A survey of Swedish speech-language pathologists’ practices regarding assessment of speech sound disorders

Figures & data

Table 1. Description of the participants’ work setting, clinical experience and frequency of clinical contact with children with SSD.

Work setting
Hospital	46
University hospital	18
Outpatient clinic	21
Private practice	13
School/pre-school	21
Habilitation clinic	10
Other^a	2
Total	131
Years active
<1 year	12
1–5 years	48
6–10 years	31
11–15 years	17
16–20 years	10
>20 years	13
Total	131
Clinical contact
Every day	66
Every week	53
Every month	12
More seldom	0
Total	131

^aChild and adolescent mental health services (n = 1), school health services (n = 1).

Figure 1. Reported frequency of assessment for each component. The components are presented in decending order, from most to least frequently always assessed.

Figure 2. Reported frequency of assessment for each component, across Sweden's six health-care regions.

Figure 3. Reported frequency of assessment for each component, across work settings.

Table 2. Reported manner of assessment for the seven assessment components.

	Standardised tests	Home-made materials	Observation	Anamnesis	Other	Responses	Respondents
Speech output	121	30	91	66	14	322	131
Consistency	110	25	82	24	14	255	130
Oral-motor function	71	60	83	51	13	278	124
Speech perception	43	37	18	19	8	125	105
Phonological awareness	72	49	15	12	16	164	117
Intelligibility	19	11	96	61	9	196	118
Functional communication	15	10	103	82	3	213	121

The most frequently cited manner of assessment is indicated in bold. The components are listed in the order that they were presented in the questionnaire. Response options were fixed.

Table 3. Tests cited for assessment for the seven assessment components.

	Test	Responses (n)	Total responses (n)
Speech output	Hellqvist fonemtest [31]	67	83
	LINUS [32]	29
	DYMTA [33]	16
	SVANTE [34]	10
	Nya Lundamaterialet [35]	4
Consistency	DYMTA	23	59
	Hellqvist fonemtest	22
	LINUS	10
Oral-motor function	NOT-S [36]	26	66
	STORM [37]	22
	ORIS [38]	9
Speech perception	Nelli	12	47
	B.A.S	4
Phonological awareness	B.A.S [39]	15	55
	Bedömning av språklig medvetenhet [40]	9
	Nelli [41]	6
	UMESOL [42]	4
	MiniDUVAN [43]	4
Intelligibility	ICS [44]	8	28
Functional communication	Pragmatic profile in CELF [45]	4	27
	FOCUS [46]	4

Tests, or parts of tests, mentioned at least four times in free text answers are included in the table. The components are listed in the order that they were presented in the questionnaire.

Hellqvist B, Hellqvist B. Nya fonemtestet [the new phoneme test]. Lund: Studentlitteratur; 2013.

 Google Scholar

Blumenthal C, Lundeborg Hammarström I. LINköpingsUnderSökningen: Ett fonologiskt test material från 3 år [The Linköping test: a phonological testing material from 3 years of age.]. Linköping: Linköping University; 2014.

 Google Scholar

Rex S, Hansson K, Strand E, et al. Performance of Swedish children on a dynamic motor speech assessment. Int J Speech Lang Pathol. 2021;12:1–12.

 Google Scholar

Lohmander A, Lundeborg I, Persson C. SVANTE – The Swedish articulation and nasality Test – normative data and a minimum standard set for cross-linguistic comparison. Clin Linguist Phon. 2017;31(2):137–154.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Holmberg E. Nya Lundamaterialet: kartläggning och bedömning av barns språkliga förmåga [The new Lunda material; assessment of childrens linguistic abilities]. Malmö: Utbildningsproduktion; 1983.

 Google Scholar

Bakke M, Bergendal B, McAllister A, et al. Development and evaluation of a comprehensive screening for orofacial dysfunction. Swed Dent J. 2007;31(2):75–84.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Henningsson G, McAllister A, Hartstein M. Stockholms oralmotoriska bedömningsprotokoll (STORM) [The Stockholm oralmotor assessment protocol]. [Stockholm] Karolinska universitetssjukhuset, Danderyds sjukhus; 2007.

 Google Scholar

Holmberg E, Bergström A. ORIS – Munmotoriskt funktionsstatus [Oral motor functional status]. Göteborg: Mun-H-Center förlag; 2008.

 Google Scholar

Frylmark A. Bedömning av Språk (B.A.S) [Assessment of language]. Storvreta: OrdAF; 2006.

 Google Scholar

Magnusson E, Nauclér K. Bedömning av språklig medvetenhet hos förskolebarn och skolbarn [Assessment of linguistic awareness in preschool and school-aged children]. Löddeköping: Pedagogisk Design; 1993.

 Google Scholar

Sahlén B, Holmberg E. Nya Nelli – neurolingvistiskt undersökningsmodell för barn med språkstörning [The New Nelli – a neurolinguistic assessment model for children with developmental language disorder]. Malmö: Pedagogisk Design; 2000.

 Google Scholar

Taube K, Tornéus M, Lundberg I. UMESOL. Fonologisk medvetenhet. Handledning för kartläggning och utveckling [UMESOL. Phonological awareness. A tutorial for assessment and development.]. Hägersten: Psykologiförlaget; 1984.

 Google Scholar

Wolff U. MiniDUVAN. Test av fonologisk medvetenhet hos förskolebarn [MiniDUVAN. Test of phonological awareness in preschool children]. Stockholm: Hogrefe Psykologiförlaget AB; 2013.

 Google Scholar

McLeod S, Harrison LJ, McCormack J. The intelligibility in context scale: validity and reliability of a subjective rating measure. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2012;55(2):648–656.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Semel E, Wiig EH, Secord WA. Clinical evaluation of language fundamentals – Fourth edition (CELF-4), Swedish version. Stockholm: Pearson Assessment; 2013.

 Google Scholar

Thomas-Stonell NL, Oddson B, Robertson B, et al. Development of the FOCUS (Focus on the Outcomes of Communication under Six), a communication outcome measure for preschool children. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2010;52(1):47–53.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Data availability statement

Data available on request from the authors.