ASHA Philosophy of Curriculum Turned Upside Down. 2

Search for Causes

Under the leadership of Dr. Fred Spahr, Director, ASHA in the 1990s sought to re-organize governance as a result of various complaints about efficiency and communication.  Dr. Spahr took the lead in addressing issues of change to the profession.

The Colloquy of 1994

In 1994 ASHA sponsored and held a pivotal three-day colloquy: “Blueprint for a New Academic Agenda.” Included were 50 trusted invited participants who provided lectures, ideas, organizational perspectives and commentary. The program agenda listed “…external and internal influences that are changing our professional environment…” Goals to implement outcomes were presented. ASHA president, Dr. Jeri Logemann, was a prime mover. She spoke on current practice issues. ASHA director Dr. Fred Spahr delivered a key paper on the challenges facing the profession.

The tone of the conference was urgency. Changes impacting ASHA were coming from all directions. Decision-makers in higher education and clinical practice were feeling pressures. National health care reform was impacting training programs. Academic administrators questioned costs. Technology was coming.

Working SLPs and audiologists faced expanding scopes of practice. They needed special new skills required for health-care and school settings. Employers complained SLPs were not ready upon graduation. SLPs cost too much to employ and they were inflexible in their work contributions. They should be able to handle a wider scopes of practice to cover emerging clinical issues.

Barriers blocking change stood in the way. Academic training models were behind the times. Costs prevented program innovations. Deans were reluctant to approve binding accreditation requirements. Faculty resisted change.  Denial was a problem. Faculty need to be re-oriented.

Many attendees were ASHA employees and officers.  There must be follow-through plans adopted to ensure policy redirection. A document was created to “provide guidance to ASHA.” The current record shows the New Agenda  was followed until now, 2015.

The colloquy was not widely publicized nor approved by the Legislative Council.

Leadership Position

Dr. Spahr’s paper was central to the new agenda. He took a business orientation for ASHA’s future, deferring to employer evaluations as to the deficiencies of SLP graduates.

Employers were dissatisfied with SLP “products.” They were unprepared for immediate service. There were signs employers wanted to train their own SLPs, particular in medical settings. SLPs should be trained to understand costs and performance requirements.

Dr. Spahr was concerned competitors could take over licensing SLPs. “We should not make the mistake of believing that our professional services will be worth more in the market as a result of specialization.” SLPs do not have to be experts; they need to deliver the services expected. SLPs were pushing back on the assignments and needed to be collaborative.

Academic programs must contribute “…professionals capable of delivering services to meet the needs of today’s consumers (patients, students, clients) of our services.” Perhaps employers should be involved in helping form program training goals. “What steps in the program to determine what is needed in the product (student) of the program in the future?”

Curriculum must be reshaped. Simply taking courses is not enough.  “Employers want value-added professionals. They want professionals whose scopes of practice are wide and flexible.”

“Our education and training programs must ensure the relevance of course instruction to the workplace.”

Department administrators have a difficult time changing faculty approaches.

Status Quo Position

Dr. Spahr made no effort to point out the successes of the traditional academic model. Nor was there anyone placed on the program to do so. One could have said course and clinic based procedures plus research opportunities, professional supervision and individualized study held up well for 70 years. Participants at the meeting were educated according to traditional standards but they did not speak up to defend it.  The New Agenda moved forward.

Major successes were skipped over to make the argument against the status quo.

1. Language as a major area of study had emerged and was spreading around the nation. When Dr. Spahr retired he acknowledged language had been an important bridge to other areas of disability, such as learning disabilities. In 1978 ASHA added the word Language to the Association name. Students were required to take language courses growing in sophistication. Students from other departments took language courses promoting interdisciplinary ties.  A productive era of new research findings was witnessed.

2. There was no mention of the continued growth of ASHA as a wealthy national organization with a large capable staff and suitable headquarters in Washington, D. C. More and more academic units were applying for accreditation and the accreditation list was growing. Member volunteers filled the ranks of administrative programs. A public relations department was established along with continuing education offerings. ASHA lobbied Congress. Growth rate was predictably strong. ASHA had the size and means to combat employer complaints utilizing appropriate public relations campaigns.

