Multidisciplinary Challenges in the Educational Assessment and Identification of Speech and Language Disorders in Türkiye: Perspectives from Guidance and Research Centers

Abstract

Introduction

Speech and language disorders (SLDs) can significantly affect individuals’ communication, academic achievement, and social participation. Guidance and Research Centers (GRCs) play a central role in the educational assessment and placement of children with SLDs in Türkiye; however, limited research has examined the perspectives of GRC professionals regarding these processes.

Methods

This descriptive qualitative case study was conducted with 30 professionals working in GRCs in Türkiye. Participants were selected using criterion sampling. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews and analyzed using thematic analysis following Braun and Clarke’s six-phase approach.

Results

Five main themes emerged from the analysis: student profiles, referral processes, educational assessment and identification practices, post-identification monitoring, and recommendations for improvement. Participants reported several challenges, including the limited use of standardized assessment tools, insufficient professional expertise in SLDs, inadequate inter-institutional collaboration, and restricted family participation. The absence of speech and language therapist (SLTs) within GRC teams was identified as a major factor affecting the quality and comprehensiveness of educational assessments.

Conclusion

The findings suggest that important structural and professional challenges continue to influence the assessment of children with SLDs within GRCs. Strengthening multidisciplinary collaboration, increasing access to SLTs improving professional training opportunities, and implementing standardized assessment and monitoring procedures may contribute to more effective and evidence-based educational assessment practices.

Introduction

Speech and language disorders (SLDs) are communication-related conditions that affect individuals’ ability to understand, produce, and use spoken language effectively. These difficulties may involve speech production, fluency, voice, resonance, and language comprehension or expression, potentially influencing academic achievement, social participation, and overall quality of life.^1-3 Early identification and accurate assessment are therefore critical for timely intervention and educational planning. Assessment of SLDs involves a comprehensive process of collecting information from multiple sources to determine the nature and severity of communication difficulties and to guide intervention planning. Contemporary assessment approaches emphasize the integration of standardized tests, clinical observations, developmental history, language sampling, and reports from parents and teachers to obtain a comprehensive understanding of a child’s communication functioning^.4,5 In recent years, there has been increasing emphasis on functional and participation-based assessment approaches that consider the impact of communication difficulties on academic achievement, social participation, and everyday functioning. ⁶

Internationally, the assessment of SLDs is increasingly guided by evidence-based practices and is often supported by collaboration among speech-language therapists (SLTs), families, educators, and other professionals when appropriate. SLTs possess the expertise necessary to independently assess and diagnose many SLDs, including speech sound disorders, fluency disorders, and developmental language disorder.^4,7 Multidisciplinary collaboration may be particularly beneficial in cases involving co-occurring developmental, educational, behavioral, or medical conditions that require broader assessment and intervention planning.

Assessment, identification, and diagnosis denote related but conceptually distinct processes within speech and language services. Clinical diagnosis involves determining the presence and nature of a communication disorder through comprehensive assessment conducted by qualified healthcare professionals, including SLTs.^4,7 In contrast, educational assessment and identification focus on identifying a student’s functional performance, educational needs, and support requirements within educational settings. ⁸ Educational identification, as used within the Turkish special education system, refers to the process of determining eligibility for special education services and developing appropriate educational recommendations based on multiple sources of information, including educational assessments, developmental history, school reports, and medical documentation. ⁹ In Türkiye, SLTs are authorized to provide assessment, therapy, and rehabilitation services within their professional scope of practice. According to national regulations, SLTs may independently provide therapy and rehabilitation for certain conditions, including developmental speech and language disorders, stuttering, cluttering, hypernasality, and hyponasality. However, for other speech, language, voice, and swallowing disorders, assessment, therapy, and rehabilitation services are provided following diagnosis and referral by a specialist physician. ¹⁰ Furthermore, access to publicly funded special education and rehabilitation services generally requires official medical documentation obtained through the healthcare system. Following the educational eligibility decision issued by the Special Education Assessment Board within the Guidance and Research Centers (GRC), individuals become eligible to receive publicly funded speech and language therapy services in special education and rehabilitation centers. Consequently, clinical diagnosis and medical reports play an important role in the educational identification process of children with SLDs.

