraisal Tools. Accessed October 18th 2020. Reference Source
Kirkevold M: Integrative nursing research -- an important strategy to further the development of nursing science and nursing practice. J Adv Nurs. 1997; 25(5): 977–984. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Krippendorff K: Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology. Sage Publications, Newbury Park. 1980. Reference Source
Law J, Durkin C, Sargent J, et al.: Beyond early language unit provision: Linguistic development and behavioural outcomes. Child Lang Teach Ther. 1999; 15(2): 93–111.
Law J, Lindsay G, Peacy N, et al.: Facilitating communication between education and health services: the provision for children with speech and language needs. British Journal of Special Education. 2001; 28(3): 133–137. Publisher Full Text
Levac D, Colquhoun H, O'Brien KK: Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. 2010; 5: 69. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Mackey H: ‘Do not ask me to remain the same’: Foucault and the professional identities of occupational therapists. Aust Occup Ther J. 2007; 54(2): 95–102. Publisher Full Text
McCartney E: Barriers to collaboration: An analysis of systemic barriers to collaboration between teachers and speech and language therapists. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 1999; 34(4): 431–440. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
McCartney E: Include us out? Speech and language therapists’ prioritization in mainstream schools. Child Lang Teach Ther. 2000; 16: 165–180. Publisher Full Text
McCartney E: Cross-sector working: speech and language therapists in education. J Manag Med. 2002; 16(1): 67–77. Publisher Full Text
McCluskey J, Murphy CA, Gallagher AL: PRISMA-P Checklist_McCluskey et al 2021. figshare. Figure. 2021. https://www.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.14170169.v1
McKean C, Law J, Laing K, et al.: A qualitative case study in the social capital of co-professional collaborative co-practice for children with speech, language and communication needs. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2017; 52(4): 514–527. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Methley AM, Campbell S, Chew-Graham C, et al.: PICO, PICOS and SPIDER: a comparison study of specificity and sensitivity in three search tools for qualitative systematic reviews. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014; 14: 579. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Moon J: Reflection in Learning and Professional Development. Kogan Page, London. 1999. Reference Source
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, et al.: Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Open Medicine. 2009; 3(3): 123–130. PubMed Abstract | Free Full Text
Polit DF, Beck CT: Nursing Research: Principles and Methods. 7th Edition, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, 2004. Reference Source
Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists: The importance of leadership in speech and language therapy services. 2018; Last Accessed 16/03/2021. Reference Source
Sandelowski M: Sample size in qualitative research. Res Nurs Health. 1995; 18(2): 179–183. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
©SkillsYouNeed (no date; 2011-2021). (accessed 14 October 2020). Reference Source
Speech Pathology Australia (SPA): Speech Pathologists in School. 2011. (accessed on 9 October 2020). Reference Source
Souza MT, Silva MD, Carvalho Rd: Integrative review: what is it? How to do it? Einstein (Sao Paulo). 2010; 8(1): 102–106. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Stansfield C, Dickson K, Bangpan M: Exploring issues in the conduct of website searching and other online sources for systematic reviews: how can we be systematic? Syst Rev. 2016; 5(1): 191. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
Starling J, Munro N, Togher L, et al.: Training secondary school teachers in instructional language modification techniques to support adolescents with language impairment: a randomized controlled trial. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch. 2012; 43(4): 474–495. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Suleman S, Pollock KE, McFarlane LA: Collaboration: More than "working together" - An exploratory study to determine effects of interprofessional education on awareness and application of models of specialized service. Can J Speech Lang Pathol Audiol. 2014; 37(4). Reference Source
Suri H: Ethical Considerations of Conducting Systematic Reviews in Educational Research. In: Zawacki-Richter O., Kerres M., Bedenlier S., Bond M., Buntins K. (eds) Systematic Reviews in Educational Research. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. 2019; 41–54. Publisher Full Text
UNESCO: The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education. Paris: UNESCO. 1994. Reference Source
Webster J, Watson RT: Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. MIS Quarterly. 2002; 26(2): xiii–xxiii (11 pages). Reference Source

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2

VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 22 Mar 2021

Author details Author details

¹ School of Allied Health, University of Limerick, Castletroy, Limerick, V94 T9PX, Ireland
² Health Implementation Science and Technology Cluster, Health Research Institute, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland

