Factors affecting speech-language pathologists’ language assessment procedures and tools – challenges and future directions in Sweden

Figures & data

Table 1. Characteristics of participants.

Work experience (in years) after degree	n	%
0–5 years	219	37.5
6–10 years	150	25.7
11–15 years	87	14.9
16–25 years	72	12.3
More than 25 years	56	9.6
Total	584	100
Current (main) workplace	n	%
Public Health Care SLP Center	270	46.2
Multi-professional team at Hospital	22	3.8
Private SLP Practice	29	5.0
Preschool/School/Special Ed. Class for (D)LD	78	13.3
Municipal Child/School Health Care Center	74	12.7
Habilitation Center	102	17.5
Other	9	1.5
Total	584	100
Target age-groups
Pre-school only (0–5 years old)	172	29.2
Pre-school and school-age (0–18 years old)	215	36.8
School-age only (6–18 years old)	197	33.7
Total	584	100

Table 2. Assessment procedures and tools used by Swedish paediatric SLPs.

Procedure/Tool	Frequency	Percent
1. Case history interview/Background information questionnaires	559	95.7
2. Standardized static tests and/or standardized forms to parents/teachers	554	94.9
3. Dynamic test procedures (“Dynamic assessment”)	118	20.2
4. Contextualized assessments (total: any of A, B, C below)	556	96.9
A. Observation (descriptive or criterion-referenced, clinic or community context)	507	86.8
B. Curriculum-based assessment/CBA (starting point in textbooks, and other classroom materials)	59	10.1
C. Other non-standardized materials (e.g. stories for retell, picture materials for eliciting language)	439	75.2
5. Transcription and analysis of language samples (Language sample analysis/LSA: to calculate e.g. MLU, grammatical complexity)	191	32.7
6. Other tools and procedures (free text response)	39	6.7

Note: N = 584. Respondents could choose as many alternatives as they wanted. The examples provided in this table are the same as in the survey questions.

Table 3 (a). Swedish paediatric SLPs’ assessment procedures and tools by workplace and work experience (short: 0–5 years, medium: 6–15 years, long: 16 years and longer).

Procedure/tool	Workplace			Work experience
	Clinical	Habilitation	Municipal	Short	Medium	Long
	n = 328	n = 101	n = 154	n = 219	n = 237	n = 128
1. Case history/Background	99.1	95	89	97.3	94.9	94.5
2. Standardized static tests	97^1	93.1^1	92.2^1	96.3	92.8	96.1
3. Dynamic Assessment	19.2	20.8	22.1	17.8	21.1	22.7
4. Contextualized (total)	97.3	100	94.2	98.2	95.4	97.7
A. Observation (all types)	85.4	98	82.5	90.4	84.4	85.2
B. Curriculum-based assessment	1.8^2	1^2	33.8^3	9.6	8.9	13.3
C. Other non-standardized	78.4	70.3	72.1	71.2	78.9	75
5. Language sample analysis	39	22.8	26	28.8	37.6	30.5
6. Other	7.6	5	5.2	7.3	5.5	7.8

Note: Bolded numbers indicate significant chi-square tests and different superscripts show significant pairwise comparisons.

Table 3 (b). Swedish paediatric SLPs’ assessment procedures and tools by SES (low/mixed/high) and proportion of multilingual assessments (high: 51–100%, mixed: 21–50%, low: 0–20% of assessments).

Procedure/tool	SES			Multilingualism
	Low	Mixed	High	High	Mixed	Low
	n = 119	n = 409	n = 56	n = 228	n = 225	n = 131
1. Case history/background	96.6	95.4	96.4	95.2	95.1	97.7
2. Standardized static tests	95	94.6	96.4	95.2	94.2	95.4
3. Dynamic assessment	27.7^1	19.6	8.9^2	22.4	18.2	19.8
4. Contextualized (total)	97.5	96.8	96.4	96.4	97.8	96.2
A. Observation (all types)	92.4	86.1	80.4	89	86.2	84
B. Curriculum-based assessment	23.5^3	6.6^4	7.1^4	13.2	6.7	10.7
C. Other non-standardized	80.7	73.6	75	75	78.2	70.2
5. Language sample analysis	31.9	32.5	35.7	35.1	34.7	25.2
6. Other	3.4	7.6	7.1	4.8	8	7.6

Note: Bolded numbers indicate significant chi-square tests, and different superscripts show significant pairwise comparisons.