Admiralty. Federal Legislation. Action at Law under the Jones Act Does Not Bar Suit in Behalf of Another Beneficiary under the Death on the High Seas Act

Purpose The purpose of this study was to ascertain the extent to which school-based speech-language pathologists' (SLPs) assessment practices with individual English learners (ELs) align with federal legislation and professional practice guidelines. Specifically, we were interested in examining SLPs' use of multiple tools during individual EL assessments, as well as relationships between practices and number of types of training experiences. Method School-based SLPs in a Midwestern state were recruited in person or via e-mail to complete an online survey pertaining to assessment. Of the 562 respondents who completed the survey, 222 (39.5%) indicated past or present experience with ELs, and thus, their data were included in the analyses. The questionnaire solicited information about respondent's demographics, caseload composition, perceived knowledge and skills and training experiences pertaining to working with ELs (e.g., graduate school, self-teaching, professional conferences), and assessment practices used in schools. Results The majority of respondents reported using multiple tools rather than a single tool with each EL they assess. Case history and observation were tools used often or always by the largest number of participants. SLPs who used multiple tools reported using both direct (e.g., standardized tests, dynamic assessment) and indirect tools (e.g., case history, interviews). Analyses revealed low to moderate positive associations between tools, as well as the use of speech-language samples and number of types of training experiences. Conclusions School-based SLPs in the current study reported using EL assessment practices that comply with federal legislation and professional practice guidelines for EL assessment. These results enhance our understanding of school-based SLPs' assessment practices with ELs and may be indicative of a positive shift toward evidence-based practice.

Download Full-text

Federal legislation recognizing psychology.

American Psychologist ◽

10.1037/0003-066x.39.9.933 ◽

1984 ◽

Vol 39 (9) ◽

pp. 933-946 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

Patrick H. DeLeon ◽

Gary R. VandenBos ◽

Alan G. Kraut

Keyword(s):

Federal Legislation

Download Full-text

Invasive species to surge as ship traffic soars on the high seas

Nature ◽

10.1038/d41586-019-00870-y ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 567 (7749) ◽

pp. 437-437

Keyword(s):

Invasive Species ◽

Ship Traffic ◽

High Seas

Download Full-text

Smoothing the High Seas. A Deleuzoguattarian Analysis of the Somali Pirates

360° – Das studentische Journal für Politik und Gesellschaft ◽

10.3224/360grad.v12i2.03 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 12 (2) ◽

pp. 29-39

Author(s):

Peter Heft

Keyword(s):

High Seas

Download Full-text

Regulatory Framework and the Procedure for Canceling and Declaring Illegal (Invalid) Administrative Enforcement Acts

RUSSIAN JUSTICE ◽

10.37399/issn2072-909x.2020.8.5-14 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 8 ◽

pp. 5-14

Author(s):

S. V. Yarkovoy ◽

Keyword(s):

Public Administration ◽

Judicial Review ◽

Regulatory Framework ◽

Assessment Methods ◽

Federal Legislation ◽

Legal Assessment ◽

General Rules ◽

Legal Mechanism ◽

Legal Consequences

The article analyzes the norms of the current federal legislation governing the procedure for non-judicial and judicial review (cancellation, recognition as illegal or invalid) of enforcement acts of executive authorities and other public administration bodies. The Author notes the absence of a unified legal mechanism for the mentioned types of revision and points out the need for its development and consolidation in the federal administrative-procedural legislation. In order to formulate unified general rules for revising administrative enforcement acts, the necessity of solving a number of crucial issues of the theory of illegality (invalidity) of such acts, in particular, their invalidity and viability, defining criteria for their legal assessment, methods and legal consequences of their cancellation, is substantiated and possible answers are offered to these questions.

Download Full-text