SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

How Speech Pathologists’ Caseloads Impact Employee Effectiveness
in Public Schools

A Doctoral Capstone Project
Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies and Research
Department of Education

In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Education

Amanda N. Thompson-Winnor
California University of Pennsylvania
August 2022

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

© Copyright by
Amanda Thompson Winnor
All Rights Reserved
July 2022

ii

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

iv

Dedication
To my daughters, Bethany and Ashley Winnor, thank you for supporting my professional
growth. As you both embark upon higher education in the coming years, I hope that you
find the same love for learning that I have.

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

v

Acknowledgement
Completing California University of Pennsylvania’s Doctor of Education would
not have happened without the love, support, and encouragement I receive from my
family, friends, and colleagues. I want to begin by thanking my husband, Todd, and my
daughters, Bethany, and Ashley, for continuously pulling more weight to allow me to
focus on my professional growth. A special thank you to my parents for teaching me that
lifelong learning is critical to personal and professional happiness. Your guidance and
support have allowed me to reach my goals over the years. To my friends, who supported
me by encouraging me and understanding my late arrivals and early exits as I juggled life
with the addition of coursework. A special thank you to Dr. Mary Wolf, Faculty
Capstone Committee Advisor, who encouraged me throughout the process. My gratitude
for your guidance, wisdom, feedback, and encouragement to persevere is beyond words.
Thank you to Dr. Jason Conway for your continued support, feedback, and guidance
throughout the process. I am so appreciative of the environment you created at the
Westmoreland Intermediate Unit where professional growth is prioritized and fostered for
all employees. A special thank you to Mr. David Hull. I am exceptionally grateful for
your support with the statistical analysis and the time you spent reviewing the results with
me to ensure my understanding. To my writing expert, Dr. Rebecca McGee, thank you
for volunteering your time to review my capstone and providing me with feedback and
suggestions for improvement. Your assistance was truly valued. Finally, I will forever be
grateful for the support I have received from the Itinerant Service Team at the
Westmoreland Intermediate Unit. I am so blessed to work with such amazing
professionals. I could not have completed this process without each and every one of you.

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

vi

Table of Contents
Dedication

iv

Acknowledgement

v

List of Tables

x

List of Figures

xi

Abstract

xii

Chapter I. Introduction

1

Background of the Study

1

Identification of Capstone Focus

2

Research Questions

3

Expected Outcomes

3

Fiscal Implications

3

Summary

4

Chapter II. Literature Review
Speech Language Pathologist Roles and Responsibilities

5
5

Overview of Roles and Responsibilities

6

Education Reform and Legal Mandates

9

Expanded Scope of Practice

12

Required vs. Recommended Practices of SLPs in Schools
Required Practices for SLPs In Schools

14
15

Service Delivery

15

Documentation of Compliance and Reimbursement

17

Recommended Practices for SLPs in Schools

18

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

vii

Interprofessional Practice

19

Professional Development

21

Speech and Language Trends in Schools

22

School Based Speech Language Pathologist Job Satisfaction

24

Workload vs. Caseload Models

28

Special Education Leadership and Administration

31

Summary

34

Chapter III Methodology

35

Purpose

36

Setting

37

Participants

39

Intervention & Research Plan

41

Research Design, Methods & Data Collection

42

Validity

51

Summary

55

Chapter 4. Data Analysis and Results
Data Analysis

55
56

Participants

56

Data Analyses Procedure

57

Results

61
Research Question 1

61

Research Question 2

64

Direct Instruction

65

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

viii

Correlation: Caseload and Direct Instruction

66

Compliance

66

Correlation: Caseload and Compliance

68

Research Question 3

68

Interprofessional Practice

69

Correlation: Caseload and Time Spent/ Perception IPP

70

Professional Development

71

Correlation: Caseload and Time Spent/Perception PD

72

Discussion

73

Summary

77

Chapter 5 Conclusion and Recommendations
Conclusion

78
79

Research Question 1

79

Research Question 2

82

Research Question 3

85

Overview of Results

89

Limitations

91

Recommendations for Future Research

92

Summary

95

References

97

APPENDIX A. ASHA Weekly Workload Calculator

105

APPENDIX B. Caseload Reporting Form

109

APPENDIX C. Email Authorization from ASHA

110

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

ix

APPENDIX D. Job Effectiveness Perception Survey

111

APPENDIX E. IRB Approval

121

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

x

List of Tables
Table 1. Correlation: Caseload and Mean Perception of Effectiveness

62

Table 2. Correlation: Workload and Mean Perception of Effectiveness

63

Table 3. Correlation: Caseload and Direct Instruction

65

Table 4. Correlation: Caseload and Mean Perception of Direct Instruction

66

Table 5. Correlation: Caseload and Compliance Time

67

Table 6. Correlation: Caseload and Mean Effectiveness Perception of Compliance 67
Table 7. Correlation: Caseload and IPP Time

69

Table 8. Correlation: Caseload and Mean Effectiveness Perception of IPP

70

Table 9. Correlation: Caseload and Professional Development Time

71

Table 10. Correlation: Caseload and Mean Effectiveness Perception PD

72

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

xi

List of Figures
Figure 1. SLP Job Effectiveness Perception Survey: List of Statements

