The Perceived Experiences of Supervision and Evaluation: A National Survey of School-Based Speech-Language Pathologists
Jacqueline Brown, Jane Grothaus, Christopher TromblyPurpose:
The purpose of this study was to understand the supervision and evaluation practices experienced by school speech-language pathologists (SLPs) across the United States with a focus on evaluator background, evaluation tools, observed tasks, and professional development opportunities. Specifically, we wanted to know about the background of those who supervise/evaluate SLPs, the tools used for supervision/evaluation, the settings where SLPs are supervised/evaluated, and whether the areas in which these clinicians were being assessed aligned with areas included in the Performance Assessment of Contributions and Effectiveness (PACE) created by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA).
Method:
A national cross-sectional survey was distributed through professional networks. The survey included closed-ended items informed by ASHA's PACE framework and optional open-text items. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, Kruskal–Wallis tests with post hoc comparisons, and Bayesian analyses; open-text responses were summarized using content analysis.
Results:
A total of 455 school-based SLPs across all 50 states and the District of Columbia started the survey, and 410 completed the survey. Optional open-text comments were provided by a subset of respondents and were used to contextualize quantitative findings. Those who were supervised/evaluated by individuals with prior SLP experience and with SLP-specific tools (e.g., PACE) provided higher ratings for items that were aligned with PACE, in comparison to those evaluated by former classroom teachers or with generic teacher-focused tools. Observations of clinical tasks yielded higher satisfaction than evaluations limited to administrative or nonclinical tasks. No significant associations were found between satisfaction and years of experience or age, suggesting consistent perceptions across career stages. Regional differences emerged, with SLPs in the South and West reporting slightly higher satisfaction than those in other regions.
Conclusions:
Findings highlight the need for districts to invest in evaluator training, ensure there is alignment between evaluators and those they supervise/evaluate, adopt role-specific evaluation frameworks, and provide structured professional development opportunities. Aligning evaluation practices with clinical responsibilities may improve SLP satisfaction, retention, and, ultimately, student outcomes.