Therefore, GRCs do not provide clinical diagnoses of SLDs; rather, they conduct educational assessment and identification and make decisions regarding educational placement and support services. Clinical diagnosis and educational identification should therefore be viewed as complementary but distinct processes. While clinical diagnosis focuses on identifying the presence and characteristics of a communication disorder, educational identification focuses on determining eligibility for special education services, educational placement, and the support services required within educational settings. This distinction is particularly important for understanding the assessment and identification processes of children with SLDs within the Turkish context.

In Türkiye, educational assessment and placement procedures for students with special educational needs are conducted through GRCs, which operate under the Ministry of National Education. GRCs are responsible for conducting educational assessments, determining eligibility for special education services, and providing placement recommendations. For many children with SLDs, the process begins in healthcare settings and continues through educational assessment procedures conducted in GRCs. Educational decisions are generally informed by multiple sources of information, including teacher reports, family interviews, observational findings, developmental history, educational assessment results, and medical reports obtained from external healthcare institutions. Although the Ministry of National Education’s Guidance and Research Center Directive allows SLTs to be appointed or assigned to GRCs when needed, they are not defined as standard members of GRC assessment teams and are not routinely available within many GRCs. Consequently, educational assessments are generally conducted by multidisciplinary teams consisting primarily of special education teachers, psychologists, counselors, and other educational professionals.^9,10

Although studies have examined the general functioning of GRCs and special education assessment procedures, limited research has focused specifically on the educational assessment and identification of individuals with SLDs from the perspective of GRC professionals. ¹¹ Recent findings indicate that children with SLDs are typically referred to GRCs after receiving a clinical diagnosis and medical documentation from healthcare institutions. GRC professionals reported that educational assessment procedures generally begin following referrals from healthcare services, highlighting the close relationship between clinical and educational assessment processes in Türkiye. The same study also identified the absence of SLTs within GRC teams, limited assessment tools, and the need for additional professional training as major challenges affecting assessment practices. ¹¹ Furthermore, evidence from healthcare settings suggests that access to speech-language therapy services in Türkiye is largely mediated through physician referral pathways, and that physician awareness plays a critical role in timely referral and intervention. ¹² Nevertheless, relatively little is known about how information obtained through clinical evaluations is incorporated into educational decision-making processes, how GRC professionals navigate these challenges in practice, and how assessment and support services for children with SLDs can be improved. ¹²

Accordingly, this study aims to explore the experiences, perceptions, and recommendations of professionals working in GRCs regarding the educational assessment and identification of individuals with SLDs. The study focuses particularly on challenges encountered during the educational assessment and identification, current assessment practices, multidisciplinary collaboration, and recommendations for improving service quality. In line with this purpose, the study addressed the following research questions:

• 1. How do GRC professionals perceive and experience the assessment and identification processes for children with SLDs?

• 2. What challenges and limitations do GRC professionals encounter during the assessment process?

• 3. What recommendations do GRC professionals offer for improving educational assessment and follow-up services for children with SLDs?

Material and Method

Type of Research

This study was designed as a descriptive case study to explore the perspectives of professionals working in GRCs regarding the educational assessment and referral processes of individuals with SLDs. Descriptive case studies aim to provide a detailed description and interpretation of a phenomenon as it occurs within a specific context. ¹³ In this context, the present study focuses on understanding how educational assessment, identification, and referral processes are implemented in practice within GRCs from the perspectives of the professionals directly involved in these procedure.

Population and Sample of the Study

The participants of this study were selected through criterion sampling, one of the purposeful sampling methods. Criterion sampling involves selecting individuals who possess relevant knowledge and experience consistent with the purpose of the study. ¹³ Inclusion criteria were: (a) currently working in a GRC, (b) actively participating in educational assessment and placement processes, and (c) having experience with the assessment of children with speech and language disorders. Exclusion criteria included not being directly involved in assessment procedures, having no experience with children with SLDs, or declining to participate in the study.