45

Figure 2. Participants Caseload Average

58

Figure 3. Survey Questions Associated with Assessed Domains

59

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

xii

Abstract
Speech-Language Pathologists (SLPs) working in schools report struggling to provide
high-quality support and services to their students, given their workload and the limited
time available during the school day. School administrators, in turn, are challenged to
assign caseloads to professionals that ensure students receive the support and services
required to obtain a meaningful educational benefit in a fiscally responsible manner. The
design of this action research attempts to understand the impact of caseload numbers and
workload on the practices and professionals to guide school administrators. This research
study focused on school-based speech-language pathologists employed in Westmoreland
County, Pennsylvania, public schools. Participants collected caseload data and workload
data during designated periods over six months. Participants also completed a survey that
analyzed their perceptions of their effectiveness related to specific job responsibilities. To
determine which model, a caseload, or a workload model, more accurately predicted a
speech-language pathologist's perceived effectiveness, workload data, caseload data, and
survey results were compared and analyzed. Data analysis also addressed caseload
numbers' impact on specific required and recommended job responsibilities. Findings
indicate a lack of relationship between caseload and workload compared to speechlanguage pathologist perceptions of job effectiveness. A relationship was also not found
when comparing caseload with the required direct instruction or compliance practices.
However, a statistically significant negative correlation was found when comparing
caseload and the recommended interprofessional practices and professional development
practices.

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

1

CHAPTER I
Introduction
Background of the Study
The researcher has served as the Westmoreland Intermediate Unit's (WIU)
itinerant services supervisor for nine years. Before this administrative position the
researcher served as a speech-language pathologist in public education for eleven years.
During this time the researcher witnessed the roles and responsibilities of school-based
speech-language pathologists (SLP) increase due to expansion of the scope of practice,
changes in the student population, and changes in the legal mandates and case law that
guide public education. Historically, educational administrators have relied on caseload
maximums established in the Pennsylvania School Code to manage the workload of a
school-based speech-language pathologist.
As the WIU's itinerant services supervisor and a speech-language pathologist, the
researcher understands the challenges SLPs in school-based settings face as they attempt
to provide high-quality supports and services to students. As an administrator, the
researcher also identifies the need for district's special education directors to deliver costeffective services to meet the needs of all students. The caseload model employed by
many states, including Pennsylvania, does not allow administrators to effectively analyze
the workload placed on each SLP but instead uses student enrollment as the only form of
data collection to determine workload. Pennsylvania limits the caseload of the speechlanguage pathologist to 65 students (Public School Code, 1949). The American SpeechLanguage and Hearing Association; however, advocates for school districts to consider
using a workload model rather than a caseload model to enhance the quality of

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

instruction for students and facilitate the student's ability to make meaningful progress.
Limited data or guidance currently exists to provide administrators with evidence that a
workload model is more effective and results in improved instructional effectiveness.
Identification of Capstone Focus
Speech-Language Pathologists in school-based settings are required to provide
high-quality supports and services to students while complying with the increase
demands of education. This capstone research project will focus specifically on speech
language pathologists; however, the implications for the research findings could be
applicable to all itinerant service providers in the school setting. District special
education directors and administrators are required to provide cost-effective services to
meet the needs of all students. This frequently leads to speech language pathologists
providing supports and services to students that near the established caseload maximum
of 65 (Public School Code, 1949). SLPs are reporting being overwhelmed by their
workloads which could negatively impact the effectiveness of their instruction.
The caseload model employed by the Intermediate Unit and school districts in
Westmoreland County does not provide administrators with the ability to effectively
analyze the workload placed on each SLP but rather uses student enrollment as the only
form of data collection to determine workload. This capstone project is designed to
understand the relationship that caseload numbers and workload may have on the
employees’ practices and their perceptions of their job effectiveness.

2

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

3

Research Questions
The following questions will examine the impact of speech language caseloads and
workloads in public schools:
1. What are school Speech Language Pathologists’ perceptions of their job
effectiveness in relation to their caseload vs. workload?
2. How does a Speech Language Pathologist’s caseload impact the employees’
amount of time spent engaging in required job responsibilities, specifically direct
instruction and compliance related job functions?
3. How does a Speech Language Pathologist’s caseload impact the employees’
ability to complete recommended job responsibilities, specifically
interprofessional practice and professional development?
Expected Outcomes
Special education administrators are tasked with operating programs that provide
effective instruction, address each student’s individual needs, and ensure meaningful
educational benefit. Administrators must do this in the most cost-effective manner as the
cost of special education continues to rise. The results of this study will provide special
education administrators with guidance on the most effective way to manage speechlanguage pathologists’ caseloads and workloads to maximize productivity while ensuring
that students receive effective instruction to meet their needs and foster growth.
Fiscal Implications
The fiscal implications of this capstone research project primarily consist of the
associated cost of salaries and benefits for the participants as it corresponds to the time
required to complete the weekly workload analysis and perceptions survey. Each

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

4

participant will be asked to complete the American Speech Language Hearing
Association’s Weekly Workload Calculator for six designated weeks during the school
year. The daily collection and recording process will require approximately one hour per
data collection week of each participant’s time. Each participant will also be asked to
complete an online survey in Google Forms, which will take 5-10 minutes in March of
2022. Given that participants are employed or assigned to the seventeen school districts
in Westmoreland County the cost of participation will be dispersed across the districts
that volunteer. The research will utilize the American Speech-Language Hearing
Association’s free online weekly workload calculator to collect data as well as Google
Forms and AdobeSign. These data collection tools will be used at no additional cost to
the Intermediate Unit or districts. All costs associated with the capstone project are
indirect and the overall financial impact for an individual school district will be minimal.
Summary
Chapter I introduced why studying workload and caseload models of management
are important for SLP and special education directors to ensure students receive effective
instruction. Chapter II will provide a literature review to develop a comprehensive
understanding of research currently available to guide practice. Chapter III will explain
the methodology used to investigate and research the caseload, workload, and the impact
on instructional effectiveness. Data analysis and results will be presented in Chapter IV.
Chapter V will summarize the final conclusions, the impact on current practices and
recommendations for future research.

