Benefits of a professional development course on transcription for practising speech-language pathologists

Figures & data

Table I. Participant demographics.

	n	%
School sector working in
Public schools	8	36.36%
Catholic schools	13	59.09%
Private/independent schools	3	13.64%
Level of education working in
Primary	22	100%
Secondary	16	72.73%
Geographical setting working in
Metropolitan schools	16	72.73%
Rural and/or regional schools	10	45.45%
Years practising as a speech-language pathologist
0–5	9	40.91%
6–10	7	31.82%
11–15	5	22.73%
16+	1	4.55%
Speech-language pathology qualifications
Bachelor’s degree	9	40.91%
Master’s degree (coursework)	13	59.09%
Master’s degree (research)	0	0%
Country of training
Australia	20	90.91%
Other	2	9.09%

Note. n = 22. For some questions, participants were able to select more than one answer.

Table II. Participants’ current use of transcription pre-training.

	n	%
How often do use broad (phonemic) and/or narrow (phonetic) transcription in your clinical practice when working with children with suspected speech sound disorders?
Never	0	0%
Rarely	3	13.64%
Sometimes	7	31.82%
Often	4	18.18%
Always	8	36.36%
For which aspect of service delivery do you use transcription?
Screening	18	81.82%
Assessment	21	95.45%
Diagnosis	13	59.09%
Formulating therapy goals	9	40.91%
Monitoring therapy progress	14	63.64%
Discharge	6	27.27%
Other	0	0%
Which representational transcription systems do you use?
Mitchell-Delbridge transcription system (1965)	11	50%
Harrington, Cox, and Evans transcription system (1997)	6	27.27%
The International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)	11	50%
Extended International Phonetic Alphabet (ExtIPA)	0	0%
Unsure	3	13.64%

Note. n = 22. For some questions, participants were able to select more than one answer.

Figure 1. Participants’ reported additional factors that impact their decision to use transcription. Number in brackets notes the number of meaning units in the main categories and subcategories.

Table III. Pre- and post-training comparison of participants’ transcription accuracy (same vowel system).

Transcription unit	Pre-training		Post-training		Z-score	p
	Median (IQR)	% correct	Median (IQR)	% correct
Phonemes (n = 37)	34 (8)	91.89%	36 (4)	97.30%	–1.61	0.11
Consonants (n = 23)	23 (1)	100%	23 (1)	100%	–0.11	0.92
Vowels (n = 14)	11 (8)	78.57%	13 (3)	92.86%	–1.72	0.09

Note. n = 13; IQR = interquartile range.

Table IV. Pre-training (Mitchell-Delbridge) and post-training (Harrington, Cox and Evans) comparison of participants’ transcription accuracy.

Transcription unit	Pre-training		Post-training		Z-score	p
	Median (IQR)	% correct	Median (IQR)	% correct
Phonemes (n = 37)	35 (8)	94.59%	35 (6)	94.59%	–1.13	0.26
Consonants (n = 23)	23 (1)	100%	23 (2)	100%	–0.58	0.56
Vowels (n = 14)	11 (7)	78.57%	12 (5)	92.86%	–1.29	0.20

Note. n = 4; IQR = interquartile range.

Table V. Strategies and resources identified for maintaining transcription skills post-training (n = 20).

	n	%
Books	1	5%
Websites	18	90%
Journal articles	3	15%
Transcription charts	18	90%
Professional development courses	5	25%
Transcription help from specialist colleagues	7	35%
Calibration meetings with work colleagues (practise transcription with work colleagues and compare responses)	12	60%
Self-practice	17	85%
Other (Instagram—Adventures in Speech Pathology account)	1	5%

Figure 2. Participants’ reported changes in confidence post-training. The number in brackets notes the number of meaning units in the main categories and subcategories.