Background: Collaboration between parents and speech and language therapists (SLTs) is seen as a key element in family‐centred models. Collaboration can have positive impacts on parental and children's outcomes. However, collaborative practice has not been well described and researched in speech and language therapy for children and may not be easy to achieve. It is important that we gain a deeper understanding of collaborative practice with parents, how it can be achieved and how it can impact on outcomes. This understanding could support practitioners in daily practice with regard to achieving collaborative practice with parents in different contexts.Aims: To set a research agenda on collaborative practice between parents and SLTs in order to generate evidence regarding what works, how, for whom, in what circumstances and to what extent.Methods & Procedures: A realist evaluation approach was used to make explicit what collaborative practice with parents entails. The steps suggested by the RAMESES II project were used to draft a preliminary programme theory about collaborative practice between parents and SLTs. This process generates explicit hypotheses which form a potential research agenda.Discussion & Conclusions: A preliminary programme theory of collaborative practice with parents was drafted using a realist approach. Potential contextual factors (C), mechanisms (M) and outcomes (O) were presented which could be configured into causal mechanisms to help explain what works for whom in what circumstances. CMO configurations were drafted, based on the relevant literature, which serve as exemplars to illustrate how this methodology could be used. In order to debate, test and expand our hypothesized programme theory for collaborative practice with parents, further testing against a broader literature is required alongside research to explore the functionality of the configurations across contexts. This paper highlights the importance of further research on collaborative practice with parents and the potential value of realist evaluation methodology. What this paper adds: Current policy in education, health and social care advocates for family‐centred care and collaborative practice with parents. Thereby, collaborative practice is the preferred practice for SLTs and parents. In this paper, we explore collaborative practice and use a realist evaluation approach to achieve the aim of setting a research agenda in this area. Researchers use realist evaluation, a methodology originally developed by Pawson and Tilley in the 1990s, to explore the causal link between interventions and outcomes, summarized as what works, how, for whom, in what circumstances and to what extent. Realist evaluation provides a framework to explore configurations between contexts (C), mechanisms (M) and outcomes (O). We used this methodology to take a first step at making explicit what collaborative practice is and how it might be achieved in different contexts. We did this by drafting a preliminary programme theory about collaborative practice, where we made explicit what context factors and mechanisms might influence outcomes in collaborative practice between parents and SLTs. Based on this programme theory, we argue for the need to develop a research agenda on collaborative practice with parents of children with speech, language and communication needs. The steps between a programme theory and a research agenda could entail exploring each CMO, or step in the programme theory, and evaluating it against the existing literature—both within and beyond speech and language therapy—to see how far it stands up. In this way, gaps could be identified that could be converted into research questions that would stimulate debate about a research agenda on collaborative practice. Understanding how collaborative practice can be achieved in different contexts could support SLTs to use mechanisms to optimise collaborative practice intentionally and tailor interventions to the specific needs of families, thereby enhancing collaborative practice between parents and SLTs.

Purpose Children with speech and language disorders are at risk in relation to psychological and social well-being. The aim of this study was to understand the experiences of these children from their own perspectives focusing on risks to their well-being and protective indicators that may promote resilience. Method Eleven 9- to 12-year-old children (4 boys and 7 girls) were recruited using purposeful sampling. One participant presented with a speech sound disorder, 1 presented with both a speech and language disorder, and 9 with language disorders. All were receiving additional educational supports. Narrative inquiry, a qualitative design, was employed. Data were generated in home and school settings using multiple semi-structured interviews with each child over a 6-month period. A total of 59 interviews were conducted. The data were analyzed to identify themes in relation to potential risk factors to well-being and protective strategies. Results Potential risk factors in relation to well-being were communication impairment and disability, difficulties with relationships, and concern about academic achievement. Potential protective strategies were hope, agency, and positive relationships. Conclusion This study highlights the importance of listening to children's narratives so that those at risk in relation to well-being can be identified. Conceptualization of well-being and resilience within an ecological framework may enable identification of protective strategies at both individual and environmental levels that can be strengthened to mitigate negative experiences.