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

5

CHAPTER II
Literature Review
Over the last fifty years the scope of practice for school-based speech-language
pathologists (SLPs) have expanded in response to evidence-based research, educational
reform, and legal mandates. As speech-language pathologists’ roles and responsibilities
increase SLPs must prioritize responsibilities to ensure students receive appropriate
instruction that results in meaningful educational benefit. In addition, trends within the
field indicate an increased need for speech-language pathologists in school-based settings
and rising vacancies. As a result district administrators are challenged to recruit, retain
speech-language pathologists, and manage their workload. Historically, many states used
caseload guidelines to set workload expectations; however, in recent years, the American
Speech-Language Hearing Association (ASHA) has advocated for workload analysis to
be implemented. Administrators need to adopt appropriate models that will monitor and
analyze the workload expectation that results in effective caseload management and
retain SLPs in schools to ensure student success.
Speech Language Pathologist Roles and Responsibilities in Schools
The American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) is the national
professional organization responsible for research in the field and accreditation. ASHA's
mission is, "Empowering and supporting audiologist, speech-language pathologist and
speech-language and hearing scientists through advancing science, setting standards,
fostering excellence in professional practice and advocation for members and those they
serve" (American Speech-Language-Hearing Association [ASHA], n.d.-e). ASHA was
founded in 1925 by members of the National Association of Teachers of Speech to

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

6

advance scientific research. Over the last 94 years the profession of speech language
pathology has expanded significantly to include over 218,000 members and affiliates who
have a broad scope of practice that serves individuals from birth to death in various
settings (ASHA, n.d.-f) As the leading professional organization, ASHA develops Ad
Hoc Committees responsible for setting policy statements known as professional issue
statements.
Overview of Roles and Responsibilities
ASHA (2010) revised previous guidance due to expanding practices of speechlanguage pathologists in schools. The Roles and Responsibilities of Speech-Language
Pathologist in Schools was authorized by ASHA's board of directors to "promote
efficient and effective outcomes for students" (ASHA, 2010). ASHA's guidance for
school-based SLPs focuses on critical roles, ranges of responsibilities, collaboration, and
leadership. Each area provides updated guidance for school based SLPs from the
previous professional issue statement approved by ASHA's board of directors in March
1999 (ASHA, 1999). By comparing the guidance provided to school-based SLPs in 1999
with the current professional issue statement, one can quickly identify the expansion of
roles and responsibilities for school-based SLPs. Guidance for school based SLPs
outlines six critical roles: working across all levels, serving a range of disorders, ensuring
educational relevance, providing unique contributions to curriculum, highlighting
language and literacy, and providing culturally competent services (ASHA, 2010). The
1999 professional issue statement addressed critical roles; however, language
development's impact on literacy and academic success was discussed as a component of
language disorders (ASHA, 1999). ASHA shifted the focus of its guidance in the 2010

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

7

professional issue statement, in which ASHA elevated literacy to a critical role (ASHA,
2010) rather than a component of the scope of language intervention (ASHA, 1999).
The ASHA (2010) professional issue statement also outlined the responsibilities
of a speech-language pathologist in schools that continued to align with the 1999
guidance regarding assessment, intervention, program design, data collection, and
compliance. The 2010 guidance also highlighted changes regarding the school-based SLP
responsibilities. For example, the SLP has a more significant commitment to preventing
students from failing academically (ASHA, 2010). In the 1999 professional issue
statement the SLP's role regarding prevention was limited to training others through inserving and conferencing (ASHA, 1999). The 2010 professional issue statement
expanded the scope of speech language pathologists to be integral members of district
initiatives focused on preventing students from failing by employing evidence-based
practices, including Response to Intervention (ASHA, 2010). Although tier one level of
support may look like the responsibilities outlined in 1999, the speech-language
pathologist's role in the 2010 guidance includes providing direct intervention services to
students not eligible for special education through early intervening services (ASHA,
1999; ASHA, 2010).
Another critical responsibility ASHA outlined professional issue statement for
school-based speech-language pathologists emphasized the need for collaboration
(ASHA, 2010). With the educational shift to supporting eligible students in the least
restrictive environment, the speech-language pathologists collaborate with more general
education professionals as an integral part of the Individualized Education Program (IEP)
team. Although the need to collaborate to support students with special needs has