Jessica McCluskey
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Project Administration, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Aoife L. Gallagher
Roles: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing

Carol-Anne Murphy
Roles: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing

Competing interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information

This work was supported by a scholarship awarded by the School of Allied Health, University of Limerick. This was a competitively awarded student stipend for postgraduate fees.
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Article Versions (2)

version 2

Revised

Published: 24 Mar 2022, 4:29

https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13234.2

version 1

Published: 22 Mar 2021, 4:29

https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13234.1

Copyright

© 2022 McCluskey J et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Download

Export To

metrics

VIEWS

1825

downloads

123

Citations

0

SEE MORE DETAILS

CITE

how to cite this article

McCluskey J, Gallagher AL and Murphy CA. Reflective practice across speech and language therapy and education: a protocol for an integrative review [version 2; peer review: 3 approved]. HRB Open Res 2022, 4:29 (https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13234.2)

NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

track

receive updates on this article

Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Current Reviewer Status: ?

Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE

ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

Version 2

VERSION 2

PUBLISHED 24 Mar 2022

Revised

Views

27

Reviewer Report 07 Apr 2022

Paula Zwozdiak-Myers, School of Education, Brunel University London, London, UK

Approved

https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.14770.r31720

More than happy to amend my previous recommendation to Approved status based on the authors response ... Continue reading

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Version 1

VERSION 1

PUBLISHED 22 Mar 2021

Views

26

Reviewer Report 11 Nov 2021

Rena Lyons, Discipline of Speech and Language Therapy, National University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Ireland

Approved

https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.14396.r30647

This study protocol is well thought through and written. It is an exciting piece of research and scientifically sound. It will contribute to the knowledge base and hopefully help to enhance collaborative practice.

There are a few ... Continue reading

This study protocol is well thought through and written. It is an exciting piece of research and scientifically sound. It will contribute to the knowledge base and hopefully help to enhance collaborative practice.

There are a few minor issues that could be addressed to strengthen the protocol:

In the abstract the authors mention that 'the method of qualitative evidence synthesis will be an integrative review'. This is a bit confusing. Qualitative evidence synthesis is a method in and of itself and in the Protocol itself it is clear that an integrative review will be conducted. Further clarification is required.
In the Introduction, the authors outline some barriers to co-practice in paragraph two - I wonder is it worth also mentioning other barriers beyond relationships, shared language and power dynamics such as culture differences and more 'meso' level barriers. Even though this protocol will be focusing more on the individual level, it is worth acknowledging the wider context too.
In paragraph 3 of the Literature Review, the authors argue that communication is a potential solution - do they mean reflective practice is a potential solution? Or could the authors elaborate on what communication means in this context?
There a few small typos that could be addressed e.g., therapy missing on page 3 (in the second last paragraph) and on page 4 should be Meta-Analysis.
Is there a rationale for excluding dissertations/theses from inclusion?

I wish the authors the best of luck and look forward to reading this review when it has been completed.

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Not applicable

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Childhood speech, language and communication needs; qualitative research; collaborative practice

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Views

42

Reviewer Report 23 Jun 2021

Paula Zwozdiak-Myers, School of Education, Brunel University London, London, UK

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.14396.r29351

The aims and purposes underpinning the protocol presented for this integrative review of ‘reflective practice across speech and language therapy and education’ have been clearly articulated, soundly argued and justified. Causal factors which may challenge effective co-practice such as reciprocal ... Continue reading

The aims and purposes underpinning the protocol presented for this integrative review of ‘reflective practice across speech and language therapy and education’ have been clearly articulated, soundly argued and justified. Causal factors which may challenge effective co-practice such as reciprocal relationships and power dynamics have been identified as well as some potential solutions e.g., communication processes and the use of reflection to forge new professional identities within novel working contexts. The main aim has been translated into four well-focused research objectives in the quest to determine whether a shared understanding of reflective practice exists between health and education so as to inform the development of a framework for collaborative reflective practice.