This descriptive case study was conducted in GRCs located in Türkiye between 31 December 2024 and 1 June 2025. During the 2024–2025 academic year, a total of 30 professionals working in GRCs in a province located in Türkiye’s Marmara Region participated in the study. Table 1 presents demographic information about the participants. To ensure confidentiality, codes were assigned to all participants.

Table 1.

Participant Information

Participant	Profession	Years of professional experience	Years of experience in current position
P1	Special Education Teacher	6 years	6 years
P2	Guidance and Psychological Counseling	23 years	17 years
P3	Special Education Teacher	20 years	17 years
P4	Guidance and Psychological Counseling	10 years	6 years
P5	Special Education Teacher	10 years	3 years
P6	Guidance and Psychological Counseling	5 years	2 years
P7	Guidance and Psychological Counseling	5 years	2 years
P8	Special Education Teacher	6 years	2 years
P9	Special Education Teacher	2 years	2 years
P10	Special Education Teacher	12 years	2 years
P11	Guidance and Psychological Counseling	9 years	2 years
P12	Guidance and Psychological Counseling	23 years	12 years
P13	Psychologist	25 years	10 years
P14	Physiotherapist	4 years	4 years
P15	Special Education Teacher	10 years	6 years
P16	Special Education Teacher	23 years	8 years
P17	Special Education Teacher	27 years	7 years
P18	Special Education Teacher	25 years	2 years
P19	Special Education Teacher	22 years	3 years
P20	Special Education Teacher	30 years	4 years
P21	Special Education Teacher	8 years	2 years
P22	Special Education Teacher	23 years	2 years
P23	Guidance and Psychological Counseling	18 years	9 years
P24	Special Education Teacher	12 years	6 years
P25	Special Education Teacher	6 years	2 years
P26	Guidance and Psychological Counseling	30 years	10 years
P27	Guidance and Psychological Counseling	20 years	10 years
P28	Physiotherapist	10 years	4 years
P29	Physiotherapist	4 years	4 years
P30	Guidance and Psychological Counseling	20 years	11 years

Data Collection and Analysis

Data were collected through semi-structured interviews developed based on the relevant literature and expert opinions. The interview form consisted of 13 open-ended questions focusing on participants’ experiences and views regarding the educational assessment and identification processes for individuals with SLDs. The semi-structured interview guide was developed by the researchers based on the relevant literature and the objectives of the study. To enhance content validity, the interview questions were reviewed by two experts in the fields of speech and language therapy and special education, and revisions were made based on their feedback prior to data collection. The interview guide was not pilot-tested before implementation. The interview guide is provided as Supplementary Material 1.

All interviews were conducted face-to-face by the second author at participants’ institutions, audio-recorded with consent, and transcribed verbatim. Interviews lasted between 25 and 49 minutes. The transcripts were reviewed by all authors for accuracy. Data collection continued until data saturation was achieved. Saturation was considered to have been reached when no new codes, categories, or themes emerged from successive interviews and the collected data provided sufficient depth and breadth to address the research questions.

Thematic analysis was conducted following the six phases proposed by Braun and Clarke: (1) familiarization with the data, (2) generation of initial codes, (3) searching for themes, (4) reviewing themes, (5) defining and naming themes, and (6) producing the report. ¹⁴ Following verbatim transcription, all transcripts were read repeatedly to ensure familiarity with the data. Initial coding was conducted inductively by the first author, allowing codes to emerge from participants’ responses rather than being predetermined. During this stage, meaningful segments of text were identified and assigned descriptive labels. A preliminary codebook was subsequently developed, including code names, definitions, and representative quotations. Similar codes were grouped into broader categories and organized into themes and subthemes based on conceptual similarity and relevance to the research questions.

To enhance the trustworthiness of the analysis, the preliminary codes, categories, themes, and subthemes were reviewed by the other authors. Any disagreements were resolved through discussion until consensus was achieved, and the thematic structure was finalized. Through this process, 56 initial codes were consolidated into five main themes and 14 subthemes.