3. The Spahr argument excluded remarks on the great success of school SLPs. School SLPs had overcome radical changes in practice by way of federal IDEA legislation and were in high demand for employment. Their numbers were growing and school SLPs were injecting fresh money into the ASHA coffers from several sources. ASHA was becoming a wealthy professional organization fully capable of setting the agenda for status quo programs.  By 2005 the ASHA membership continued to grow, according to CEO Pietranton (100,000 SLPs; 13,000 Audiologists; 2,000 Speech and Hearing Scientists)


American Speech-Language-Hearing Association’s Failed Mission

We have documented over 100 years since the profession of speech-language pathology developed in American schools. The essential philosophy of its development has been making money for the service of delivering a product, a trained professional practitioner for employment.  A token mission statement has given significance to practical goals rather than philosophy of purpose and vision.  The energy of the Associated has been sapped by relentless action to control who can practice in the U. S.  Accreditation has been jealously guarded by a small coterie of insiders whose roots should be traced to the ASHA “founders” of the 1920s.  The result has been retardation of the evolution of mission ensuring a platform of vision, science and international association.  Members have come and gone without insight into just how myopic leaders have been while seeking high control over “governance” and profits.

Dr. John Muma adds a scientific perspective to the problem (ASHA Leader, June 5 2012). Whereas academic programs have settled on “communication disorders” to refer to the specialty, ASHA continues to cling to an “arcane” modalities approach. Language theory makes this approach obsolete. “Just as professionals are charged by the ASHA Code of Ethics to be up to date with developments in the field, the professional association (ASHA) should also reflect an up-to-date perspective.”


ASHA Philosophy of Curriculum Turned Upside Down

ASHA Curriculum Problems

In 1947 Samuel Robins wrote a scholarly paper on the “Principles of Nomenclature and of Classification of Speech and Voice Disorders”  (Journal of Speech Disorders, March 1947, Vol 12, 17-22). He argued formal classification is essential for speech science. This is the standard academic view and the basis for best practice. Professors strive for best practice.

Yet nearly 70 years later the national curriculum for speech-language pathology is a mess. Scope of practice runs amok. Course titles come and go (aphasia). Swallowing arises.  Graduate offerings differ. “Hot topics” emerge and disappear (pragmatics). There is constant overlap, and different labels for the same content (articulation / phonology). Theory consideration is negligible. ASHA public relations promotes questionable material (childhood apraxia). Even the name of the specialty is inconsistent (speech therapy, speech-language pathology, communication disorders, medical speech pathology). Members complain to ASHA but are brushed aside.

For example, ASHA on its Facebook page last month ran a small piece on Facilitated Communication, to which several responded negatively. “Melanie Hudson Ouija Board communication. I thought we had buried this hocus pocus long ago!.”  In 1995 (10.1044/policy.PS1995-00089) published a position statement saying, “It is the position of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) that the scientific validity and reliability of facilitated communication have not been demonstrated to date.”…/10152985399150318?..

Participants of the 2011 ASHA Summit on “Clarifying and Promoting the Regulation of Clearly Differentiated Provider Roles” sized it up correctly:

“To address the misunderstanding and misalignments that can result from the lack of a shared nomenclature, ASHA should develop (or revise) and publish a lexicon for the field of speech-language pathology. Where necessary, the lexicon may acknowledge the range of terms now in use, but the intent should be to promote a shared vocabulary…

My Purpose

When I went back to work in the schools after a career in higher education I reported on the many nagging curriculum issues facing SLPs. The state of affairs was baffling. Why wasn’t ASHA keeping school practice up to date? How were problems of best practice being addressed? Best practice was shattered. Who was responsible for curriculum decision-making? That was a real mystery!

I continue to seek answers. Here we look at a critical historical event bringing to light the “politics of curriculum.” Best practice was sacrificed as well as the academic model.  We need to track down how ASHA broke up the traditional curriculum standards for graduate students in order to reach institutional goals having to do with the financial status of the non-profit organization in Washington, D. C.

ASHA Board of Governors Abandons School Office

Clearly, the Board of Directors of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association has neglected if not abandoned the office of School Services.


In 1925 a small group of speech professors aggressively captured the profession of school “speech correction” to gain stature and control on their campuses. They took everything and gave back little.
In the civil rights era of the 1960s the U. S. Department of Education pumped money into universities to increase the supply of school speech-language pathologists. ASHA in a public relations move organized a “school office” to show interest in education.

Window looking out.

Window looking out.

In 1975 IDEA caught ASHA administrators flat-footed. The bright spot was the intelligent leadership of Dr. Kathleen Whitmire, Director of School Services. She left ASHA and the Office of School Services declined.

When I returned to the schools in the 1990s, school practice was out-of date, and SLPs were beset with IDEA challenges. I wondered why school issues stood for years without effective solutions.

My review indicated the ASHA Board of Directors was failing to serve majority school members with vision, analysis, tenacity and long-term solutions.  I could not establish that the school office had any status and influence whatsoever. Nor did the school office play a role in the accreditation of graduate programs for SLPs. The BOD was preoccupied by ASHA administrative minutiae.


The BOD should eliminate the School Services office. It is a white elephant of another era. It’s doubtful BOD can fix it. The office should be a major force in up-dating school practice but it is not.

John M. Panagos


Repost: ASHA Governance and School Speech Pathology Practice

After a full career in higher education, my subsequent work in Arizona schools convinced me school practice was behind the times and ASHA was failing to effectively address school practice issues. Why I asked? I read, observed, interviewed and wrote on issues to come up with answers. In 2012 I published the opinion below on how breakdowns were occurring. Since then, my focus has been on decision-makers. Who is responsible at ASHA’s under-performance?

I studied ASHA administrative documents and came up with two essential views:

1. The ASHA Board of Directors (BOD) is solely responsible for all programs and personnel according to the bylaws.

2. The BOD abdicates its responsibilities, serving as a ceremonial body deferring widely to the ASHA professional staff, in some cases leaving critical ASHA components of unexamined. Poor supervision of accreditation is a striking example, and accreditation is the arena in which curriculum must improve.

2012 Post


Tracing through the history of  The American Speech-Language-Hearing Association gives one ideas and impressions about governance and organization shaping school practices in American schools.

Governance is the act of governing. It relates to decisions that define expectations, grant power, or verify performance. It consists of either a separate process or part of management or leadership processes…In the case of a business or of a non-profit organisation, governance relates to consistent management, cohesive policies, guidance, processes and decision-rights for a given area of responsibility… ” (Wiki)

“The duty of decision-making is a cornerstone of professional associations, entrusted to the those elected to the organization’s governing body — in ASHA’s case, the Board of Directors” (Chabon & Pietranton, ASHA Leader, 2012, March 13).

Mr. Chang, swan-goose and friend, Lakeside, Arizona

Over more than 100 years of organizational activity, capture of  school speech pathology by a small group of academic speech therapists in 1925 established organizational bias against those who did not want to work in hospitals and clinics, and who wanted to work with school children. School practice was flourishing up to 1925, whereas speech therapy practice was almost non-existent. Medical-model thinking was imposed on school speech pathology by the careful selection of executive directors, central organization in Washington, D. C., and non-profit status. Medical model leaders used the rapid growth of school speech pathology as a revenue base for continued funding of narrow and often arcane speech therapy research, teaching and practice.  It took until 1970 for ASHA governors to take even a modest step toward supporting school functions by way of a small office for school issues and programs, an office which remains virtually the same today even though more than half of ASHA members work are in education.

The production of doctoral graduates preparing for leadership in schools  was  nil. Doctoral education was heavily invested in medical-model research and coursework.  The rapidly growing school section of ASHA went without leadership in school speech-language pathology.

In the meantime ASHA was flat-footed when it came to addressing the effects of the civil rights movement and federal legislation on school practice, beginning especially in 1975.  The small office struggled to address issues but was overwhelmed and under staffed.  ASHA governance continued to be biased toward medical model thinking, leaving preservice training in status quo.  A whole generation of graduates completed their careers with insufficient background with respect to the massively changing school environment.  The  deep bias favoring medical-model thinking blinded governors as to trends in school practice..  It is difficult to govern something one does not understand, if one has not practiced in schools.

Executive Director Position:    Speech correctionists were excluded a priori from the position of Executive Director of ASHA. A direct chain  from the male founders to the present day promulgated medical model thinking: Wendell Johnson (1931-1941, Iowa, de facto);  D. W. Morris (1941-1948, Ohio State):  George A. Kopp (1948-1957, Wayne State University); Kenneth O. Johnson  (1958-1980, Stanford Medical);  Frederick T. Spahr (1980-2003, Pennsylvania State). The last in the chain is a woman but no language specialist has ever  been selected, nor a doctoral-level professional with extensive school background.”  (Women Lost)

A clown on mainstreet.

