Search

Background: Assessing the speech production of multilingual children is challenging for speech‐language therapists (SLTs) around the world. Scientific recommendations to improve clinical practice are available, but their implementation has mostly been described in studies from English‐speaking countries. Aims: This survey aimed to describe the perspectives and practices of SLTs in assessing the speech production of multilingual children in French‐speaking Belgium. Methods & Procedures: An online survey was completed by 134 SLTs in French‐speaking Belgium. Outcomes & Results: SLTs predominantly used norm‐referenced assessment approaches, which are not recommended for use with multilingual children, and lacked necessary training and resources to implement recommended practices in the assessment of speech production of multilingual children. The shift towards more appropriate practices with multilingual children seems to be in its infancy among SLTs in French‐speaking Belgium. Some challenges identified by the SLTs were common to those in other countries and languages, such as the difficulty to distinguish between speech differences and speech disorders. Other challenges were specific to the French language and/or the Belgian context, such as the lack of appropriate tools in French. Conclusions & Implications: Action is required to improve clinical practice in assessing the speech production of multilingual children in French‐speaking contexts: better training for SLTs regarding linguistic diversity, more implementation research in the field of SLT, and advocacy for linguistic diversity with decision makers. What this paper adds: What is already known on this subject: Existing research indicates that assessing the speech production of multilingual children is challenging for speech‐language therapists (SLTs). Scientific recommendations for best practices have been published, and the shift to more appropriate assessment practices may be progressing differently across countries. SLTs' practices have been described in surveys, mostly conducted in English‐speaking countries. Although French is the fifth most spoken language in the world, data about SLTs' perspectives and practices in French‐speaking regions are scarce. What this study adds: The implementation of recommended practices in assessing multilingual children's speech production was limited among SLTs in French‐speaking Belgium. The norm‐referenced approach to assessment was predominant and few SLTs used recommended practices (e.g., criterion‐referenced measures, dynamic assessment, assessment of the child's speech production in the home language). Some challenges were identified that related specifically to practices in French‐speaking contexts (e.g., lack of French tools) and Belgian context (e.g., health policies unfavourable to multilingualism). These findings confirm that specific understanding of a situation is needed to develop context‐ and/or language‐specific solutions—and ultimately improve clinical practice. What are the clinical implications of this work?: SLTs in French‐speaking Belgium require specific training and support to provide appropriate assessment of speech production in multilingual children. Efforts to improve practices in French‐speaking contexts should focus on increasing understanding and consideration of cultural and linguistic diversity at all levels of the child's environment. Evidence‐based knowledge, assessment tools and multilingual resources are available to SLTs on websites in French and in English. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Big data research requires public support. It has been argued that this can be achieved by public involvement and engagement to ensure that public views are at the centre of research projects. Researchers should aim to include diverse communities, including seldom‐heard voices, to ensure that a range of voices are heard and that research is meaningful to them. Objective: We explored how researchers involve and engage seldom‐heard communities around big data research. Methods: This is a qualitative study. Researchers who had experience of involving or engaging seldom‐heard communities in big data research were recruited. They were based in England (n = 5), Scotland (n = 4), Belgium (n = 2) and Canada (n = 1). Twelve semistructured interviews were conducted on Zoom. All interviews were audio‐recorded and transcribed, and we used reflexive thematic analysis to analyse participants' experiences. Results: The analysis highlighted the complexity of involving and engaging seldom‐heard communities around big data research. Four themes were developed to represent participants' experiences: (1) abstraction and complexity of big data, (2) one size does not fit all, (3) working in partnership and (4) empowering the public contribution. Conclusion: The study offers researchers a better understanding of how to involve and engage seldom‐heard communities in a meaningful way around big data research. There is no one right approach, with involvement and engagement activities required to be project‐specific and dependent on the public contributors, researchers' needs, resources and time available. Patient and Public Involvement: Two public contributors are authors of the paper and they were involved in the study design, analysis and writing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]