Trustworthiness

Several strategies were employed to enhance the trustworthiness of the findings. Credibility was supported through expert review of the interview questions, prolonged engagement with the data, and investigator triangulation during the coding process. Dependability was enhanced by maintaining an audit trail documenting coding decisions and theme development throughout the analysis. Confirmability was addressed through collaborative discussions among the researchers aimed at minimizing individual bias during interpretation. To support transferability, detailed descriptions of the research context, participants, and analytical procedures were provided. In addition, representative participant quotations were included to illustrate the connection between the data and the identified themes.

Ethical Aspects of the Research

Ethical approval was obtained from the institutional ethics committee before data collection (Protocol No: 811587, dated 11/2024). All participants were informed about the purpose and scope of the study and provided written informed consent indicating their voluntary participation. Participants’ identities were kept confidential, and pseudonyms were used in place of real names throughout the reporting process to ensure anonymity.

Results

The data analysis yielded five main themes and 14 subthemes. In this section, each theme is presented in detail and supported by direct quotations from participants to illustrate their perspectives and experiences. Figure 1 provides an overview of the main themes and subthemes identified through the analysis.

Figure 1.

Thematic structure of the study

Note. Figure 1 was visually designed using ChatGPT (GPT-5.5, OpenAI). The thematic structure, content, and final verification were completed by the authors

Theme 1: Profiles of Students Applying to GRCs for Educational Assessment

This theme reflects participants’ observations regarding the characteristics of students referred to GRCs, including disability type, age group, and socioeconomic background. Participants reported that children with SLDs constituted a substantial proportion of referrals and that applications were particularly common during the preschool and early primary school years. Referrals were also perceived to be more frequent among families from lower socioeconomic backgrounds.

Subtheme 1.1. Types of Disabilities and the Prevalence of SLDs

Most participants stated that SLDs represented one of the most common referral groups in GRCs. Participants emphasized that increasing awareness among teachers and families contributed to the rise in referrals for speech and language difficulties. As P3 stated:

“About six or seven out of every ten referrals come with speech and language problems. Preschool teachers, in particular, have become much more attentive in making such referrals.”

Subtheme 1.2. Age Groups of Referred Students

Participants reported that most children referred to GRCs for SLD-related concerns were in the preschool and early primary school period. Early referral was generally associated with increased awareness among preschool teachers and families regarding speech and language development.

Theme 2: Perspectives on the Referral Process of Students With SLD to GRCs

This theme reflects participants’ views regarding the referral process of children with SLDs prior to their formal application to GRCs. Participants emphasized the important role of classroom teachers in identifying communication difficulties, while also highlighting problems related to limited awareness, delayed referrals, and communication barriers between schools and families.

Subtheme 2.1. Teachers’ Role in the Referral Process

Participants stated that classroom teachers play a central role in recognizing speech and language difficulties and initiating referrals to GRCs. However, referral procedures were often described as inconsistent and delayed, particularly in schools lacking sufficient guidance services. As P20 explained:

“Teachers notice when a child has a speech problem, but they don’t always know where or to whom to refer the child.”

Subtheme 2.2. Lack of Knowledge and Awareness

Several participants reported that limited knowledge regarding speech and language development negatively affected early identification and referral processes. Teachers were described as sometimes interpreting communication difficulties as temporary developmental characteristics rather than potential disorders. As P26 stated:

“Some teachers still say, ‘He’s a boy, he’ll talk later.’ Referrals to GRCs are made very late, which delays the intervention process.”

Subtheme 2.3. Communication Challenges During Family Referral

Participants also emphasized communication difficulties between teachers and families during the referral process. Families were sometimes reported to deny communication problems or resist referral recommendations, which contributed to delays in assessment and intervention. As P8 explained:

“Even when the teacher notices the problem, parents deny it. They say, ‘There’s nothing wrong with my child.”

Theme 3: Views on the Educational Assessment and Identification Process of SLDs in GRCs

This theme reflects participants’ experiences and observations regarding the educational assessment and identification process for individuals with SLDs. Participants emphasized several structural and procedural challenges related to medical referral requirements, physical conditions, assessment procedures, family involvement, and professional competence.