Adopting the non-profit  structure imposed greater inflexibility on ASHA.  Whereas universities up to 1970 provided the fire power for organizational growth of the young profession, executive directors put their energies into the non-profit mission.  University programs lost their influence while sustaining “speech therapy” training.  ASHA became less nimble because it was investing both in gaining control of credentialing and establishing the non-profit base in Washington.  Becoming a strong national cartel for speech therapy services was the larger agenda.  From the beginning, the school  segment of the profession was the profit center to fund organizational growth.

With status quo operating unquestioned, and academic control diminished, ASHA governance took professional leadership in the direction of service to the non-profit medical model credential-control mission, a mission heavily influenced by director Kenneth O. Johnson, 1958-1980. The role of president of the association continued to be eroded giving executive directors greater de facto power and influence.  Presidents rotated through on one year appointments, insufficient time to produce lasting results, while allowing the one-size-fits-all training plan to carry on with little or no innovation to support school clinicians.  To bring the cognitive-linguistic model into training in the 1970s, no small amount of resistance operated.  Even now the literacy domain as an extension of language pathology has fallen years behind in development though it is central to emerging school practice demands.  Attention to literacy training in the university programs languishes. Upon his retirement Frederick T. Spahr, 1980-2003, admitted language had been a vital step forward for the profession although the movement had not received wide support.

For school speech-language pathology to receive full support for its changing mission,  it needs to be a separate ASHA division with separate graduate school major to rectify the historical mistakes by ASHA governors and to break away from cartel strategies.  We have developed here the rationale for  “educational speech pathology” parallel to educational audiology, pointing out repeatedly that school pathologists are half the ASHA membership.

Yet school speech-language pathology continues to be submerged in current institutional thinking: “ASHA exists to enhance the professional lives of audiologists, speech-language pathologists, and speech, language and hearing scientists, and through us, the lives of individuals with communication disorders”   (Chabon & Pietranton, ASHA Leader, 2012, March 13).  Science and  audiology get separate billing following old-line preferences dating back to D. W. Morris, 1941-1948 and George A. Kopp, 1948-1957.  These narrow technical areas receive support from the school SLPs who provide the force behind the profession. Under the present structures, there is not way to give full billing to school SLPs. School practice is just another practice area, “school-based” versus “prison-based” for example.

The Board of Directors should seek to overhaul speech-language pathology to include a separate ASHA division, properly supported in concept, advertising and funding. Policy should reflect changes in curriculum knowledge unique to educational settings.  Students going into school work should all have the background described in the course description developed at the Brooklyn College (New York):

Educ 7672T Teaching in Least Restrictive Environments

30 hours plus conference; 3 credits

Strategies to integrate and support students with special needs in least restrictive environments. System and organizational change theories and strategies for developing models of inclusive education. Focus on curriculum and collaborative processes with other professionals including co-teaching, consultative, and itinerant models. Engagement of family members in collaborative efforts. Students will implement a consultative/collaborative project. Field experiences in a variety of school and community settings.

Such preparation should be incorporated into clinical clock hour experiences in university speech and language training centers.  IDEA -2004 procedures should become a part of the work with those school children who have educational plans (IEPs). Proper diagnostic experience should  reinforce educational principles, and CCC training hours should be granted for such training.  One way or another, the Board of Director must make sure preservice training is appropriate for school clinicians.  One cannot count on colleges of education to provide linkages to IDEA requirements.

Window looking out.

The ASHA Board of Directors is soliciting input. President  Chabon has approved input to the Board, using an InTouch form for this purpose.

We advocate an overhaul of school speech-language pathology to remove historical bias favoring medical speech pathology.  The bias started in 1925 with the capture of school speech correction, and the “FOUNDER’S SYNDROME’ has operated ever since:

Founder’s syndrome is an issue organizations face as they grow. Dynamic founders with a strong vision of how to operate the project try to retain control of the organization, even as new employees or volunteers want to expand the project’s scope or change policy.”  (Wiki)

The cognitive-linguistic model was eventually accepted in the 1970s but never allowed to blossom fundamentally in support of language, culture and learning in schools.

