The DOI matches its Crossref record; 25 of the 25 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 9 of the 27 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Stench of Errors or the Shine of Potential: The Challenge of (Ir)Responsible Use of ChatGPT in Speech‐Language Pathology
Open accessAbstract
Background: Integrating large language models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT, into speech‐language pathology (SLP) presents promising opportunities and notable challenges. While these tools can support diagnostics, streamline documentation and assist in therapy planning, they also raise concerns related to misinformation, cultural insensitivity, overreliance and ethical ambiguity. Current discourse often centres on technological capabilities, overlooking how future speech‐language pathologists (SLPs) are being prepared to use such tools responsibly. Aims: This paper examines the pedagogical, ethical and professional implications of integrating LLMs into SLP. It emphasizes the need to cultivate professional responsibility, ethical awareness and critical engagement amongst student SLPs, ensuring that such technologies are applied thoughtfully, appropriately and in accordance with evidence‐based and contextually relevant therapeutic standards. Methods: The paper combines a review of recent interdisciplinary research with reflective insights from academic practice. It presents documented cases of student SLPs’ overreliance on ChatGPT, analyzes common pitfalls through a structured table of examples and synthesizes perspectives from SLP, education, data ethics and linguistics. Main Contribution: Reflective examples presented in the article illustrate challenges that arise when LLMs are used without sufficient oversight or a clear understanding of their limitations. Rather than questioning the value of LLMs, these cases emphasize the importance of ensuring that student SLPs are guided towards thoughtful, ethical and clinically sound use. To support this, the paper offers a set of pedagogical recommendations—including ethics integration, reflective assignments, case‐based learning, peer critique and interdisciplinary collaboration—aimed at embedding critical engagement with tools such as ChatGPT into professional training. Conclusions: LLMs are becoming an integral part of SLP. Their impact, however, will depend on how effectively student SLPs are trained to balance technological innovation with professional responsibility. Higher education institutions (HEIs) must take an active role in embedding responsible engagement with LLMs into pre‐service training and SLP curricula. Through intentional and early preparation, the field can move beyond the risks associated with automation and towards a future shaped by reflective, informed and ethically grounded use of generative tools. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on this subject Large language models (LLMs), including ChatGPT, are increasingly used in speech‐language pathology (SLP) for tasks such as diagnostic support, therapy material generation and documentation. While prior research acknowledges both their utility and risks, limited attention has been paid to how student SLPs engage with these tools and how educational institutions prepare them for responsible use. What this paper adds to existing knowledge This paper identifies key challenges in how student SLPs interact with ChatGPT, including overreliance, lack of critical evaluation and ethical blind spots. It emphasizes the role of higher education in developing critical AI literacy aligned with clinical and ethical standards. The study offers specific, practice‐oriented recommendations for embedding responsibility‐focused engagement with LLMs into SLP curricula. These include ethics integration, reflective assignments, peer feedback and interdisciplinary dialogue. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? Without structured guidance, future SLPs may misuse LLMs in ways that compromise diagnostic accuracy, cultural appropriateness or therapeutic quality. Embedding reflective, ethics‐focused training into SLP curricula can reduce these risks and ensure that generative tools like ChatGPT support rather than undermine clinical decision‐making and patient care.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
13 Own interpretation · 7 No full text of the sources · 6 Supported · 4 Sources not found · 3 Partly supported · 2 Not checked yet · 1 No basis given · accuracy not yet measured
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“ChatGPT represents a new class of tools capable of supporting speechlanguage pathologists (SLPs) in a range of professional tasks, from generating text-based materials and visual content to retrieving clinical information and simulating dialogic interaction (Birol et al. 2025;Mytsyk et al. 2025).”
§ Stench of Errors or the Shine of Potential: The Challenge of (Ir)Responsible Use of ChatGPT in Speech-Language Pathology > 1 Introduction
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Birol et al. 2025 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion and Conclusions (pages not provided) support ChatGPT’s use for report writing, educational materials, and clinical decision support. The Introduction describes its conversational responses and potential to mimic communication. But the Limitations and future directions section treats visual-aid generation as a possibility for future multimodal systems combined with ChatGPT, not as a capability demonstrated by this study. (LLM, conf=0.88)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Mytsyk et al. 2025 source
plainstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The authors highlighted that LLMderived indices captured core characteristics of aphasic speech, such as agrammatism and lexical retrieval difficulties, at both lexical and syntactic levels.”
§ Stench of Errors or the Shine of Potential: The Challenge of (Ir)Responsible Use of ChatGPT in Speech-Language Pathology > 3 Transforming SLP With a Cost
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Cong et al. 2024 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion section, “Interpret LLMs-surprisals in a clinical context” (page unavailable), says LLM-derived surprisal detects core agrammatic features at word and sentence levels. The Introduction also illustrates a missing verb producing a high surprisal score. These passages support the agrammatism and lexical/syntactic-level parts of the claim, but do not establish that the indices capture lexical retrieval difficulties specifically. (LLM, conf=0.84)
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Cong et al. (2024) demonstrated that LLM-based models could accurately detect aphasia and differentiate between its subtypes (e.g., Broca's and Wernicke's), especially when combined with traditional linguistic features.”
§ Stench of Errors or the Shine of Potential: The Challenge of (Ir)Responsible Use of ChatGPT in Speech-Language Pathology > 3 Transforming SLP With a Cost
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Cong et al. 2024 source
The Discussion reports that models using LLM features performed well in distinguishing people with aphasia from healthy controls. It also states that adding LLM features to existing language indices improved subtype prediction and enabled differentiation between Broca’s and Wernicke’s aphasia. (LLM, conf=0.91)
boostedstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Birol et al. (2025) found that SLPs rated ChatGPT-4's output as highly accurate and relevant across several domains, including report writing, clinical decision support and educational resource development.”
§ Stench of Errors or the Shine of Potential: The Challenge of (Ir)Responsible Use of ChatGPT in Speech-Language Pathology > 3 Transforming SLP With a Cost
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Birol et al. 2025 source
The Abstract’s Method section says 15 practicing SLPs rated ChatGPT-4.0 responses for accuracy and relevance. Its Results section reports high levels in report writing, clinical decision support, and education-material creation; page numbers are not provided in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Furthermore, the opaque nature of LLM decision-making poses significant challenges regarding accountability, particularly in cases where errors could have long-term consequences for vulnerable populations (Petti et al. 2023;Loh 2023;Chakraborty et al. 2024).”
§ Stench of Errors or the Shine of Potential: The Challenge of (Ir)Responsible Use of ChatGPT in Speech-Language Pathology > 1 Introduction
What the sources say
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 10
- Probably not a substantial claim. 17
Create a free account to see these claims.
Create a free account to see these assumptions.
8 more claims
Create a free account to see all 36 claims and every source verdict.
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Recent scholarship further suggests that GenAI systems are progressively functioning as epistemic authorities.”
From Between cognitive offloading and critical autonomy: A systematic review of the epistemic implications of generative AI in higher education. (2026) · cites this paper as Hanna and Yana, 2025
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Because AIgenerated responses are frequently presented in fluent, coherent, and authoritative language, students may perceive them as neutral and reliable sources of knowledge even when outputs contain inaccuracies, hallucinations, or hidden biases (Hanna and Yana, 2025;Susena et al., 2026).”
