Checks and Balances Keeping the Science in Our Profession Research to Practice
Research to Practice  |   January 01, 1999
Checks and Balances
 
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Kenn Apel
    Department of Speech Pathology and Audiology, Western Washington University, Parks Hall, R. 17, Bellingham, WA 98225-9078
  • Corresponding author: e-mail: kennapel@cc.wwu.edu
Article Information
Development / School-Based Settings / Professional Issues & Training / Language Disorders / Research to Practice
Research to Practice   |   January 01, 1999
Checks and Balances
Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, January 1999, Vol. 30, 98-107. doi:10.1044/0161-1461.3001.98
History: Received June 1, 1998 , Accepted September 11, 1998
 
Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, January 1999, Vol. 30, 98-107. doi:10.1044/0161-1461.3001.98
History: Received June 1, 1998; Accepted September 11, 1998

Kamhi (1999) suggests that clinicians may choose to use an intervention approach "because it works" rather than relying on their theory of language learning. This suggestion spawned a number of concerns, including who the scientists in our field are, whether our professional definition of language is used in our language theories and intervention approaches, and what we say the "best" intervention is. In this article, these issues are discussed as discrepancies, along with some suggestions for addressing these gaps, in order to integrate science into all of our professional endeavors.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I wish to acknowledge the invaluable editorial feedback provided by Elaine Silliman and Mike Casby on earlier drafts of this manuscript. I also want to thank those individuals who have helped me grow as a scientist, either through training or scholarly discussions, including Pat Launer, Marilyn Newhoff, Barbara Hodson, Alan Kamhi, Elaine Silliman, and Julie Masterson.
Order a Subscription
Pay Per View
Entire Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools content & archive
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access