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

8

remained consistent over the last twenty-five years, special education has experienced a
shift regarding the location of services due to the educational benefits student’s
experience being educated in the least restrictive environment with their typical peers
(Williamson et. al., 2019). As IEP teams grow and diversify SLP must ensure effective
collaboration with a greater number of individuals to effectively use evidence-based
instruction and interventions that meet the needs of students and foster meaningful
educational benefit.
To further outline the roles and responsibilities of the speech-language
pathologist, ASHA also highlights the need for lifelong learning in the professional issue
statement (ASHA, 2010). As an accrediting organization, the American SpeechLanguage-Hearing Association requires speech-language pathologists to obtain 30
certification maintenance hours or 3.0 ASHA CEUs to maintain certification over a threeyear interval (ASHA, n.d.-g). The focus on mandatory professional development
emphasizes the need to continually expand knowledge of research and ensure
understanding of changes in the field to enhance individual practices and facilitate
evidence-based instruction and interventions for students.
The American Speech-Language-Hearing Association continues to focus on
research and evidence-based practices to guide speech-language pathologists,
audiologists, and hearing and speech scientists through the published professional issue
statements and serve as serving as the national professional organization responsible for
research in the field and accreditation. In addition to aligning with research in speechlanguage pathology, ASHA's professional position statements are also founded in the
legal mandates and influenced by educational reform. Therefore, to understand the roles

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

9

and responsibilities of a speech-language pathologist, one must understand the impact of
educational reform over the last fifty years and the effects of case law and legal
mandates.
Education Reform and Legal Mandates
As the United States approached the 21st century, researchers and educators
identified a growing concern that public schools were not adequately preparing our
students for postsecondary education or employment. The United States was falling
behind other developed countries with regards to students being ready for the workforce
(United States Department of Education, 1994). Bill Clinton signed The Goals 2000:
Educate America Act (1994) that set standards for public education to meet by the year
2000. Goals of the Educate America Act were not all achieved by the 2000 deadline;
however, the act was the foundation for revisions to the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (2015). The enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act (2001) focused on
closing the achievement gaps and significantly increasing accountability at the state and
local levels. No Child Left Behind Act placed pressure on schools to ensure that all
students succeeded by requiring standardized assessments as an accountability measure.
President Obama signed Every Student Succeeds Act (2015) to also focus on closing the
achievement gap for disadvantaged or high-need students. It also continued to require
accountability at the state and local levels. Every Student Succeeds Act (2015) drives
practices in education at the local building, local district, and state level, with data related
to accountability reported to the federal government annually to monitor progress. The
roles and responsibilities of speech-language pathologists in schools, as outlined in
ASHA’s 2010 professional issue statement, align with federal regulations of Every

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

10

Student Succeeds Act and support SLPs ability to be an integral part of the educational
team focused on student success (ASHA, 2010).
To further understand the roles and responsibilities of speech-language
pathologists in schools, the impact of special education case law and federal legislation
needs to be considered. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Brown vs. Board of Education
(1954) which found that racial segregation in school is unconstitutional. Although this
court case did not specifically target students who received special education, it did
abolish the practice of segregated schools and the belief that separate but equal schools
were constitutional. Brown vs. the Board of Education laid the groundwork for the
Supreme Court ruling in PARC vs. the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (1971). The
Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children (PARC) brought suit against the state,
claiming that state laws supported school districts’ ability to classify students as
“uneducable" and "untrainable.” The ability for school districts to make this
determination resulted in denying students with significant needs access to education. All
parties agreed to a consent decree that requires the states to provide all students with
mental disabilities (intellectual disabilities) a publicly funded education (PARC vs. the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 1971). Two years later the federal government
authorized Section 504, Rehabilitation Act (1973) as civil rights legislation protecting
individuals with disabilities by prohibiting all organizations, including schools, who
receive federal funding from discriminating against individuals with disabilities. Section
504 required schools to provide medically necessary services to students to access their
education, including the requirement to provide related aids and services such as speechlanguage therapy (Rehabilitation Act, 1973).

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

11

PARC vs. the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania was a driving force for the
Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (P.L. 94-142) which mandated that
schools provide a free and appropriate public education for students in the least restrictive
environment. P.L. 94-142 had a significant ramification on general education, specifically
special education. Not only were schools required to provide free public education, but
they were now also mandated to ensure that students' education appropriately met their
educational needs. P.L. 94-142 also required that students’ education be provided in the
least restrictive environment, highlighting the benefits of students being educated with
their typical peers (Education for All Handicapped Children Act, 1975). The requirement
for school districts to provide a continuum of supports and services in various educational
environments drastically impacted the practice of busing students with special needs to
special schools or classrooms. The focus shifted to educating students with special needs
through inclusive practices. P.L. 94-172 was reauthorized as the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act – IDEA (1997) and again Individuals with Disabilities
Education Improvement Act IDEIA (2004), which further mandates special education.
Critical factors of IDEA and IDEIA that guide the roles and responsibilities of
speech-language pathologists in schools include a focus on participation in the general
education curriculum, requirements to provide supplementary aids and services in general
education classroom, a focus on preparing for a student to transition to postsecondary
education or the workforce, and the provision that special education could spend up to
15% of their funds on early intervening services (ASHA, 2010). These changes were
pivotal to the field of speech-language pathology. ASHA’s professional issue statement

