Cited by 193Language Development and DisordersVoice and Speech DisordersPhonetics and Phonology Research

Speech-language pathologists’ practices regarding assessment, analysis, target selection, intervention, and service delivery for children with speech sound disorders

Open access
Mcleod, Sharynne, Baker, Elise·2014·Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics

Abstract

A survey of 231 Australian speech-language pathologists (SLPs) was undertaken to describe practices regarding assessment, analysis, target selection, intervention, and service delivery for children with speech sound disorders (SSD). The participants typically worked in private practice, education, or community health settings and 67.6% had a waiting list for services. For each child, most of the SLPs spent 10-40 min in pre-assessment activities, 30-60 min undertaking face-to-face assessments, and 30-60 min completing paperwork after assessments. During an assessment SLPs typically conducted a parent interview, single-word speech sampling, collected a connected speech sample, and used informal tests. They also determined children's stimulability and estimated intelligibility. With multilingual children, informal assessment procedures and English-only tests were commonly used and SLPs relied on family members or interpreters to assist. Common analysis techniques included determination of phonological processes, substitutions-omissions-distortions-additions (SODA), and phonetic inventory. Participants placed high priority on selecting target sounds that were stimulable, early developing, and in error across all word positions and 60.3% felt very confident or confident selecting an appropriate intervention approach. Eight intervention approaches were frequently used: auditory discrimination, minimal pairs, cued articulation, phonological awareness, traditional articulation therapy, auditory bombardment, Nuffield Centre Dyspraxia Programme, and core vocabulary. Children typically received individual therapy with an SLP in a clinic setting. Parents often observed and participated in sessions and SLPs typically included siblings and grandparents in intervention sessions. Parent training and home programs were more frequently used than the group therapy. Two-thirds kept up-to-date by reading journal articles monthly or every 6 months. There were many similarities with previously reported practices for children with SSD in the US, UK, and the Netherlands, with some (but not all) practices aligning with current research evidence.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3109/02699206.2014.926994

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Despite their accessibility, objectivity, and cost effectiveness, few SLPs (2%-7%) reported using computer-based approaches.

    “However, despite their accessibility, objectivity, and cost effectiveness, few SLPs (2%-7%) reported using computer-based approaches (McLeod & Baker, 2014; Pavelko et al., 2016).”

    From Early Identification of Language Disorders Using Natural Language Processing and Machine Learning: Challenges and Emerging Approaches (2025) · cites this paper as McLeod & Baker, 2014

    The supplied passage is bibliographic information, not a report of SLPs’ practices. Searches of our indexed copy for computer-based approaches, the 2%–7% figure, and related assessment terms found no passage addressing the claim; it therefore cannot be verified from our copy. (LLM, conf=0.70)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 98 · Cited by 193

Authors
Mcleod, S., & Baker, E.
Affiliations
  • Charles Sturt University (AU)
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
Corresponding author
Mcleod, Sharynne
Venue
Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics
Published
2014-07
Volume
28
Issue
7-8
Pages
508-531
ISSN
  • 0269-9206 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-5076
OpenAlex
W2090351498
Cited by
193
References
98
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1
FWCI
21.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics (publishedVersion)
  • Charles Sturt University Research Output (CRO) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Speech Pathology Australia
  • Australian Research Council
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Voice and Speech Disorders
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Phonetics and Phonology Research
Keywords
speech sound disorders, speech assessment, speech intervention, service delivery, children, multilingual children, parent training, home program, professional practice patterns
MeSH terms
Articulation Disorders, Australia, Child, Child, Preschool, Delivery of Health Care, Humans, Language Development Disorders, Language Therapy, Phonetics, Practice Patterns, Physicians', Speech-Language Pathology, Speech Production Measurement, Speech Therapy, Evidence-Based Practice, Symptom Assessment

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