Purpose: Diversification of the profession is an important element of combating racism, bias, and prejudice in the speech-language pathology workforce at national and systemic levels. However, national and systemic change needs to be combined with equipping individual speech-language pathologists to adapt to the challenges that they face to engaging in culturally responsive practice. This paper presents four interacting levels of practice within the Culturally Responsive Teamwork Framework (CRTF): (a) intrapersonal practices, (b) interpersonal practices, (c) intraprofessional practices, and (d) the interprofessional practices. Conclusion: CRTF is a practical, strengths-based framework that draws on international research and expertise to expand personal and professional practice and describe critical behaviors within the workplace that can be used to promote principles of evidence-based practice and social justice, especially when working with people from nondominant cultural or linguistic groups.

Fiji is a multilingual nation with few assessment tools addressing children’s communication. This article describes the validation of the Intelligibility in Context Scale for Fiji English, Standard Fijian, and Fiji Hindi. Informants were caregivers of 65 typically developing multilingual children (aged 5;3–10;5) attending a Fiji primary school. The students spoke an average of 2.9 languages (range = 1–5). Their main language was Standard Fijian (41.5%), Fiji Hindi (23.1%), Fiji English (20.0%), or Fijian dialect (15.4%). An ICS mean score of 4.6 was obtained for main language (ICS-ML) and 4.4 for Fiji English (ICS-FE) indicating that students were usually to always intelligible. There were no significant differences between main language, number of languages spoken, gender, age, or socio-economic status. Both scales had good internal consistency, but were not correlated with speech accuracy measures possibly due to ceiling effects. Further validation with younger children is recommended. The ICS may be a useful tool for Fiji with comparative results to other international studies.

This study explored linguistic multi-competence in Fiji students and their conversational partners through a description of linguistic diversity in one school community. Students’ caregivers (n = 75), teachers (n = 25) and year 4 students (n = 40) in an urban school of Fiji completed paper-based questionnaires regarding: 75 students, 75 mothers, 75 fathers, 25 child-minders, and 25 teachers (N = 275). Participants spoke an average of three languages, ranging between one and six languages including: English (99.2%), Standard Fijian (86.4%), a Fijian dialect (76.8%), Fiji Hindi (66.1%), and additional languages (41.7%, e.g. Standard Hindi, Rotuman, Samoan, Cook Island Maori, Bislama, and Japanese). The common main languages spoken by participants were Standard Fijian, Fiji Hindi, or English. The students typically spoke the main language of both or one of their parents (92%). Consistent with teacher, parental, and student report, English was the main language spoken by the students at school. In the community, the students’ language use was influenced by ethnicity of the communication partner and languages within the students’ repertoire. The students were more likely to code-switch with their father, mother, or siblings than their grandparents. This study demonstrates linguistic multi-competence and emphasises the importance of considering the individuals’ and communities’ total linguistic repertoire and competence.

BACKGROUND: There is a mismatch between languages spoken by speech and language therapists (SLTs) and their clients. Consequently, SLTs are required to collaborate with interpreters to provide equitable services to multilingual clients. OBJECTIVE: This systematized review aimed to identify the barriers and facilitators to SLT and interpreter collaboration within the paediatric population. METHODS: A systematic and comprehensive search of literature was conducted. Selected literature underwent quality assessment and thematic analysis resulting in a narrative synthesis of included literature. RESULTS: Fifteen research studies were identified to be included in the review. Five themes were identified: (1) Frequency of interpreter and paediatric SLT collaboration; (2) training of SLTs and interpreters for speech therapy paediatric practice; (3) type of interpreters used during speech and language therapy paediatric sessions; (4) paediatric SLTs’ confidence when collaborating with interpreters; and, (5) policy influencing SLT and interpreter collaboration during management of paediatric clients. CONCLUSION: The review revealed limited direct research on the barriers and facilitators to SLT interpreter collaboration in the multilingual paediatric setting. Findings indicate that: (1) many SLTs consider their training in working with interpreters to be inadequate; (2) there is a lack of available professional interpreters and the use of family members as interpreters is common with paediatric clients. Further research is required to explore the specifics of training provided to interpreters and the factors that contribute to the lack of availability of professional interpreters for paediatric clients.

The purpose of this systematized review was to investigate how attitudes toward low-tech AAC might be impacting its use in acute care settings. A comprehensive and systematic search of databases identified 23 articles for inclusion. Thematic analysis using the World Health Organization International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) framework facilitated a narrative synthesis of findings. Results suggest that in acute care settings (a) adult patients, families, nursing staff, medical team, and allied health professionals all have opportunities to use but do not regularly engage with AAC; (b) individuals reject low-tech AAC devices for a variety of reasons, including that they are not useful, necessary, suitable, or appropriate in settings such as intensive care units; (c) negative attitudes toward AAC are linked to a lack of initial training and ongoing support, perceived impersonal content, limited functionality, and a lack of consistent availability; and (d) positive attitudes toward low-tech AAC are more prevalent when training and support are offered, low-tech AAC effectiveness is demonstrated, and organizational, financial, and procedural commitments are provided. Limitations of the research are highlighted and future research opportunities are identified.