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

12

provides guidance for speech-language practice based on research and legislation
(ASHA, 2010).
When American Speech Hearing Association (ASHA) was founded in 1947, the
role of school-based speech-language pathologists primarily focused on articulation,
voice, and fluency disorders. Over the next thirty years, the focus on research prompted
the organization to expand its scope of practice. As a result, ASHA rebranded the
organization as the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) in 1978
(ASHA, n.d.-f) due to the speech-language pathologist's role in diagnosing and providing
interventions for language disorders. Since that time the professional practice has
continued to expand for speech-language pathologists in school-based settings. ASHA's
2010 professional issue statement notes that the field has experienced significant growth
in multiple practice areas since the 2000 guidelines were published. These topics include:
“augmentative/alternative communication, autism, cochlear implants, and traumatic brain
injuries" (ASHA, 2010). The expansion of the scope of practice resulted from many
factors, including the changes discussed related to education reform and changing student
populations.
Expanding Scope of Practice
Over the last 30 years, schools have experienced an increase in the number of
medically fragile students that they educate (American Federation of Teachers, 2009).
The increase, in part, is due to the advancements in the medical field. The Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (n.d.) reported one out of ten infants born was premature.
The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (n.d.) also reports that children born
before 37 weeks of gestation frequently experience "breathing problems, feeding

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

13

difficulties, cerebral palsy, developmental delays, vision problems and hearing
problems." Schools are responsible for providing an education to students with complex
needs in the least restrictive environment, which results in an increasing demand for
health-related service providers, including speech language pathologists. The Supreme
Court ruled in the Irving Independent School District v. Tatro (1984) suit clarifying that
schools were responsible for providing medical services as related services to meet
students' needs and support their ability to access their education. Speech-language
pathologists' roles and responsibilities in schools expanded accordingly to address
feeding and swallowing, which was traditionally the medical SLP's role. Instruction
frequently requires increased time for direct instruction and team collaboration, given the
needs of medically fragile students.
In addition to expanding the speech-language pathologist roles and
responsibilities related to servicing medically fragile students, the field has also
experienced an increased demand for the speech-language pathologist to engage in
district initiatives focused on providing early intervening services. Specifically, SLPs
have increased responsibility to support literacy as curriculum consultants and offer
direct services to at-risk students through Response to Intervention (RTI). In addition,
with the implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, a school district had
new requirements and accountability measures to increase academic achievement for all
students, focusing on implementing evidence-based instructional strategies and closing
the achievement gaps. Further the reauthorization of IDEA (2004) granted school districts
the ability to use special education funding to support at risk students. These legislative

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

14

changes in the field directly impacted the expanded roles and responsibilities of schoolbased speech-language pathologists.
As the leading accreditation and research association in the United States, the
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association guides the practices of speechlanguage pathologists. Over the last twenty years research in the field and changing
legislation have expanded the scope of practice of speech-language pathologists. As a
result, speech-language pathologists continue to prioritize their roles and responsibilities
to meet the needs of those they serve. Amir et al. (2021) found that 1/3 of speechlanguage pathologists surveyed reported that they felt they could not sufficiently meet
students' needs. To understand the impact on the profession one must better understand
the difference between required and recommended responsibilities.
Required vs. Recommended Practices for SLPs in Schools
Work-related tasks fall into two groups when analyzing the roles and
responsibilities of a speech-language pathologist in schools: required and recommended
practices. Required practices are job responsibilities where speech-language pathologists
are held accountable through legal mandates. The target of this research will focus on two
specific areas: service delivery and compliance. Recommended practices are the
professional responsibilities that research suggests are needed to provide high-quality
supports and services to students but lack the same level of accountability as required
practices. In addition to the required practices, interprofessional practices and
professional development will be targeted. Although professional certifications and
licensure do require a certain amount of professional development, speech-language
pathologists typically engage in these activities outside the workday due to the workload.

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

15

Therefore, to fully understand the roles and responsibilities of a speech-language
pathologist in schools, both required and recommended practices must be considered.
Required Practices for SLPs in Schools
Service Delivery. Speech and language intervention in the school can be provided
using a variety of service delivery models. Individualized Education Program (IEP) teams
are required to analyze the needs of each student and determine the most appropriate
service delivery option. For example, supports and services could be provided through
direct instruction or a consultative model. Instruction also varies based on if the student
requires individual intervention or group intervention. The location of service, the
frequency, and the duration of service also vary for individual students. The Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (1990) mandates that all students with disabilities receive
a free and appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment with
supplemental aids and services, if needed. To ensure that each student's educational needs
are met, IEP teams must select the most appropriate service delivery model.
Both federal and state laws dictate that service delivery be based on students'
needs; however, other factors are also found to influence the selected service delivery
model. For example, research analyzing speech and language data found that the size of a
caseload has a significant impact on the recommended service delivery models for
students (Amir et al., 2021; Brandel and Frome Loeb, 2011; Hutchins et al., 2016, Katz et
al., 2010). Brandel and Frome Loeb (2011) surveyed approximately 2000 speechlanguage pathologists in school-based settings to analyze the factors considered when
recommending a service delivery model. The findings indicated that although speechlanguage pathologists' beliefs align with Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

