Speech-language pathologists’ perceptions and experiences when working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children

Abstract

Purpose

This study explored the perceptions of speech-language pathologists with regards to culturally responsive service delivery, assessment practices, and confidence when working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children.

Method

An online survey was used. Descriptive statistics were analysed with SPSS. Themes were derived from text responses using Braun and Clarke’s thematic analysis method.

Result

The 48 respondents were almost all non-Indigenous, equally spread across metropolitan and non-metropolitan regions, and had varied levels of experience. Respondents reported moderate to high levels of confidence. Identified barriers included accessibility, policy, impacts of colonisation, awareness of services and expectations and speech pathologist knowledge, training and experience. Engagement emerged as a facilitator to provision of culturally responsive services. A variety of speech-language pathology assessment methods were reported, not all of which were consistent with current recommendations.

Conclusion

Identified barriers and facilitators were consistent with previous research exploring work with adults with acquired communication disorders. A need to explore the perspectives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities as users of speech-language pathology services was identified. Clinical implications are described for future training, clinical guidelines, and flexible service delivery.

Keywords:

• culturally responsive
• children
• survey
• perspectives
• barriers
• facilitators

Acknowledgements

The authors thank respondents for taking the time to share their perspectives. Gratitude is also extended to method, content and cultural experts who contributed to the quality of this study, including: Tara Lewis and Lisa Dent for reviewing the survey, Dr. Mike Steele for his statistical guidance and Michael Reynolds for reviewing the draft manuscript.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).