JCPSLP Vol 17 Supplement 1 2015_lores

34 / 80

32 JCPSLP Volume 17, Supplement 1, 2015 – Ethical practice in speech pathology Journal of Clinical Practice in Speech-Language Pathology
III: The trouble with psychological reports. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 15, 444–446.
Weddig, R. R. (1984). Parental interpretation of
psychoeducational reports. Psychology in the Schools, 21,
477–481.
be preferably produced in written format, must be openly
discussed and formally agreed to, prior to intervention
commencing.
Also worth noting is that when parents and families are
meaningfully engaged as part of a “team”, better outcomes
will ultimately be achieved! As stated by Dr Lisa V.
Rubinstein, president of the US Society of General Internal
Medicine, “Sharing in decision-making will help raise the
quality of care given by any clinician, because it will sharpen
the focus on the key decision points and help the clinician
put a plan in place that the client understands and agrees
with” (Chen, 2009).
References
Chen, P. W. (2009, 9 January). In search of a good doctor.
New York Times. Retrieved 20 January 2009 from http://
www.nytimes.com/2009/01/09/health/08chen.html?em
Cranwell, D., & Miller, A. (1987). Do parents understand
professionals’ terminology in statements of special
educational need? Educational Psychology in Practice , 3
(2), 27–32.
Donaldson, N., McDermott, A., Hollands, K., Copley, J.,
& Davidson, B. (2004). Clinical reporting by occupational
therapists and speech pathologists: Therapists’ intentions
and parental satisfaction. Advances in Speech-Language
Pathology, 6 (1), 23–38.
Flynn, M. C., & Parsons, C. L. (1994). A consumer view
of computer generated versus traditional assessment
reports. Australian Journal of Human Communication
Disorders, 22 (1), 24–39.
Grime, K. A. (1990). Do psychologists’ reports have
special needs? A survey of headteachers’ reactions to two
different report styles. Educational Psychology in Practice, 6
(2), 106–110.
Tallent, N., & Reiss, W. J. (1959). Multidisciplinary views
on the preparation of written clinical psychological reports
Suze Leitão is a senior member of the Speech Pathology
Australia Ethics Board. Suze works part-time at Curtin University as
a senior lecturer in Human Communication Sciences and part-time
in private practice. She teaches the application of the code of
ethics within a clinical science framework.
Nerina Scarinci is an elected member of the Speech
Pathology Australia Ethics Board. She is a lecturer in the Division
of Speech Pathology at the University of Queensland where
she teaches ethics in speech pathology and has a research
background in report writing practices and third-party disability.
Cheryl Koenig is a consumer and carer representative on
seven different government and NGO committees, including the
Speech Pathology Australia Ethics Board. She is the author of two
publications for NSW Health (2006, 2007) and has recently published
her third book, Paper Cranes (Exisle, 2008). Cheryl is passionate
about improving policy and services for consumers in all areas of
health and is inspired by the increasing voice and credibility now
being afforded consumers in relation to health issues.
Correspondence to:
Marie Atherton
Senior Advisor Professional issues
Speech Pathology Australia
Level 2, 11–19 Bank Place, Melbourne Vic. 3000
email:
This article was originally published as: Leitão, S., Scarinci,
N., & Koenig, C. (2009). Ethical reflections: Readability of
written speech pathology reports. ACQuiring Knowledge in
Speech, Language, and Hearing, 11(2), 89–91.