16

the need to develop individual education programs, analysis of caseloads revealed limited
variabilities in service delivery models regardless of the student's disability or needs
(Brandel and Frome Loeb, 2011). Further, the National Outcomes Measurement System
(NOMS) was developed by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association to
collect data, including service delivery information. In 2007, NOMS data indicated that
90% of students receiving speech and language supports and services received group
pull-out services (Mullen & Schooling, 2010). In addition, when analyzing group vs.
individual intervention, Brandel and Frome Loeb (2011) found that the greater the
speech-language pathologist caseload, the less likely the student would receive services
multiple times a week. Therefore, the prevalence of speech-language pathologists
employing pull-out group intervention could impact the effectiveness of instruction given
that outside factors beyond student need may be driving service delivery decisions.
Tambryraja et al. (2015) analyzed the stability of language development that
students experienced, comparing pull-out therapy sessions to in-classroom instruction.
The findings indicated that classroom instruction resulted in more remarkable student
improvement when compared to pull-out speech and language sessions and that the
frequency of pull-out speech and language sessions had minimal impact on progress
(Tambryraja et al., 2015). Although research indicates that pull out group services do not
facilitate the same results as in classroom instruction, speech language pathologists
continue to employ pull out services as the primary service delivery model. Caseload
affects a speech-language pathologist's ability to recommend and implement various
student-specific service delivery models. Hutchins et al. (2016) surveyed school-based
speech-language pathologists and found that only 16% of participants felt they could

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

17

provide optimal service delivery. Current practices appear to conflict with the American
Speech-Language and Hearing Association's professional issue statement outlining the
need for school-based SLPs to diversify service delivery options to meet the needs of
students (ASHA, 2010).
Documentation of Compliance and Reimbursement. In ASHA's professional
issue statement, policy related to compliance outlines the requirement for SLPs to adhere
to federal and state mandates, including documentation that supports the IEP process and
Medicaid billing (ASHA, 2010). Amir et al. (2021) found that 15% of all speechlanguage pathologists indicated they were concerned with the increase in paperwork and
third-party billing required to comply with federal, state, and local expectations. For
speech-language pathologists to maintain legally defensible records they must ensure
records document child find efforts, including screening and student data reviews.
Speech-language pathologists also serve a unique role as the teacher of record or a related
service. In addition to supporting the IEP process as a team member, a speech-language
pathologist serves as the case manager for students with a primary disability of speechlanguage impairment. As case manager, the speech-language pathologist is responsible
for ensuring compliance related to assessments and eligibility, development and
implementation of the IEP process, and progress monitoring. Given that speech-language
pathology is also considered a medically related service, speech-language pathologists
must also maintain and submit documentation to school-based medical access so that the
school district can receive federal reimbursement for speech-language support services.
Maintaining compliance with Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and state
special education regulations requires a speech-language pathologist to prioritize the need

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

18

to maintain accurate and efficient documentation and required practice that impacts SLPs
workload in the schools.
Recommended Practices for SLPs in Schools
In addition to required practices, multiple practices are recommended to facilitate
high-quality instruction that results in educational benefit for students. These practices
are not mandated to be completed during the school day. Still, they are found in the
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association professional issue statement outlining
the roles and responsibilities of a speech-language pathologist in schools. Two practices
outlined, interprofessional collaboration and professional development, both enhance the
effectiveness of instruction and are founded in evidence-based research. The speechlanguage pathologist may assign them less priority because there are minimal
accountability measures in place. For example, as a student's individualized educational
program team member, a speech-language pathologist must participate in the student’s
annual team meeting where required members are present. However, this annual meeting
does not facilitate the level of collaboration necessary to meet the needs of students and
maximize educational benefit effectively.
Similarly, the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association and state
education departments mandate that speech-language pathologists maintain a determined
number of continuing education hours; however, speech-language pathologists are
challenged to find time during the workday for professional development without
impacting their direct instruction for students. This often forces speech-language
pathologists to complete required continuing education outside of their typical workday.
Although interprofessional collaboration and professional development do not have the

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

19

same accountability as responsibilities legally mandated by state and federal law, speechlanguage pathologists can better serve their students, families, and colleagues when they
can engage in these practices.
Interprofessional Practice. The American Speech-Language-Hearing
Association's Envision the Future: 2025 statement highlights the worldwide crossorganization focus on increasing collaboration across professions through "developed
relationships and systems to enhance the interchange of professional knowledge, research
and education" (ASHA, 2021). ASHA advocates for all speech-language pathologists to
engage in Interprofessional Practices (IPP), which requires professionals with diverse
expertise to work together to assess students' abilities and needs and develop and
implement an individualized education program in schools. The focus is on establishing
student outcomes by sharing each professional's expertise in a manner that increases the
knowledge of the whole team and supports continuous collaboration with regards to
setting goals and problem-solving ways to overcome challenges faced when achieving
the established goals (Giess & Serianni, 2018). School-based SLPs are mandated to
engage in collaborative practices as part of the Individual Education Program team under
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (2004); however, collaboration models
vary from district to district or school to school. Bruce and Bashinski (2017) completed a
literature and research review to analyze strategies that enhance collaborative practices.
They found that interprofessional collaborative rules require the team to focus on the
characteristics of the learner. At the same time the professional with the most expertise in
the area leads the educational team to address an area of programming (Bruce &
Bashinski, 2017). Although research highlights the importance of professionals

