Early language assessment and intervention by speech-language pathologists working with culturally and linguistically diverse families: A comparison between Australia and Hong Kong

Abstract

Background: With increased mobility and migration between countries, speech-language pathologists (SLP) face increased demands for services for children and families from culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) backgrounds. The challenges and opportunities that accompany a CALD caseload may impact SLPs differently depending on their country and/or city of practice. To capture the diversity of caseloads, we investigated SLP practices for young children who were monolingual with a common language (Mono-C); monolingual with no common language (Mono-NC); multilingual with a common language (Multi-C); multilingual with no common language (Multi-NC). Aim: To identify, compare, and contrast the early language assessment and intervention practices of speech-language pathologists working with children (< 3 years of age) from CALD backgrounds in Australia and Hong Kong. Method: A total of 207 SLPs in Australia (n = 125) and Hong Kong (n = 82) completed online questions specific to language assessment; a total of 163 SLPs in Australia (n = 97) and Hong Kong (n = 66) completed questions specific to language intervention. Results: Most Australian and Hong Kong SLPs completed assessments for children under 3 years. The majority of assessments were completed for children who were possible ‘late talkers’. In Australia (n=125), 73.1% of these were for Mono-C; 42.8% Mono-NC; 46.8% Multi-C; 8.3% Multi-NC. In Hong Kong (n=82), 60.0% Mono-C; 35.7% Mono-NC; 37.0% Multi-C; 50% Multi-NC. The assessment methodolody utilised differed depending on whether the SLP had a language in common with the child. In Australia, SLPs were actively involved and included the carer for Mono-C (65.5%) and Multi-C (52.3%) context, while SLPs utilised observations for Mono-NC (76.2%) and Multi-NC (66.7%) contexts. A similar pattern was observed in Hong Kong with observations for Mono-NC (80%) and Multi-NC (25.0%) contexts. For intervention, most Australian and Hong Kong SLPs carried out intervention for children under 3 years. Intervention for children who were possible ‘late talkers’ differed between the two countries. In Australia (n=97), 67.4% of these were for Mono-C; 53.3% Mono-NC; 46.2% Multi-C; 16.7% Multi-NC. In Hong Kong (n=66), 42.6% Mono-C; 0% Mono-NC; 50.0% Multi-C; 0% Multi-NC. The most common focus of language intervention, across both countries, was vocabulary/semantics. In Australia, the focus of intervention differed depending on whether SLPs had a common language with the child or not. Intervention focused on syntax when there was a common language while pragmatics wasmost often the focus when a there was no common language. Conclusion: Language assessment and intervention practices of SLPs working with young children from CALD backgrounds in Australia and Hong Kong followed similar trends with some specific contextual differences. These may be attributed to demographic features of the SLP workforce. Further results and implications of the Australian and Hong Kong contexts on SLP practices will also be discussed.