The relationship between parental input and child language development has had a complex history. It has become clear that indirect parent training for the parents of children with delayed language development is an important feature of interventions offered by speech and language therapists in the anglophone countries. Yet we know less about how this type of approach is realised in other countries. In this paper we report the results of a survey of practice undertaken as part of the work of COST Action IS1406, a European Union (EU) funded research network. The focus of this paper is specifically on parent-related questions and responses referring to children under the age of twelve. The survey was devised by members of the Action and circulated electronically during the summer of 2017. In all, 4024 practitioners responded from 60 countries, the majority of whom came from EU member countries. Respondents to the survey indicated that indirect therapy is commonly carried out via the parent in the early years and via teachers later. A range of professional groups, in addition to speech and language therapists, is likely to adopt this approach; including teachers, pedagogues and psychologists. A variety of interventions is reported, some of which have a reasonable evidence-base underpinning them. It is interesting to see the widespread involvement of fathers and other family members in interventions. Finally, the fact that practitioner characteristics (age, experience, location of practice etc.) are not related to the use of indirect techniques points to the universal recognition of the value of these approaches. Despite the very different traditions in the practice of intervention across countries, there is clearly a widespread recognition of the importance of indirect approaches to intervention and specifically those focusing on parents. The mixture of family members being involved in interventions is a very promising indication of the role sharing commonly associated with the contemporary family. Yet the number of specific intervention approaches identified is relatively small given the number of respondents. There is a need for a better understanding of what exactly practitioners are doing when they involve parents in intervention or carry out parent-child interaction interventions and how well these interventions work in routine practice. This also has implications for the application of evidence-based practice and the precise nature of the interventions concerned (advice to parents, video interaction training etc.).

Purpose: Parent–child interaction therapy refers to a number of interventions mediated by trained parents to treat developmental difficulties, including speech, language, and communication. Understanding the experiences of parents who take part in parent–child interaction therapy is a key aspect of determining how this intervention can be implemented successfully. However, to date, there has been limited work on synthesizing parental views of this intervention.Method: We used qualitative evidence synthesis that involved searching the literature for qualitative studies addressing the experiences and perceptions of parent–child interaction therapy for parents of preschool children with communication difficulties. We identified 27 studies (from 32 publications) and synthesized the data using thematic synthesis. We appraised the quality of included studies using Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) and assessed our confidence in the review findings using GRADE Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research (CERQual).Results: At the beginning of this intervention, parents may have competing demands and varied expectations about the intervention. Their engagement is facilitated when the intervention is tailored to their individual family, their preferences for learning, and when they have a trusting relationship with the clinician. At the end of the intervention, although most parents perceive an improvement in their child's communication and feel empowered to facilitate this, they have concerns about their child's future needs.Conclusions: It is important that clinicians explore parents' readiness for this intervention by discussing their needs and preferences openly, and that they facilitate their engagement through a supportive relationship. They also need to consider how parents will transition out of the intervention and continue to support their child's language development.Supplemental Material: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.14978454

Purpose: There has been debate about labels in relation to speech and language impairments. However, children’s views are missing from this debate, which is risky considering that labels with negative associations may result in stigma. The aim of this study was to explore the range of identities which children with primary speech and language impairments presented in their narratives and to investigate their evaluations of these identities with a view to understanding the values they attach to labels. Method: Eleven children aged 9–12 years with primary speech and language impairments were recruited to the study. Fifty nine semi-structured interviews were conducted with the aim of generating storied accounts of everyday experiences. The data were analysed using thematic analysis. Two themes were identified in the data: desired identities and undesired identities. Result: The findings suggest that the children were actively involved in identity construction and wanted to be seen in positive ways. They disliked labels assigned by others, which they considered portrayed them in negative ways. Conclusion: The debate about labels could be progressed by consulting with children themselves asking for their ideas in relation to labels in specialist education, and speech and language pathology.

Much of the published research is “on” rather than “with” children and young people with speech, language and communication needs (SLCN). According to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), children’s views must be considered and taken into account in all matters affecting them. In this paper, we discuss ways in which innovative qualitative methods have been used to explore the views of children and young people with SLCN. We also discuss how we can apply concepts from qualitative research, in particular critical reflexivity, to shape our thinking, inform our practice, and lead to innovation in our work with children and young people with SLCN.