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

20

collaborating in schools to support special education, many factors restrict a school-based
speech-language pathologist's ability to engage in collaboration. Pfeiffer et al. (2017)
examined factors that predicted speech-language pathologists engagement in IPP by
surveying 474 school-based speech language pathologists. The research found that only
8% of SLPs engaged in IPP during an initial evaluation and 14% during interventions.
The barriers that they identified included "time constraints/scheduling, resistance from
other professionals and lack of support from employers/administration" (Pfeiffer et al.,
2019). Speech language pathologist are tasked to prioritize responsibilities daily to best
meet the needs of students; however, outside factors may prohibit the ability to align
practice with those outlined by ASHA’s professional guidance (ASHA, 2010).
ASHA's professional issue statement also outlines the speech-language
pathologist's role in response to intervention or multiple tier support systems where
interprofessional collaborative practices are critical. School-based speech-language
pathologists, however, continue to have limited involvement in response to intervention
in the schools. A study found when surveying 567 participants that overall speechlanguage pathologists infrequently collaborate with school Multiple Tiered Systems of
Supports initiative (McKenna et al., 2021). Cooper-Duffy and Eaker (2017) found that
speech-language pathologists who engaged in high levels of collaboration with caseloads
of 47 students or more reported that they felt that their caseload was unmanageable.
Other interprofessional collaborative practices that include families prove to increase
student outcomes (Cooper-Duffy & Eaker, 2017), yet one study that surveyed schoolbased speech-language pathologist in Vermont found that only 14 % of professionals
reported having the time to engage families (Hutchins et al., 2016). Although the benefits

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

21

of interprofessional collaborative practices with other professionals and families are
understood within the profession, implementation continues to be a challenge.
Professional Development. Professional development is also a critical role and
responsibility for speech-language pathologists. Given the wide range of roles and
responsibilities, the speech-language pathologist must continue to expand their
knowledge of speech-language disorders and interventions to ensure that they are familiar
with the latest evidence-based research that supports their instruction and promotes
positive outcomes for students. ASHA and state education agencies require continuing
education credits to maintain certification and licensure (ASHA, n.d.-g). Many SLPs
attend workshops and conferences to accrue these mandated hours. Still, they are reported
to struggle to find time during the workday to engage in professional development
specific to student concerns on their caseloads. In a study that surveyed school-based
SLPs in Vermont, findings indicate that only 11.8% of participants reported having time
to "access and review research," and 10% reported having time to consult with experts
(Hutchins et al., 2016). The data indicates that school-based speech-language
pathologists may struggle to find the time necessary to expand their knowledge and
improve their instruction in a school-based setting.
Interprofessional collaborative practices and professional development are vital
roles and responsibilities for speech-language pathologists, specifically those that work in
school-based settings. However, the time that professionals spend engaging in these
recommended practices appears to be less significant than the time spent engaging in
required practices mandated by federal and state legislation and have accountability
measures in place. As the roles and responsibilities continue to expand in the schools,

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

22

speech-language pathologists will be asked to prioritize commitments to ensure that
students are provided the supports and services needed to obtain educational benefit.
Speech and Language Trends in Schools
The American Speech-Language-Hearing Association periodically completes a
schools survey to assess current trends related to speech-language support services. Clear
trends are identified in the field by analyzing data from 2000 through 2020. For example,
over the last 20 years, survey data indicates that the national median caseload for speechlanguage pathologists working in schools has remained consistent, ranging from 47 to 48
students (ASHA, 2018; ASHA, 2020). Caseload size trends continue to vary
significantly from state to state, where the median case size can be as low as 34 students
and as high as 60 students (ASHA, 2020). For example, in the 2020 Schools Survey,
Pennsylvania’s median caseload was 56, whereas just across the state line in New Jersey,
the median caseload size was 34 students. Although caseload sizes have remained
consistent over the last 20 years, the population served has changed. In 2010 80% of
speech-language pathologists reported working with a student with an Autism diagnosis,
and in 2020 the percentage increased to 92%, demonstrating a 12% increase over ten
years (ASHA, 2020). When comparing data from 2004 to 2020 there is also a trend
toward SLPs providing interventions to address pragmatic-related language disorders.
The mean number of students receiving instruction to address social communication in
2004 was 8 (ASHA, 2018) and rose to 12.5 by 2020 (ASHA, 2020). Data also indicates
a decline in the average number of students who receive intervention for speech sound
disorders from 23 in 2004 to 18 in 2018 (ASHA, 2018). There is a possibility that the
decline in students who receive special education for speech sound disorders is a result of

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

23

the reauthorization of Individuals with Disabilities Improvement Act (2004) that afforded
speech-language pathologists the ability to provide early intervening services utilizing a
Response to Intervention model. Data from 2010 to 2018 indicates that 76%-87% of
school-based SLPs participated in some capacity to Response to Intervention (ASHA,
2018). By analyzing the data, clear trends emerge. School-based speech language
pathologist’s student populations are shifting towards students with more complex needs.
There is a decline in the number of students receiving special education services for
speech sound production, and speech language pathologists are experiencing an increased
role in Response to Intervention (ASHA, 2018; ASHA, 2020).
ASHA, as the leading research organization for speech-language and hearing in
the United States, developed the National Outcomes Measurement System (NOMS) to
collect data related to outcomes and service delivery (Mullen & Schooling, 2010). The
last report for K-12 data was in 2010 and provided statistical data related to service
delivery in schools. The report indicated that 69.8% of students receive intervention
sessions twice a week, 74.5% of the sessions ranged from 21-30 minutes in length, and
77.7% -81.7% group instruction with 2-4 students (Mullen &Schooling, 2010). Brandel
and Frome Loeb (2011) found similar results, where 73% of students received
intervention in a group and 74% of the sessions were outside the classroom. To further
analyze trends in service delivery, the ASHA’s school survey data indicates that SLPs
have consistently spent 8-10 hours a week providing pull-out speech-language support
services from 2014-2020 (ASHA, 2018; ASHA, 2020). Brandel and Frome Loeb (2011)
found that SLPs reported the high prevalence of group pull-out instruction was due to
scheduling difficulties and the size of caseloads. They also found that SLPs with

