SLPOtherPerspectives of the ASHA special interest groups2022

Graduate Student Clinicians' Perceptions of Child Speech Sound Errors.

Seyoung Jung, Linye Jing, Maria Grigos

PMID 38433852

WHAT IT FOUND

Graduate students agreed with experts on 80.71% of accurate speech but only 54.27% of inaccurate speech.

Use the 3-point scale for progress tracking, not diagnosis. Students need specific criteria and practice to judge errors reliably.

Key findings

01Graduate students reached substantial agreement with expert SLPs on average (Kappa .62), but agreement varied widely across individuals (.51 to .73).

02Students were much better at identifying accurate productions (80.71% agreement) than inaccurate ones (54.27% agreement) or close approximations (55.74% agreement).

03The study stimuli were limited to simple word shapes and bilabial phonemes, so findings may not apply to the full range of speech sound errors seen in clinic.

STILL TO COME

How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for SLPs

Read the rest of this summary

You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.

Already have one?

What it does not show

The listeners had no clinical experience with direct client contact, so their performance may not reflect that of practicing clinicians. The study used only simple word shapes and bilabial phonemes, which do not represent the full range of speech errors clinicians encounter. Participants completed the task remotely, and the researchers did not control the listening environment or headphone quality. Hearing status was self-reported and not screened by the experimenters. The ratings were auditory-only; in clinical practice, visual cues are often available and can influence judgments.

Declared interests

The authors declared no competing financial or nonfinancial interests.

The easy way to misread this

Do not assume that graduate students are ready to use this scale for diagnosis or complex error analysis. Their agreement with experts was poor for inaccurate and close-approximation productions, indicating they need significant perceptual training and specific criteria to distinguish subtle error types reliably.

Read it on PubMed →