Exploring the attitudes and practices among student clinicians in India on multilingual issues in the field of speech-language pathology.
Indira Valliappan, Roha Kaipa, Sudhin Karuppali
PMID 37672414WHAT IT FOUND
Student speech therapists in India often lack shared language with patients, relying on family or co-clinicians as translators.
Most felt unprepared for multilingual cases, with graduates reporting better readiness than undergraduates due to clinical experience.
Key findings
0174 participants reported that available multilingual tools were insufficient for assessment.
0248 participants encountered situations where the child and clinician did not share a common language while a translator was unavailable.
03Graduate students were significantly more likely to feel exceptionally well prepared to apply knowledge about multilingual issues compared to undergraduates.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The study used non-random convenience sampling, which may not represent all speech-language pathology students in India. Most participants were from South India, limiting the generalizability of findings to other regions with different linguistic profiles. The study focused only on students with language impairments, so findings may not apply to speech, swallowing, or other communication disorders. The high proportion of female participants (93%) reflects the profession's demographics but may limit the view of male student experiences. Data relied on self-reported perceptions and practices, which may differ from actual clinical behavior.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret the higher reported preparedness of graduate students as evidence that clinical experience automatically resolves multilingual assessment errors. The study shows both groups faced significant communication breakdowns and tool limitations, and the reliance on family or co-clinicians as translators introduces potential biases in assessment that experience alone may not mitigate.