Equivalent statistics for a one-sample t-test

Speech-Language Pathologists' Endorsement of Speech, Language, and Literacy Myths Reveals Persistent Research-Practice Gap

PURPOSE

We explore the extent to which speech-language pathologists (SLPs) are operating under assumptions about speech, language, and literacy that are not supported by evidence or are contradicted by evidence.

METHOD

SLPs (N = 106) marked the degree to which they endorsed or rejected four true and 11 myth (i.e., false) statements on a visual analog scale via an online survey. We analyzed the degree to which participants agreed or disagreed with these statements related to speech, language, and literacy development and impairment.

RESULTS

Based on results of one-sample t tests, participants as a group correctly rejected seven myth statements and correctly endorsed three true statements. Participants as a group provided equivocal responses to the remaining four myth statements and one true statement. Scores for each statement spanned all or nearly all of the possible range. Even when participants overall showed relatively strong disagreement with a particular myth statement, at least a few participants endorsed the myth statement.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings indicate areas of relative strength for SLPs' knowledge of current evidence for augmentative and alternative communication, bilingualism, and language input that supports language development. Identified areas of relative weakness include knowledge of the expected grammatical and speech production skills of children with typical development and the influence of ear infections in childhood on language impairment. Additional research is needed to evaluate efforts to enhance SLPs' knowledge and use of evidence-based practices.

Manipulation of Attention Affects Subitizing Performance: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Subitizing is the fast and accurate enumeration of small sets. Whether attention is necessary for subitizing remains controversial considering (1) subitizing is claimed to be "pre-attentive", and (2) existing experimental methods and results are inconsistent. To determine whether manipulations to attention demonstratively affect subitizing, the current study comprises a systematic review and meta-analysis. Results from fourteen studies (22 experiments, 35 comparisons) suggest that changes to attentional demands interferes with enumeration of small sets; leading to slower response times, lower accuracy, and poorer Weber acuity (p <.010; p <.001; p <.001; respectively)-notwithstanding a potential publication bias. A unifying framework is proposed to explain the role of attention in visual enumeration, with progressively greater attentional involvement from estimation to subitizing to counting. Our findings suggest attention is integral for subitizing and highlights the need to emphasise attentional mechanisms into neurocognitive models of numerosity processing. We also discuss the possible role of attention in numerical processing difficulties (e.g., dyscalculia).