Assessment of speech sound disorders: Clinical experiences of Speech-language pathologists in Iran

Abstract

Background Speech-language pathologists (SLPs) in non-English speaking countries face challenges when assessing children for speech sound disorders (SSD). Exploring their clinical challenges in service delivery–along with their problem-solving approaches–may contribute to the development of instruments for clinical use in such settings. Aim The study aimed to explore assessment methods used by Iranian SLPs to identify children with SSD. Methods A cross-sectional survey took place with 113 SLPs working with children with SSD. The survey comprised 36 items grouped into four main themes–service delivery, types of assessments procedures, challenges of evaluating SSD, and ways of keeping up to date. Results were analysed based on participants’ levels of education and experience. Results Participants used Persian as the primary language in their work, and over 70% provided services in a private setting. Most participants reported having between 10–30% of clients with SSD in their caseload. Most (73.5%) SLPs involve parents in completing the history form. They favour informal traditional articulation tests, with approximately half the sample selecting this approach from the 14 options presented to them, especially those with bachelor’s degrees and minimal experience. More experienced SLPs (62.7%) chose the Polysyllabic Words Test. Assessment, whether formal or informal, was found to be time-consuming by the majority of respondents (18.6% always, 42.5% often). Self-study (65.5%) and taking part in workshops/webinars/journal clubs (60.1%) were ways to keep their knowledge current. Conclusion Our findings are similar to other international survey results on SSD evaluation. Although many Iranian SLPs use informal traditional articulation tests, such assessments are limited in their analysis and the diagnostic information provided. The findings emphasise the need for clear phonological assessment guidelines, valid and reliable ‘clinician friendly’ instruments, equitable distribution of tools across the country, and suitable tools for bi/multilingual communities.