Department of Speech Pathology and Audiology, Miami University, Oxford, OH.
Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2021 May 18;30(3):1247-1260. doi: 10.1044/2021_AJSLP-20-00169. Epub 2021 Apr 30.
Purpose Intervention research in speech-language pathology is growing; however, there remains a gap between research and clinical practice. To promote evidence-based practice, stakeholder input may be solicited during the development and evaluation of treatments. One method of evaluating stakeholder input is by subjectively measuring social validity. Social validity probes end users' satisfaction and acceptability of a treatment. Method This review article explores the type and frequency of subjective social validity measures reported in speech-language pathology treatment literature published in and from January 2017 through April 2019. In total, 93 treatment studies were included and coded descriptively. Results Of the 93 treatment studies included in this review, 20 reported subjective measures of social validity. The most common method of measurement was questionnaires ( = 19), followed by interviews ( = 5), and direct observation ( = 1). Conclusions Only 21.5% of reviewed speech-language pathology treatment articles from American Speech-Language-Hearing Association journals reported measures of social validity, although it is a crucial component of implementation of evidence-based practice. We urge researchers and journal editors to include social validity measures in treatment literature as we promote the uptake of evidence-based practices and the involvement of stakeholders during the development of evidence-based practices. We also encourage the development of social validity measures that can be validated on individuals with communication disorders.
目的 言语病理学中的干预研究正在不断发展；然而，研究与临床实践之间仍然存在差距。为了促进基于证据的实践，在治疗的开发和评估过程中可以征求利益相关者的意见。评估利益相关者意见的一种方法是通过主观测量社会有效性。社会有效性探测最终用户对治疗的满意度和可接受性。方法 本文回顾性研究了 2017 年 1 月至 2019 年 4 月发表在《美国言语-语言-听力协会杂志》上的言语病理学治疗文献中报告的主观社会有效性测量的类型和频率。共纳入 93 项治疗研究并进行描述性编码。结果 在本综述中纳入的 93 项治疗研究中，有 20 项报告了社会有效性的主观测量。最常见的测量方法是问卷调查（n=19），其次是访谈（n=5）和直接观察（n=1）。结论 尽管社会有效性是实施基于证据的实践的关键组成部分，但只有 21.5%的美国言语-语言-听力协会期刊上发表的言语病理学治疗文章报告了社会有效性的测量。我们敦促研究人员和期刊编辑在治疗文献中纳入社会有效性测量，以促进基于证据的实践的采用，并在开发基于证据的实践时让利益相关者参与。我们还鼓励开发可以在有沟通障碍的个体上进行验证的社会有效性测量。