Subtheme 3.1. The Role of Medical Diagnosis

All participants stated that a formal medical diagnosis was required before initiating the educational assessment process. Participants reported that the absence of medical documentation frequently delayed assessment and intervention procedures. As P23 explained:

“The child cannot speak, but if there is no diagnosis, we can’t start the process.”

Subtheme 3.2. Physical Environment in Educational Assessment and Identification

Participants highlighted the inadequacy of physical environments and assessment materials, particularly for preschool-aged children. Child-centered assessment opportunities were described as limited due to insufficient space and lack of appropriate materials. As P19 stated:

“There are no play materials. It’s difficult to communicate with the child—we have to assess them at a table and chair.”

Subtheme 3.3. Educational Assessment and Identification Procedures

Participants frequently emphasized structural limitations within the educational assessment and identification process. Assessments were described as heavily dependent on informal observations and short-term interviews with teachers and families, while standardized language assessment tools were rarely used. Time limitations and inconsistencies between teacher and family reports were also reported as important barriers affecting accuracy and consistency of educational assessment decisions. As P24 explained:

“Most of our assessment relies on observation. Especially for younger children who do not speak, assessment is very difficult.”

Participants additionally emphasized the need for more systematic assessment procedures involving standardized tools, interdisciplinary collaboration, and greater participation of SLTs. As P8 stated:

“If there is a language problem, it’s outside our area, but we still make the decision. This isn’t healthy. There must be an SLT assessment.”

Subtheme 3.4. Impact of Assessment and Identification Procedures on the Child

Participants reported that delays or disruptions in educational assessment and identification procedures negatively affected children’s access to educational support services and classroom participation. According to participants, difficulties in obtaining the required medical documentation or completing referral and identification procedures often delayed intervention opportunities. As P30 explained:

“If the family hesitates to obtain a diagnosis, the child cannot receive support for a long time, which delays their development.”

Subtheme 3.5. The Role of the Family

Several participants emphasized that effective communication and cooperation with families positively influenced educational assessment and identification procedures. Families were described as important sources of developmental information, and their active participation was considered essential for successful referral, assessment, and support planning processes. As P3 stated:

“Nothing works without convincing the family. If they don’t take the first step, we can’t move forward either.”

Subtheme 3.6. Challenges in Educational Assessment and Identification of SLDs

Participants reported that many professionals working in GRCs lacked sufficient training and expertise regarding SLDs. Difficulties in differentiating among SLDs and uncertainty regarding language assessment procedures were commonly reported. Participants therefore emphasized the importance of increasing professional competence and including SLTs within multidisciplinary assessment teams. As P13 explained:

“We don’t fully understand speech and language disorders. We haven’t received formal training on this.”

Theme 4: Inadequacy of the Post-identification Monitoring Process

Participants consistently reported that post-identification monitoring procedures for individuals with SLDs were not implemented systematically within GRCs. Follow-up of children’s developmental progress was described as limited, while communication among schools, families, and GRC personnel remained insufficient. Participants also emphasized that time constraints, lack of institutional infrastructure, and limited parental involvement negatively affected the sustainability of monitoring procedures. As P4 explained:

“There is almost no monitoring at the moment. We don’t have time, there’s no monitoring module in the system, and we don’t receive any feedback from the schools.”

Participants further stated that children rarely returned for follow-up assessments after the initial educational assessment process and that long-term educational progress was not adequately monitored. The importance of multidisciplinary follow-up, particularly involving SLTs, was frequently emphasized. As P26 noted:

“In chronic, long-term cases, it would be very beneficial if a SLT could assess how much improvement or progress the child is actually making.”

Overall, the findings indicate that the absence of structured monitoring mechanisms, limited feedback systems, and insufficient communication among schools, families, and GRC personnel contribute to fragmented follow-up procedures and restrict the systematic assessment of children’s long-term educational outcomes.

Theme 5: Recommendations for Improving Educational Assessment and Identification

Participants proposed several recommendations aimed at improving the educational assessment process for individuals with SLDs in GRCs. These recommendations focused primarily on strengthening professional competence, standardizing referral procedures, and increasing the active involvement of SLTs in assessment processes.