From Between cognitive offloading and critical autonomy: A systematic review of the epistemic implications of generative AI in higher education. (2026) · cites this paper as Hanna and Yana, 2025
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Citations
Cites
Joint effect of ageing and multilayer structure prevents ordering in the voter model
Artime, O., Fernández-Gracia, J., Ramasco, J. J., & Miguel, M. S. (2017) · LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1703.06073 · Cited by 5,608
Ray, P. P. (2023) · Internet of Things and Cyber-Physical Systems · doi:10.1016/j.iotcps.2023.04.003 · Cited by 2,463
Ethical Considerations of Using ChatGPT in Health Care
Wang, C., Liu, S., Yang, H., Guo, J., Wu, Y., & Liu, J. (2023) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/48009 · Cited by 541
Hicks, M. T., Humphries, J., & Slater, J. (2024) · Ethics and Information Technology · doi:10.1007/s10676-024-09775-5 · Cited by 456
Easily Accessible Text-to-Image Generation Amplifies Demographic Stereotypes at Large Scale
Bianchi, F., Kalluri, P., Durmus, E., Ladhak, F., Cheng, M., Nozza, D., Hashimoto, T., Jurafsky, D., Zou, J., & Caliskan, A. (2023) · 2023 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3593013.3594095 · Cited by 342
Scope of Practice in Speech-Language Pathology
(2016) · doi:10.1044/policy.sp2016-00343 · Cited by 323
Kim, J. K., Chua, M., Rickard, M., & Lorenzo, A. (2023) · Journal of Pediatric Urology · doi:10.1016/j.jpurol.2023.05.018 · Cited by 225
Bringing professional responsibility back in
Solbrekke, T. D., & Englund, T. (2011) · Studies in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/03075079.2010.482205 · Cited by 184
Loh, E. (2024) · BMJ Leader · doi:10.1136/leader-2023-000797 · Cited by 116
Use of an ambient artificial intelligence tool to improve quality of clinical documentation
Balloch, J., Sridharan, S., Oldham, G., Wray, J., Gough, P., Robinson, R., Sebire, N. J., Khalil, S., Asgari, E., Tan, C., et al. (2024) · Future Healthcare Journal · doi:10.1016/j.fhj.2024.100157 · Cited by 107
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Du Y. andF.Juefei‐Xu.2023. “Generative AI for Therapy? Opportunities and Barriers for ChatGPT in Speech‐Language Therapy ” paper presented atThe Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations Kigali Rwanda November 1—5 2023. URL:https://openreview.net/pdf?id=cRZSr6Tpr1S.
- 10.21153/jtlge2025 · DOI
Cited by
Transforming Speech-Language Pathology with AI: Opportunities, Challenges, and Ethical Guidelines
Georgiou, G. P. (2025) · Healthcare · doi:10.3390/healthcare13192460 · Cited by 25
“A recent study highlighted that student SLPs often demonstrate overreliance on tools like ChatGPT, with limited critical appraisal skills or awareness of ethical pitfalls, pointing to significant gaps in education [50].”
Suazo Galdames, I. C., Santiesteban Velázquez, M., Saracostti, M., & Chaple Gil, A. M. (2026) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2026.1878665 · Cited by 5
Suchikova, Y., & Omelchuk, S. A. (2026) · Knowledge and Performance Management · doi:10.21511/kpm.10(2).2026.01 · Cited by 2
Self-citationSolez, K., Mahal, H., Cheungpasitporn, W., & Orlando, G. (2026) · Renal Failure · doi:10.1080/0886022x.2026.2685347
Natural Language Processing in Health Professions Education: A Scoping Review
Alizadeh, J. M., Saebi, P., Patel, M. K., & Wu, H. (2026) · IEEE International Conference on Healthcare Informatics (ICHI) · doi:10.1109/ichi69079.2026.00244
“…ethical blind spots and overreliance, supporting the need for structured ethics integration and reflective practice embedded within curricula [69], and iterative prompt refinement through chain-of-thought processing was demonstrated to enable high-quality case-based simulation scenario…”
Metadata
- Authors
- Hanna, M., & Yana, S.
- Affiliations
- Department of Applied Psychology and Speech Therapy Berdyansk State Pedagogical University Zaporizhzhia Ukraine
- Venue
- International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2025-07
- Volume
- 60
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- e70088-e70088
- ISSN
- 1368-2822 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-6984
- OpenAlex
- W4412107513
- Cited by
- 10
- References
- 25
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 1
- FWCI
- 1.89
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Social Sciences › Education › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Keywords
- ChatGPT, large language models, speech-language pathology education, responsible AI use, professional responsibility, ethics education, overreliance on AI, pedagogical recommendations, case-based learning, peer critique, data ethics, misinformation, cultural insensitivity, clinical documentation, treatment planning, diagnostic support
- MeSH terms
- Generative Artificial Intelligence, Humans, Speech-Language Pathology
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-11, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-11 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Stench of Errors or the Shine of Potential: The Challenge of (Ir)Responsible Use of ChatGPT in Speech‐Language Pathology. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/1460-6984.70088
- The paper
- Hanna, M., & Yana, S. (2025). Stench of Errors or the Shine of Potential: The Challenge of (Ir)Responsible Use of ChatGPT in Speech‐Language Pathology. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders. https://doi.org/10.1111/1460-6984.70088