Presentation – CVC2026-700

Collaboration between speech pathology and education to screen children’s speech

Felicity Laurence, Charles Sturt University, Australia

Sharynne McLeod, Children’s Voices Centre, Charles Sturt University, Australia

Sarah Verdon, Charles Sturt University, Australia

Lisa Johnson, Catholic Education Tasmania, Australia

Kathryn Crowe, University of Iceland, Iceland; Charles Sturt University, Australia

Nicola Ivory, Charles Sturt University, Australia

Background: It is difficult for a child to be heard when they have a speech sound disorder (SSD). If children with SSD do not receive support in their early years of schooling, literacy attainment is compromised. Catholic Education Tasmania (CET) operates 32 primary schools in Tasmania, Australia’s third smallest of 7 federated states and territories. In the past, speech pathologists have worked alongside educational support staff within CET to screen children’s speech using a bespoke 10-word screening tool. This speech screening tool was overidentifying students, with 52% of kindergarten children failing the screening.

Aim: CET commissioned a project with Charles Sturt University that aimed to co-design a more efficient, evidence-based universal speech screening protocol.

Method/approach: Screening was attempted with the 1207 Kinder student cohort using the Intelligibility in Context Scale (ICS), a parent and educator (ICSE) report tool. Speech pathologists also screened speech using the International Speech Screener (ISS). The Diagnostic Evaluation of Articulation and Phonology (DEAP) was administered as a benchmark. Speech Pathology contractors completed diagnostic assessments as usual practice. Data collection was embedded within existing school processes, modified collaboratively with teaching colleagues. Ethics approval was granted by Charles Sturt University (CSU) Human Research Ethics Committee (protocol 25025).

Results/findings: Speech was screened with the ICS with 922 students and with 918 of these using the ISS also. Students were identified for additional assessment using ICS (428 students) and/or teacher worry about student’s ability to pronounce speech sounds (201 students). The DEAP Diagnostic Screen was completed on 15% of the sample and the Phonology subtest on 24%. Diagnostic speech assessments were completed on 488 students who failed screening. Accurate speech screening is essential, but workflow feasibility in busy schools is equally critical. Joint design of study guidelines and workflow pathways reflected principles of interprofessional practice to accommodate the professional discourses of educators, the student support team, and speech pathologists.

Conclusion: Co-design gave voice to speech pathologist’s responsibility for best practice and resource allocation, the student support team’s responsibility for workload and data collection feasibility, and CET leadership’s fiscal responsibility. An evidence-based speech screening pathway is being designed based on the data from the screening assessments and practitioner’s input.

Implications for children and families: We aim to make sure that children’s speech is screened using efficient and evidence-based tools will ensure children who need additional support are identified and will avoid in-depth assessment of students who do not need ongoing speech support.

Implications for practitioners: This research hopes to align practice with Principle 4 of the Speech Pathology in Education Practice Guideline from Speech Pathology Australia, respecting the dignity of the child by using least intrusive practices where possible, collecting ‘just enough’ data to inform decision making.

Funding: This research has been commissioned by the Catholic Education Centre, Tasmania.

Keywords: early childhood education, interprofessional practice

This presentation relates to the following United Nations Sustainable Development Goals: