Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This study operationalized the construct of linguistic justice in clinical supervision and presented the results of validating such measurement instrument to assess native English‐speaking supervisors’ competence with emerging multilingual learner (EML) supervisees. Items for the Linguistic Justice Scale (LJS) came from authors’ prior qualitative research, multilingual supervision literature, and expert input; 146 clinical supervisors completed the survey. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) assessed construct validity and internal consistency used Cronbach's alpha and McDonald's omega. CFA supported a multilayer model with three domains and six factors, 31‐item structure: Advocacy for Linguistic Equity, Linguistic Humility and Sensitivity, Linguistic and Cultural Knowledge, Reciprocal and Strength‐Based Practices, Inclusive Communication, Research‐Based Practice. Model showed acceptable fit (CFI = 0.903, RMSEA = 0.047, SRMR = 0.066), with significant factor loadings. Internal consistency was excellent ( α = 0.93, ω = 0.93). The LJS is the first empirical, multidimensional measure of linguistic justice in supervision, providing a validated tool and framework to guide linguistically equitable, culturally sustaining practices.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: