Factors influencing US speech and language therapists’ use of technology for clinical practice
Abstract
Background There is an increasing number of technological resources available to speech and language therapists (SLTs) for use in clinical practice, but the factors that influence SLTs' selection and use of such resources are not well understood. In related fields, technology acceptance models have been employed to explain users' adoption of technology and to inform the advancement of empirically supported technological resources. Aims To determine the factors that influence SLTs' use of technology for clinical practice by testing a model of their technology acceptance and use. Methods & procedures We surveyed 209 practising SLTs in the United States representative of the speech and language membership of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA). Participants completed a 38-item electronic survey representing four categories: (1) technology use, (2) technology attitudes and factors influencing technology use, (3) employment information and (4) demographics. Items measuring technology attitudes served as indicators of the research model, which mapped the primary relationships of a technology acceptance model. Survey data were collected before the Covid-19 pandemic. Outcomes & results The research model accounted for 66% of the variance in SLTs' behavioural intention to use technology, which significantly and positively predicted the amount of time they reportedly spent using technology in the workplace. Subjective norms and attitudes towards technology use direc…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Most speech-language clinicians use technology for planning, assessment, or intervention, including the use of apps in the school setting.
“Most speech-language clinicians use technology for planning, assessment, or intervention, including the use of apps in the school setting (Albudoor & Peña, 2021;Olszewski et al., 2022).”
From Equipping Speech-Language Clinicians for the Critical Appraisal of an Artificial Intelligence–Driven, Evidence-Based Future (2025) · cites this paper as Albudoor & Peña, 2021
Cites
Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology
Davis, F. D. (1989) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249008 · Cited by 68,483 · see citing works
Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions
Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008) · Decision Sciences · doi:10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00192.x · Cited by 8,159 · see citing works
Mobile app rating scale: a new tool for assessing the quality of health mobile apps
Stoyanov, S. R., Hides, L., Kavanagh, D. J., Zelenko, O., Tjondronegoro, D., & Mani, M. (2015) · JMIR mHealth and uHealth · doi:10.2196/mhealth.3422 · Cited by 2,233 · see citing works
Factors influencing teachers’ intention to use technology: Model development and test
Teo, T. (2011) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.06.008 · Cited by 914 · see citing works
Furlong, L., Morris, M., Serry, T., & Erickson, S. (2018) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0201513 · Cited by 87 · see citing works
Systematic review of virtual speech therapists for speech disorders
Chen, Y.-P. P., Johnson, C., Lalbakhsh, P., Caelli, T., Deng, G., Tay, D., Erickson, S., Broadbridge, P., El Refaie, A., Doube, W., et al. (2016) · Computer Speech & Language · doi:10.1016/j.csl.2015.08.005 · Cited by 83 · see citing works
Park, D. Y., Goering, E. M., Head, K. J., & Bartlett Ellis, R. J. (2017) · JMIR Formative Research · doi:10.2196/formative.8027 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Benway, N. R., & Preston, J. L. (2025) · Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools · doi:10.1044/2025_lshss-24-00085 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Mytsyk, H., Kovachov, S., & Suchikova, Y. (2025) · Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology · doi:10.1080/17483107.2025.2472262 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
- Authors
- Albudoor, N., & Peña, E. D.
- Affiliations
- The University of Texas at Austin (US)
- University of California, Irvine (US)
- Corresponding author
- Albudoor, Nahar
- Venue
- International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2021-03-19
- Volume
- 56
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 567-582
- ISSN
- 1368-2822 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-6984
- OpenAlex
- W3136369887
- Cited by
- 22
- References
- 7
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 1
- FWCI
- 2.35
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Voice and Speech Disorders
- Keywords
- speech-language pathologists, technology acceptance, attitudes toward technology, behavioral intention, perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, subjective norms, technology adoption, speech-language pathology practice, telepractice
- MeSH terms
- COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, Adult, Allied Health Personnel, Attitude of Health Personnel, Female, Humans, Language Therapy, Male, Surveys and Questionnaires, Speech Therapy, Technology, United States, Telemedicine
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review