Overall, the research design is appropriate for the purposes intended and draws upon the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) for guidance which importantly, as the authors acknowledge, does allow for integration of different types of knowledge about practice-based contexts emanating from the diverse literature base which includes theory, policy and empirical studies. There are however some areas which might benefit from further clarification or review by the team:

Search terms in Table 1 for the ‘sample’ might include initial teacher education and pre-service teachers; and for ‘phenomenon of interest’ might also incorporate collaborative communication and reflexivity given the objectives behind the review.
In the pursuit to capture a comprehensive and purposeful sample through the search strategy I find it curious that theses (especially doctoral theses given that these must demonstrate Level 8 FHEQ descriptors) are situated within the exclusion criteria…such works do attract significant specialist scrutiny and peer review: many are unpublished but contribute immensely to the grey literature available.
Although highly appropriate frameworks (e.g., M-MAT and JBI) have been identified to appraise the quality and rigour of the literature under review, particularly in the case of empirical studies and primary research, when appraising ‘the interests of different stakeholders’ and ‘contextualising the positioning of the authors’ I wonder whether Guba and Lincoln’s criteria for establishing ‘trustworthiness of the human instrument’ in qualitative research might add further weight when examining the evidence base.
There appears to be an anomaly between the paper and Figshare insofar as data synthesis on the checklist excludes any reference of how quantitative data is to be analysed yet the paper makes explicit reference to content analysis, using Nvivo to ‘describe and quantify the phenomenon’ (page 6)…although authors do offer an explanation of how Brookfield’s (1995) Lens theory will initially guide the analysis it is not wholly transparent how the Nvivo computer software is to be used…if not for analysis then perhaps the management of data?

Overall, the paper is scientifically sound and authors have provided sufficient and very explicit details of the methods employed to enable others to assess and replicate the protocol. There are minor lapses in sentence structure which would benefit from further editorial work.

This is an exciting research enterprise which has great potential to contribute new knowledge to, and practical applications within, the field of speech and language therapists working collaboratively with teachers to ensure inclusion for all our students, and more specifically for those with speech, language and communication needs (SLCN).

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Not applicable

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Reflective practice for professional development in teacher education; Social justice, equity and inclusion; Ethics in educational research

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Views

44

Reviewer Report 09 Jun 2021

Lisa Archibald, School of Communication Sciences and Disorders, The University of Western Ontario, London, ON, Canada

Approved

https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.14396.r29367

The proposed study has merit. It focuses on a topic of interest to the field of speech-language pathology & audiology. The initial approach to the question using qualitative methods is appropriate. I did wonder about the emphasis on communication as ... Continue reading

The proposed study has merit. It focuses on a topic of interest to the field of speech-language pathology & audiology. The initial approach to the question using qualitative methods is appropriate. I did wonder about the emphasis on communication as a way to connect reflection rather than simply a focus on reflection, but this is a very minor point. Just prior to the research aims, the statement about reflective practice in health and education surprised me, only because the project focused on speech-language pathology and education specifically. I did wonder why the project was limited to just these fields, as it seems possible that other professions across health and education may inform thinking about the selection of a reflection framework.

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Not applicable

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: language disorder, working memory, practice-based research

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2

VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 22 Mar 2021

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

	Invited Reviewers
	1	2	3
Version 2 (revision) 24 Mar 22		read
Version 1 22 Mar 21	read	read	read

Lisa Archibald, The University of Western Ontario, London, Canada
Paula Zwozdiak-Myers, Brunel University London, London, UK
Rena Lyons, National University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Ireland

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment

Sign up for content alerts

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

27 Views

07 Apr 2022 | for Version 2

Paula Zwozdiak-Myers, School of Education, Brunel University London, London, UK

27 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

More than happy to amend my previous recommendation to Approved status based on the authors response to feedback suggestions within their revision. Nothing more I would like to add at this stage.

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Reflective practice for professional development in teacher education; Social justice, equity and inclusion; Ethics in educational research

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

26 Views

11 Nov 2021 | for Version 1

Rena Lyons, Discipline of Speech and Language Therapy, National University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Ireland

26 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

This study protocol is well thought through and written. It is an exciting piece of research and scientifically sound. It will contribute to the knowledge base and hopefully help to enhance collaborative practice.