Subtheme 5.1. Enhancing Professional Competence

Participants emphasized the need to strengthen both pre-service and in-service professional training related to SLDs assessment. Many participants reported that undergraduate education did not adequately prepare professionals for the practical challenges encountered in GRC settings and highlighted the importance of continuous professional development opportunities. As P12 stated:

“There’s a big gap between what we learn at university and the problems we face in the field. Post-graduation support is essential.”

Participants additionally emphasized that increasing basic knowledge regarding SLDs could improve referral accuracy and interdisciplinary communication among professionals.

Subtheme 5.2. Clarifying the Referral Procedures

Several participants reported that referral procedures for children suspected of having SLDs lacked standardization across schools and institutions. Differences in referral timing and decision-making practices were perceived as important barriers affecting the consistency of assessment processes. As P6 explained:

“Each school handles it differently. Some send the child right away, others wait. There’s no clear framework for referral.”

Participants therefore emphasized the need for clearer referral guidelines, standardized procedures, and defined institutional responsibilities to improve transparency and consistency in the assessment process.

Subtheme 5.3. Active Involvement of SLTs in Educational Assessment and Identification

Participants unanimously emphasized that employing SLTs within GRCs would substantially improve the quality and reliability of educational assessments. Participants stated that the identification and differentiation of SLDs, as well as language-specific assessment, require specialized expertise that is currently limited within GRC teams. As P23 stated:

“Every GRC should have an SLT. Both the assessment and the reporting would be much more accurate.”

Similarly, participants highlighted difficulties in assessment articulation, language development, and communication-related behaviors without SLT support. These findings indicate a strong consensus regarding the need to employ SLTs within GRCs.

Discussion

The findings of this study provide important insights into the educational assessment and identification processes for individuals with SLDs in GRCs in Türkiye. The results indicate that although GRCs play a central role in special education assessment services, several structural and professional limitations continue to affect the quality and consistency of SLD assessments. The findings particularly highlight issues related to the standardization of assessment tools, multidisciplinary collaboration, professional competence, and family participation. Similar concerns have previously been reported in studies examining educational assessment and identification processes in Türkiye.^11,15,16

One of the most prominent findings of the study concerns the limited use of standardized assessment tools during the assessment and identification process. Participants reported that educational assessments are frequently based on informal observations, teacher opinions, and family interviews rather than comprehensive language-specific assessment procedures. This finding is consistent with ¹⁷ who reported that GRC personnel rely heavily on informal assessment methods in the assessment of children with communication difficulties. However, the international literature emphasizes that accurate identification of SLDs requires multidimensional and evidence-based assessment practices supported by standardized and culturally responsive tools.^4,7,18

Although several valid and reliable Turkish assessment tools, such as TELD-3-TR, ¹⁹ the Ankara Articulation Test, ²⁰ and the Turkish Speech Sound Assessment tools, ²¹ are available, participants emphasized that these instruments are not always used systematically in GRC settings. The findings suggest that the lack of comprehensive assessment batteries covering different components of speech and language may complicate educational assessment processes, particularly in cases involving comorbid developmental conditions. As a result, assessment procedures may become heavily dependent on subjective interpretation and short-term observation, which may reduce the consistency and reliability of educational assessment and identification decisions.

Another important finding concerns the inadequacy of multidisciplinary collaboration during educational assessment, identification, and follow-up processes. Participants reported difficulties in communication and coordination among GRC personnel, schools, healthcare institutions, and families. Similar findings have been reported in previous studies, which emphasized that insufficient institutional coordination negatively affects the continuity and effectiveness of educational assessment and identification services in Türkiye.^16,22 Participants in the present study similarly described communication among institutions as fragmented and inconsistent. Referral procedures were perceived as unclear, feedback from schools was limited, and follow-up and monitoring processes were often insufficient. These findings suggest that strengthening institutional collaboration and establishing clearer referral and follow-up procedures may significantly enhance the effectiveness of educational assessment practices within GRCs. In addition, previous research has suggested that challenges may arise when clinical diagnoses are translated into educational decisions and services within the GRC system. Such challenges may affect professional decision-making processes and contribute to inconsistencies across institutions. ²³