Prior  comment:  “Consider the size of the National Association of School Nurses.  In 1968 NASN started with NEA as a department. In 1979 it became a separate non-profit organization.  Today it lobbies in Washington, has a national network of state organizations, advertising plans, board members, annual conference, two publications, radio service, bookstore, national president, and a full-service web site.  All of this is accomplished with 14,500 members.””

John M. Panagos

ASHA Paywall Policies and Issues

In the 1990s newspapers began to lose advertising to internet websites. Readers began to read news on the internet. With mixed results, newspapers put their content online and searched for ways of getting readers to pay for the content. Many online organizations have paywalls including the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. How do ASHA paywall policies affect access to information?


Thanks to Webopedia for this definition: “Paywalls are systems designed to monetize online and other digital information by preventing visitors from accessing web sites and similar content providers without having a paid subscription. Online news and sports web sites are the most frequent users of paywalls, with some sites implementing hard paywalls while others deploy soft paywalls.

Girl Scouts Marching on Main Street.

Girl Scouts Marching on Main Street.

A hard paywall’s content restrictions are much more stringent than a soft paywall, allowing either no access or minimal access to free content. A soft paywall, on the other hand, provides significant access to free content as a means of encouraging users to subscribe for access to premium content.”

We support open public access to all relevant materials.

ASHA Board of Directors Admits School Practice Oversight Inadequate

In its August, 2014 meeting, the Board of Directors voted to revise the 2013 decision for a committee to provide input on school issues and needs, and established a standing committee for the same purpose. The rationale was stated as follows:

“Because members have expressed concern regarding the constant flux of school-based practice—and with new issues and demands facing school-based practitioners as they operate, grow, and transform their professional practices, it was felt that such a board could be more responsive to the changing needs of school-based members. After thoughtful discussion, the Board voted to approve this resolution.”


But we add the problem is not liberal input. It is the Board’s incapacity to follow through and make changes. WE HAVE HAD THE DATA FOR YEARS!

Board members come and go, leaving the ASHA staff to implement passed resolutions. The ASHA staff has neither the capacity nor continuing authority to implement change.

And so long as the Board allows the CAA to stand alone by its own declarations, curriculum will be forever consigned to a continuing flurry of public relations moves carried out through sparkling education programs.

The Problems are Well Known

Here is an honest perspective from FB:

“Bari Ann – With the increasing paperwork, billing for reimbursement, non-speech job related responsibilities, and lack of professional regard from others, the contracting position is looking better and better.

Thank you!

ASHA Board of Directors Ignores School Practice

In prior posts we have said the ASHA Board of Directors neglects school speech-language pathology as to long-term programs (e.g., collaboration) and curriculum (phonology). To investigate further, 2013 BOD records were examined to identify directional patterns of administrative activity. ( When BOD members meet, do they deliberate on school issues, or do they dwell on other topics? How important is school practice to board members? Does the BOD make sure graduate students are educated for school service?

Board Meetings

In 2013, BOD members (16) met for five meetings (January, March, June, July and October). Agenda items were organized by the President and the Chief Executive Officer (CEO). The board approved their responsibilities for addressing ASHA business:

“The Board’s responsibilities are broken into four areas: planning, operations, audit, and communications. After considering some suggestions for adding clarifying language to the procedures, the Board agreed that the document effectively captures the Board’s operating methods and procedures for working with the National Office staff.”

Board Actions

A total of 82 actions (resolutions, motions) were studied. The Board voted positively 81 times. Ninety percent of the votes were unanimous. A motion on behalf of the American Academy of Audiology was voted down 0-15. Twice two negative votes were cast.

The analysis indicated seven types of administrative activity consistent with Board responsibilities. They are presented in rank order of occurrence.
Committees (council, board) (20)– E.g. health care economics
Appointments (14)– E.g. pioneer network
ASHA Policy (13)–E.g. operational guidelines
Awards (12)–E.g. association honors
Funding (9)–E.g. travel expenses
Affiliations (8)–E.g. craniofacial association
Practice (6)–E.g. study evidence-based practice

Approved were funding proposals, professional affiliations, awards, appointments, practices and policy initiatives. Board members approved several committee, board and council actions (n=20). Practice items were the fewest in number (n=6).

Speech-language pathology was mentioned 34 times and Audiology 10. There was one incidental mention of “school based” speech-language pathology. There were no mentions of service delivery models, caseload problems, school SLP satisfaction, reading, RTI, encroachment, preschool, paperwork, scope of practice demands.

