LSHSS
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools Vol.32 133-141 July 2001. doi:10.1044/0161-1461(2001/011)
© American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow My Folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Duchan, J. F.
Right arrow Articles by Cumley, G. D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Duchan, J. F.
Right arrow Articles by Cumley, G. D.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Facebook   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

A Framework for Managing Controversial Practices

Judith Felson Duchan 1
Stephen Calculator 2
Rae Sonnenmeier 2
Sylvia Diehl 3

Gary D. Cumley 4
1 State University of New York at Buffalo
2 University of New Hampshire, Durham
3 University of South Florida, Tampa
4 University of Wisconsin, Stevens Point

duchan{at}acsu.buffalo.edu

Every day, speech-language pathologists working in schools make difficult, life-impacting decisions regarding which assessment and intervention approaches to use with their clients. These decisions can become even more difficult when the approaches being considered for use are controversial. The risks involved in making choices about controversial practices are likely to have increased significance simply because the approach being considered is not widely accepted. The increased professional risk may cause decisions to be made based on risk avoidance rather than on a careful consideration of the pros and cons of the approach itself. This article offers a clinical practice framework for gathering information about controversial approaches and for implementing and monitoring their use. The framework will be illustrated using facilitated communication as an example of a controversial practice.

KEY WORDS: augmentative and alternative communication, clinical practice guidelines, controversial practices, facilitated communication

Submitted on September 21, 2000
Accepted on January 6, 2001


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Facebook Facebook   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 AJSLPHome page
R. J. McCauley, E. Strand, G. L. Lof, T. Schooling, and T. Frymark
Evidence-Based Systematic Review: Effects of Nonspeech Oral Motor Exercises on Speech
Am J Speech Lang Pathol, November 1, 2009; 18(4): 343 - 360.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 LSHSSHome page
N. J. Lass and M. Pannbacker
The Application of Evidence-Based Practice to Nonspeech Oral Motor Treatments
Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch, July 1, 2008; 39(3): 408 - 421.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
All ASHA Journals AJA AJSLP JSLHR LSHSS
Copyright © 2001 by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association.