The present findings should also be interpreted in light of contemporary international discussions regarding the assessment and diagnosis of developmental language disorder (DLD). Current consensus statements, including the CATALISE recommendations, emphasize that DLD can be identified on the basis of persistent language difficulties that affect everyday functioning and that a cognitive discrepancy between language and nonverbal abilities is no longer required for diagnosis. ⁷ Consequently, psychological or cognitive assessment is not considered a mandatory component of DLD diagnosis in all cases. SLTs possess the professional expertise necessary to independently assess and diagnose many SLDs, including DLD, speech sound disorders, and fluency disorders, using evidence-based assessment procedures. However, multidisciplinary collaboration may be particularly valuable when children present with co-occurring developmental, behavioral, educational, or medical conditions that require broader assessment and intervention planning. Therefore, the findings of the present study should not be interpreted as suggesting that all children with SLDs require extensive multidisciplinary assessment; rather, they highlight the importance of ensuring access to speech-language expertise within educational assessment systems and promoting interprofessional collaboration when clinically or educationally indicated. The present findings should also be interpreted within the context of the Turkish special education system. Although contemporary international frameworks emphasize that SLTs possess the expertise necessary to independently assess and diagnose many SLDs, including DLD, access to publicly funded special education and rehabilitation services in Türkiye generally requires medical documentation obtained through the healthcare system. Therefore, effective coordination between healthcare institutions and GRCs is essential for ensuring continuity between clinical diagnosis, educational assessment, educational identification, and service provision. Previous research has further suggested that challenges may arise when clinical diagnoses are translated into educational decisions and services within the GRC system, potentially affecting professional decision-making processes and contributing to inconsistencies across institutions.^11,23,24 Given the central role of both healthcare institutions and GRCs in service provision, effective collaboration and coordination between these systems are critical for maintaining the continuity of assessment, educational identification, educational placement, and support services.

The findings also reveal substantial concerns regarding professional competence in the assessment of SLDs. Many participants stated that they experienced difficulties in differentiating SLDs from other developmental conditions, interpreting language-related behaviors, and conducting detailed communication assessments. These findings support previous studies suggesting that GRC personnel may have limited field-specific training related to SLDs.^15,16

Participants particularly emphasized the absence of SLTs within GRCs as a major limitation affecting the quality of educational assessment and identification processes. In the current system, educational assessments are generally conducted by special education teachers, counselors, psychologists, and other professionals who may not possess specialized expertise in speech and language assessment. Consequently, participants reported uncertainty when assessing articulation difficulties, expressive language problems, fluency disorders, and communication-related characteristics in children with complex developmental profiles. Similar concerns have been highlighted in international studies emphasizing the importance of SLTs in multidisciplinary assessment teams. ²⁵

The findings also highlight important structural characteristics of the Turkish educational assessment system. Within GRCs, educational decisions regarding special education eligibility are generally made based on educational assessment, teacher reports, family interviews, observational findings, and existing medical documentation obtained from external healthcare institutions. Since SLTs are not routinely employed within GRC teams, detailed speech and language-specific clinical assessments may not always be conducted during the educational assessment process. Consequently, participants frequently described uncertainty regarding assessment procedures and communication-specific assessment practices, particularly in complex cases involving overlapping developmental characteristics.

While several findings of the present study are consistent with previous international research emphasizing the importance of family involvement, teacher–parent collaboration, and early identification of SLDs,^26,27 the study also provides insights that extend beyond existing knowledge. In particular, participants highlighted the limited use of standardized speech and language assessment tools within educational assessment processes. This finding contrasts with recommendations in the international literature, which emphasize the routine use of standardized and evidence-based assessment procedures to support accurate identification and intervention planning.^4,28 Furthermore, the findings draw attention to the challenges associated with identifying and supporting children with SLDs within educational systems where SLTs are not routinely integrated into assessment teams. Consistent with previous studies conducted in Türkiye,^14,15 participants reported inconsistencies in referral procedures, variability in professional knowledge, and the absence of systematic monitoring mechanisms. These findings contribute to the international literature by demonstrating how workforce composition, assessment infrastructure, and institutional organization may influence the quality and consistency of educational decision-making for children with SLDs.