The CAA is responsible for curriculum standards. There was one action appointing two people to the council.

Practice Decisions

Seven percent of the business items related to general SLP professional practice. Decisions made were at the operational level. The word “curriculum” was never used. There were incidental mentions of traditional clinical categories:
Swallowing (1)
Stuttering (1)
Voice (1)
Aphasia (1)
Cleft Palate (1)
Autism (0)
Language (0)
articulation (0)
Augmentative Communication (0)
Response to Intervention (0)

Two Board projects were approved.

First, a vote was cast to support the Practice Resource Project Portal. However, the Portal is non-binding and not for school SLP practice per se.

Second,BOD members voted unanimously for a special committee to provide planning input to ASHA on school matters:

“RESOLVED, That the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) establish, for a 2-year period, the Speech-Language Pathology School Issues ad hoc committee, charged to provide leadership, guidance, and strategic planning in developing, recommending, implementing, and reviewing ASHA policies, procedures, programs, and resources relative to speech-language pathology practice in k-12 schools…”


We asked whether the ASHA Directors at their yearly meetings address school issues and curriculum needs. The answer is no. The Board restricts its work to ASHA operational concerns. It does not address issues of academic and accreditation systems where curriculum is a central component. It’s scope is narrow and voting perfunctory.

Puzzling is why the Board restricts its deliberations to operational business. By so doing, it effectively abdicates its responsibility to the membership. The BYLAWS clearly demand far-ranging oversight of all ASHA affairs.

June, 2015

Changes in governance dating back to 2007 were meant to make ASHA a more responsive and efficient organization.  This post suggests this  has not come to pass, and if anything decision-making is more confusing than ever.  It was supposed to be different:

The move to one governing body streamlines decision-making and allows the new BOD more time to gather member input and respond more quickly to member needs. With more time, the board can engage in extended consideration of high-priority issues and gain deeper understanding, which more likely will result in effective decisions. There will also be greater accountability for decisions—an important factor in this era of heightened scrutiny and transparency. A strong emphasis also will be placed on ensuring that qualified members are nominated and elected to the BOD.

Marat Moore
The ASHA Leader, July 2007, Vol. 12, 16-30. doi:10.1044/leader.AN4.12092007.16

ASHA Board of Directors Supports Practice Portal

Old house in small town

Old house in small town

The Portal: September, 2014

The American Speech Language Hearing Association represents a modern field providing clinical communication services to adults and children in all settings of service delivery. Accordingly, it has initiated a project to describe the many help services speech language pathologists provide to their clients. The Portal project is a long-term program approved by ASHA Board of Director:

“BOD 32-2013…. RESOLVED, That the Board of Directors (BOD) of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) continue to support the development of ASHA’s Practice Portal, and further;

RESOLVED, That the BOD approve use of the Special Opportunities Fund to provide such support in an amount not to exceed $550,000 per year for the years 2015, 2016, and 2017.”

Internet Connectivity

The TerpSys company has designed the Portal program for easy online use:

“TerpSys worked with ASHA to create a responsive site that makes navigating through large amounts of scientific information easy on any device:

Responsive – ASHA can create and maintain one set of content, but know that it looks custom-tailored on all of their users’ devices

Brand Extending – The Practice Portal fits the overall ASHA brand, but with a fresh, forward-looking feel
User-centered – Content expands and contracts to give users quick access to just the information they need in the moment

Consistent – Ektron, a .NET-based content management system (CMS), allows new content to be created in a consistent way as the Practice Portal grows”

According to a current public information release, the Portal is being well received and is pushing forward on new topics:

“Currently, the Portal site features detailed content on 20 clinical and professional issues for audiologists and speech language pathologists, including pages on autism, dementia, bilingual service delivery, classroom acoustics, and newborn hearing screening. New pages are added on a regular basis and announced on ASHA’s Facebook, twitter, and community sites.”

“The goal of ASHA’s Practice Portal is to assist audiologists and speech-language pathologists in their day-to-day practices by making it easier to find the best available evidence and expertise in patient care, identify resources that have been vetted for relevance and credibility, and increase practice efficiency. Our goal is not to provide a practice ‘recipe’ but to make available to you the information and resources you need to guide your decision-making…”