There are a few minor issues that could be addressed to strengthen the protocol:

In the abstract the authors mention that 'the method of qualitative evidence synthesis will be an integrative review'. This is a bit confusing. Qualitative evidence synthesis is a method in and of itself and in the Protocol itself it is clear that an integrative review will be conducted. Further clarification is required.
In the Introduction, the authors outline some barriers to co-practice in paragraph two - I wonder is it worth also mentioning other barriers beyond relationships, shared language and power dynamics such as culture differences and more 'meso' level barriers. Even though this protocol will be focusing more on the individual level, it is worth acknowledging the wider context too.
In paragraph 3 of the Literature Review, the authors argue that communication is a potential solution - do they mean reflective practice is a potential solution? Or could the authors elaborate on what communication means in this context?
There a few small typos that could be addressed e.g., therapy missing on page 3 (in the second last paragraph) and on page 4 should be Meta-Analysis.
Is there a rationale for excluding dissertations/theses from inclusion?

I wish the authors the best of luck and look forward to reading this review when it has been completed.

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Not applicable

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Childhood speech, language and communication needs; qualitative research; collaborative practice

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

42 Views

23 Jun 2021 | for Version 1

Paula Zwozdiak-Myers, School of Education, Brunel University London, London, UK

42 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved With Reservations

The aims and purposes underpinning the protocol presented for this integrative review of ‘reflective practice across speech and language therapy and education’ have been clearly articulated, soundly argued and justified. Causal factors which may challenge effective co-practice such as reciprocal relationships and power dynamics have been identified as well as some potential solutions e.g., communication processes and the use of reflection to forge new professional identities within novel working contexts. The main aim has been translated into four well-focused research objectives in the quest to determine whether a shared understanding of reflective practice exists between health and education so as to inform the development of a framework for collaborative reflective practice.

Overall, the research design is appropriate for the purposes intended and draws upon the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) for guidance which importantly, as the authors acknowledge, does allow for integration of different types of knowledge about practice-based contexts emanating from the diverse literature base which includes theory, policy and empirical studies. There are however some areas which might benefit from further clarification or review by the team:

Search terms in Table 1 for the ‘sample’ might include initial teacher education and pre-service teachers; and for ‘phenomenon of interest’ might also incorporate collaborative communication and reflexivity given the objectives behind the review.
In the pursuit to capture a comprehensive and purposeful sample through the search strategy I find it curious that theses (especially doctoral theses given that these must demonstrate Level 8 FHEQ descriptors) are situated within the exclusion criteria…such works do attract significant specialist scrutiny and peer review: many are unpublished but contribute immensely to the grey literature available.
Although highly appropriate frameworks (e.g., M-MAT and JBI) have been identified to appraise the quality and rigour of the literature under review, particularly in the case of empirical studies and primary research, when appraising ‘the interests of different stakeholders’ and ‘contextualising the positioning of the authors’ I wonder whether Guba and Lincoln’s criteria for establishing ‘trustworthiness of the human instrument’ in qualitative research might add further weight when examining the evidence base.
There appears to be an anomaly between the paper and Figshare insofar as data synthesis on the checklist excludes any reference of how quantitative data is to be analysed yet the paper makes explicit reference to content analysis, using Nvivo to ‘describe and quantify the phenomenon’ (page 6)…although authors do offer an explanation of how Brookfield’s (1995) Lens theory will initially guide the analysis it is not wholly transparent how the Nvivo computer software is to be used…if not for analysis then perhaps the management of data?

Overall, the paper is scientifically sound and authors have provided sufficient and very explicit details of the methods employed to enable others to assess and replicate the protocol. There are minor lapses in sentence structure which would benefit from further editorial work.

This is an exciting research enterprise which has great potential to contribute new knowledge to, and practical applications within, the field of speech and language therapists working collaboratively with teachers to ensure inclusion for all our students, and more specifically for those with speech, language and communication needs (SLCN).

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Not applicable

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Reflective practice for professional development in teacher education; Social justice, equity and inclusion; Ethics in educational research

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

44 Views

09 Jun 2021 | for Version 1

Lisa Archibald, School of Communication Sciences and Disorders, The University of Western Ontario, London, ON, Canada

44 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

The proposed study has merit. It focuses on a topic of interest to the field of speech-language pathology & audiology. The initial approach to the question using qualitative methods is appropriate. I did wonder about the emphasis on communication as a way to connect reflection rather than simply a focus on reflection, but this is a very minor point. Just prior to the research aims, the statement about reflective practice in health and education surprised me, only because the project focused on speech-language pathology and education specifically. I did wonder why the project was limited to just these fields, as it seems possible that other professions across health and education may inform thinking about the selection of a reflection framework.