Overall, the findings suggest that although GRCs play a critical role in the educational assessment and placement of children with SLDs in Türkiye, important structural and professional challenges continue to affect service quality. Beyond confirming challenges reported in previous studies, the present findings provide new insights into how the absence of specialized speech-language expertise, limited use of standardized assessment tools, fragmented referral systems, and inadequate monitoring mechanisms influence educational assessment practices within GRCs. These findings contribute to the international literature by illustrating the challenges associated with SLD identification in educational systems where SLTs are not routinely integrated into assessment teams.

Implications for Practice and Policy

The findings of this study have several implications for educational assessment policy and practice within GRCs. First, the development and systematic implementation of standardized assessment protocols for SLDs may improve consistency and reliability across assessment settings. Such protocols should incorporate evidence-based assessment procedures, clear referral pathways, and guidelines for multidisciplinary decision-making. Second, regular in-service training programs focusing on SLDs may enhance the knowledge and competencies of GRC personnel, particularly regarding speech and language assessment, educational identification, and referral procedures. Third, stronger collaboration mechanisms should be established among GRCs, schools, healthcare institutions, and families to facilitate information sharing and continuity of support services. The development of structured monitoring systems may further improve the follow-up of children receiving special education services.

A particularly important implication concerns the inclusion of SLTs within GRC assessment teams. Participants consistently emphasized the need for SLT involvement in educational assessment processes, especially in cases requiring detailed assessment of speech, language, and communication skills. Integrating SLTs into multidisciplinary teams may contribute to more comprehensive assessments, more accurate educational identification, and more individualized educational planning. In addition, future policy initiatives may consider establishing national guidelines for SLD assessment and monitoring procedures to promote greater standardization and equity in service delivery across regions.

Limitations of the Study

Several limitations should be considered when interpreting the findings of this study. First, the study was conducted with professionals working in GRCs within a specific context in Türkiye; therefore, the transferability of the findings to other regions or educational systems may be limited. Second, the findings were based on self-reported experiences and perceptions of participants, which may be influenced by individual perspectives and professional backgrounds. Third, although data saturation was achieved, the study did not include the perspectives of other stakeholders involved in the assessment process, such as SLTs, teachers, healthcare professionals, or families. Future studies incorporating multiple stakeholder groups may provide a more comprehensive understanding of educational assessment practices. Future studies may benefit from pilot testing interview protocols to further strengthen the clarity and consistency of data collection procedures. These limitations should be considered when interpreting the findings and their implications.

Conclusion

This study examined in detail the views of GRC personnel regarding educational assessment and identification processes for individuals with SLDs, identifying both strengths and areas for improvement. The findings reveal that educational assessment and identification practices must be strengthened in four key areas: standardization of assessment tools, institutional collaboration, professional competence, and family participation.

The results particularly highlight the importance of diversifying and expanding assessment tools, reinforcing a multidisciplinary team approach, and ensuring the active involvement of SLTs within GRCs. Furthermore, developing structured programs that facilitate family engagement and provide systematic information could enhance both the quality of educational assessment and identification processes and the applicability of intervention plans.

International evidence shows that models in which SLTs are permanently employed in GRC-like centers, standardized tests are widely used, and family participation is considered an integral part of the process have been successfully implemented. Implementing similar components in Türkiye would not only improve the quality and consistency of educational assessment and identification processes for individuals with SLDs but also contribute to creating a more holistic, sustainable, and inclusive system of special education services.

Ultimately, the findings and recommendations presented here offer a strategic roadmap for policymakers and practitioners alike. Conducting educational assessment and identification processes in GRCs that are scientifically grounded, multidisciplinary, standardized, and family-centered will lead to meaningful improvements in the educational and social development of individuals with SLDs.

ORCID iD

Merve Nur Sariyer Temelli https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9406-9532

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. The data are not publicly available because they contain information that could compromise the privacy of the participants.*