|
|
||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kennapel{at}cc.wwu.edu
Kamhi (1999) suggests that clinicians may choose to use an intervention approach "because it works" rather than relying on their theory of language learning. This suggestion spawned a number of concerns, including who the scientists in our field are, whether our professional definition of language is used in our language theories and intervention approaches, and what we say the "best" intervention is. In this article, these issues are discussed as discrepancies, along with some suggestions for addressing these gaps, in order to integrate science into all of our professional endeavors.
KEY WORDS: language, intervention, theory, science
Submitted on June 1, 1998
Accepted on September 11, 1998
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
M. M. Watson and G. L. Lof A Survey of University Professors Teaching Speech Sound Disorders: Nonspeech Oral Motor Exercises and Other Topics Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch, July 1, 2009; 40(3): 256 - 270. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
K. Apel Can Clinicians Be Scientists? Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch, January 1, 2009; 40(1): 3 - 4. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
G. P. Wallach Over the Brink of the Millennium: Have We Said All We Can Say About Language-Based Learning Disabilities? Communication Disorders Quarterly, January 1, 2004; 25(2): 44 - 55. [Abstract] [PDF] |
||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| All ASHA Journals | AJA | AJSLP | JSLHR | LSHSS |