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Not applicable

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

language disorder, working memory, practice-based research

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

[1] American Speech-Language-Hearing Association: Roles and responsibilities of speech-language pathologists with respect to reading and writing in children and adolescents [Position Statement]. 2001. Reference Source

[2] Argyris C, Schon D: Organisational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading, Mass: Addison Wesley. 1978. Reference Source

[3] Binyamin G: Growing from Dilemmas: Developing a Professional Identity through Collaborative Reflections on Relational Dilemmas with Role Partners. Israeli J Occup Ther. 2017; 26(1).

[4] Bleakley A, Bligh J: Students learning from patients: Let’s get real in medical education. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2008; 13(1): 89–107. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[5] Boud D: Relocating Reflection in the Context of Practice. In H. Bradbury, N. Frost, & S. Kilminster (Eds.), Beyond Reflective Practice. New York: Routledge. 2010; 25–36. Reference Source

[6] Boud D, Keogh R, Walker D: Reflection: Turning Experience into Learning. London: Kogan Page, 1985. Reference Source

[7] Bray A: Condensed Learning Diaries for Reflective Development. Presented at Argyll College. 2020. Reference Source

[8] Brookfield S: Becoming a Critically Reflective Teacher. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 1995. Reference Source

[9] Caty MÈ, Kinsella EA, Doyle PC: Reflective practice in speech-language pathology: A scoping review. Int J Speech Lang Pathol. 2015; 17(4): 411–420. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[10] CIPD: What is Reflective Practice (Produced in collaboration with Grace Owen and Alison Fletcher). 2020; Accessed 20/6/2020.

[11] Cooke A, Smith D, Booth A: Beyond PICO: the SPIDER tool for qualitative evidence synthesis. Qual Health Res. 2012; 22(10): 1435–1443. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[12] Crawford CL, Rondinelli JL: The integrative review process: Yes you can!!(Powerpoint slides). 2013.

[13] Downe-Wamboldt B: Content analysis: method, applications, and issues. Health Care Women Int. 1992; 13(3): 313–321. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[14] Ebbels SH, McCartney E, Slonims V, et al.: Evidence‐based pathways to intervention for children with language disorders. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2019; 54(1): 3–19. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[15] Field J: Social Capital. (Abingdon: Routledge). 2003. Reference Source

[16] Finlay L: Reflecting on reflective practice. PBPL paper. 2008; 52: 1–27. Reference Source

[17] Fook J, White S, Gardner F: Critical reflection: a review of contemporary literature and understandings. In S.White, J.Fook and F.Gardner (eds.) Critical reflection in health and social care. Maidenhead, Berks: Open University Press. 2006; 3–20. Reference Source

[18] Gallagher AL, Murphy CA, Conway P, et al.: Consequential differences in perspectives and practices concerning children with developmental language disorders: an integrative review. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2019; 54(4): 529–552. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[19] Gascoigne M: Supporting children with speech, language and communication needs within integrated children's services. London, RCSLT Position Paper, RCSLT. 2006. Reference Source

[20] Hall P, Weaver L: Interdisciplinary education and teamwork: A long and winding road. Med Educ. 2001; 35(9): 867–875. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[21] Hewitt-Taylor J: The Essential Guide to Doing a Health and Social Care Literature Review. London: Routledge, 2017. Publisher Full Text

[22] Hong QN, Pluye P, Fabreuges S, et al.: MIXED METHODS APPRAISAL TOOL (MMAT) VERSION 2018. Department of Family Medicine. 2018. Reference Source

[23] Johanna Briggs Institute - Critical Appraisal Tools. Accessed October 18th 2020. Reference Source

[24] Kirkevold M: Integrative nursing research -- an important strategy to further the development of nursing science and nursing practice. J Adv Nurs. 1997; 25(5): 977–984. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[25] Krippendorff K: Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology. Sage Publications, Newbury Park. 1980. Reference Source

[26] Law J, Durkin C, Sargent J, et al.: Beyond early language unit provision: Linguistic development and behavioural outcomes. Child Lang Teach Ther. 1999; 15(2): 93–111.

