LAUSR

PURPOSE We explore the extent to which speech-language pathologists (SLPs) are operating under assumptions about speech, language, and literacy that are not supported by evidence or are contradicted by evidence. METHOD SLPs (N = 106) marked the degree to which they endorsed or rejected four true and 11 myth (i.e., false) statements on a visual analog scale via an online survey. We analyzed the degree to which participants agreed or disagreed with these statements related to speech, language, and literacy development and impairment. RESULTS Based on results of one-sample t tests, participants as a group correctly rejected seven myth statements and correctly endorsed three true statements. Participants as a group provided equivocal responses to the remaining four myth statements and one true statement. Scores for each statement spanned all or nearly all of the possible range. Even when participants overall showed relatively strong disagreement with a particular myth statement, at least a few participants endorsed the myth statement. CONCLUSIONS The findings indicate areas of relative strength for SLPs' knowledge of current evidence for augmentative and alternative communication, bilingualism, and language input that supports language development. Identified areas of relative weakness include knowledge of the expected grammatical and speech production skills of children with typical development and the influence of ear infections in childhood on language impairment. Additional research is needed to evaluate efforts to enhance SLPs' knowledge and use of evidence-based practices.