[27] Law J, Lindsay G, Peacy N, et al.: Facilitating communication between education and health services: the provision for children with speech and language needs. British Journal of Special Education. 2001; 28(3): 133–137. Publisher Full Text

[28] Levac D, Colquhoun H, O'Brien KK: Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. 2010; 5: 69. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[29] Mackey H: ‘Do not ask me to remain the same’: Foucault and the professional identities of occupational therapists. Aust Occup Ther J. 2007; 54(2): 95–102. Publisher Full Text

[30] McCartney E: Barriers to collaboration: An analysis of systemic barriers to collaboration between teachers and speech and language therapists. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 1999; 34(4): 431–440. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[31] McCartney E: Include us out? Speech and language therapists’ prioritization in mainstream schools. Child Lang Teach Ther. 2000; 16: 165–180. Publisher Full Text

[32] McCartney E: Cross-sector working: speech and language therapists in education. J Manag Med. 2002; 16(1): 67–77. Publisher Full Text

[33] McCluskey J, Murphy CA, Gallagher AL: PRISMA-P Checklist_McCluskey et al 2021. figshare. Figure. 2021. https://www.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.14170169.v1

[34] McKean C, Law J, Laing K, et al.: A qualitative case study in the social capital of co-professional collaborative co-practice for children with speech, language and communication needs. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2017; 52(4): 514–527. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[35] Methley AM, Campbell S, Chew-Graham C, et al.: PICO, PICOS and SPIDER: a comparison study of specificity and sensitivity in three search tools for qualitative systematic reviews. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014; 14: 579. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[36] Moon J: Reflection in Learning and Professional Development. Kogan Page, London. 1999. Reference Source

[37] Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, et al.: Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Open Medicine. 2009; 3(3): 123–130. PubMed Abstract | Free Full Text

[38] Polit DF, Beck CT: Nursing Research: Principles and Methods. 7th Edition, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, 2004. Reference Source

[39] Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists: The importance of leadership in speech and language therapy services. 2018; Last Accessed 16/03/2021. Reference Source

[40] Sandelowski M: Sample size in qualitative research. Res Nurs Health. 1995; 18(2): 179–183. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[41] ©SkillsYouNeed (no date; 2011-2021). (accessed 14 October 2020). Reference Source

[42] Speech Pathology Australia (SPA): Speech Pathologists in School. 2011. (accessed on 9 October 2020). Reference Source

[43] Souza MT, Silva MD, Carvalho Rd: Integrative review: what is it? How to do it? Einstein (Sao Paulo). 2010; 8(1): 102–106. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[44] Stansfield C, Dickson K, Bangpan M: Exploring issues in the conduct of website searching and other online sources for systematic reviews: how can we be systematic? Syst Rev. 2016; 5(1): 191. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[45] Starling J, Munro N, Togher L, et al.: Training secondary school teachers in instructional language modification techniques to support adolescents with language impairment: a randomized controlled trial. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch. 2012; 43(4): 474–495. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[46] Suleman S, Pollock KE, McFarlane LA: Collaboration: More than "working together" - An exploratory study to determine effects of interprofessional education on awareness and application of models of specialized service. Can J Speech Lang Pathol Audiol. 2014; 37(4). Reference Source

[47] Suri H: Ethical Considerations of Conducting Systematic Reviews in Educational Research. In: Zawacki-Richter O., Kerres M., Bedenlier S., Bond M., Buntins K. (eds) Systematic Reviews in Educational Research. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. 2019; 41–54. Publisher Full Text

[48] UNESCO: The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education. Paris: UNESCO. 1994. Reference Source

[49] Webster J, Watson RT: Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. MIS Quarterly. 2002; 26(2): xiii–xxiii (11 pages). Reference Source

Reflective practice across speech and language therapy and education: a protocol for an integrative review

Abstract

Keywords

Revised Amendments from Version 1

Introduction

Protocol

Preparing the guiding question

Searching and sampling

Selection process

Table 1. Search terms.

Table 2. Search string.

Quality appraisal and data extraction

Analysis

Discussion

Presentation of findings

Study status

Data availability

Reporting guidelines

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Are you a HRB-funded researcher?

Thank you!

Reflective practice across speech and language therapy and education: a protocol for an integrative review

Abstract

Keywords

Revised Amendments from Version 1

Introduction

Protocol

Preparing the guiding question

Searching and sampling

Selection process

Table 1. Search terms.

Table 2. Search string.

Quality appraisal and data extraction

Analysis

Discussion

Presentation of findings

Study status

Data availability

Reporting guidelines

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Competing Interests Policy

Stay Updated

Are you a HRB-funded researcher?

Thank you!