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

24

caseloads of over 80 students were 30.5 times more likely to recommend once-a-week
services. (Brandel and Frome Loeb, 2011). The lack of diversity in intervention brings
into question if current school based SLPs practice related to service delivery aligns with
the expectations set forth by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (2004). The
needs of the student population speech-language pathologist serve are increasing yet
service delivery appears to continue to focus on weekly pull-out services with an evident
lack of individualization with regards to programming.
School Based Speech-Language Pathologist Job Satisfaction
The Bureau of Labor Statistics (2020) reported 158,100 speech language
pathologists in the United States of America, with an anticipated growth of 29% over the
next ten years. The labor report also indicated that most SLPs work in schools where the
median national salary is $71,410. (Bureau of Labor and Statistics, 2020). When
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (2018) surveyed school-based speech
language pathologist, they found that 55.3 % of respondents reported more job openings
than job seekers for elementary speech-language pathology positions. As the field
continues to grow school districts face the challenges of recruiting and retaining speechlanguage pathologists. Research related to job satisfaction must be considered to better
understand these challenges.
One of the most significant factors impacting the job satisfaction of speechlanguage pathologists in schools is the caseload size. The 2020 ASHA's Schools Survey
data reported that 56.5% of speech-language pathologists working in schools indicated
that caseload size was their most significant challenge (ASHA, 2020). Research
exploring the perceptions of speech-language pathologists has consistently found that

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

25

caseload size has a direct correlation on the speech-language pathologist job satisfaction
(Amir et al., 2021; Blood et al., 2002; Edgar & Rosa-Luga, 2007; Katz et al. 2010). Amir
et al. (2021) reported that SLPs with caseloads of 40 or fewer students were significantly
more satisfied with their jobs than those that serve more than 40 students on their
caseload. Katz et al. (2010) found when surveying SLPs that professionals with 36-61
students on their caseloads were increasingly more likely to report that their caseloads
were unmanageable. Although the research indicates that speech-language pathologists
are more satisfied with their jobs when they serve 40 or fewer students, only New Mexico
and Alabama caseload guidance support the lower caseload maximum (ASHA, n.d.-d).
The 48 other states either have no established maximum or have maximums set above the
40-student threshold (ASHA, n.d.-d).
Time limitations and workload are also factors found to impact the job
satisfaction of school-based speech-language pathologists negatively. More than forty
percent of respondents in a Florida study of school based SLPs reported that high
workloads, including responsibilities outside of direct services such as paperwork or
meetings, negatively impact job satisfaction. The findings also noted that greater than
47% of respondents reported spending more than seven hours a week completing
required paperwork (Edgar & Rosa-Luga, 2007). Given that the average school day is
less than eight hours, school-based speech-language pathologists spend approximately
20% of their workweek completing paperwork rather than working directly with students,
staff, or families. Amir and colleagues surveyed school-based SLPs in New York and
found that 93% of respondents reported working overtime weekly to fulfill their job
responsibilities. One-third of the respondents indicated that they worked greater than 5

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

26

hours of overtime weekly (Amir et al., 2021). The wide range of roles and responsibilities
of school-based speech-language pathologists and the limited time available to complete
tasks negatively impact job satisfaction.
The American Speech-Language-Hearing Association clearly outlines the need
for speech-language pathologists to engage in interprofessional collaborative practices. In
addition, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (2004) mandates the need for
speech language pathologist collaboration as a member of an individualized educational
team. When surveying school-based speech-language pathologists in New York, Amir et
al. (2021) found a positive theme indicating that speech-language pathologists who
regularly engage in interprofessional practices reported greater job satisfaction. Blood et
al. (2002); however, found that speech-pathologist in the school-based setting were less
satisfied with their co-workers by 2.1 standard deviations below normative data. Thus,
although research demonstrates a positive impact on job satisfaction when SLPs
collaborate with their co-workers, data indicates that speech-language pathologists may
experience challenges building relationships that facilitate collaboration.
School-based speech-language pathologists indicate that the inability to provide
optimal services to students impacts job satisfaction. Hutchins et al. (2016) reported that
only 16% of the surveyed speech-language pathologist in Vermont schools indicated that
they had time to conduct optimal services for students. High caseloads and workloads for
school-based speech-language pathologists were found to increase the number of group
sessions provided to students (Dowden et al., 2006, Edgar & Rosa-Lugo, 2007; Hutchins
et al., 2016). Regardless of the students’ individual needs and evidence-based
instructional practices, speech-language pathologists frequently make service delivery

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

27

decisions based on workload and time available during the workweek. This practice
directly conflicts with speech-language pathologist ethics. Amir et al. (2021) found that
only one-third of surveyed speech-language pathologists felt that their instruction and
practices met the needs of their students. They also found a negative correlation between
high caseloads and the speech-language pathologists' ability to provide individualized
instruction (Amir et al., 2021). As a result, speech-language pathologists face the ethical
dilemma of selecting service delivery options that are not necessarily driven by student
needs as mandated by federal and state law but instead base education decisions on the
time they have available during the school day.
School administrators must analyze factors impacting job satisfaction. Caseload
size, workload, time limitations, collaboration, and inappropriate service delivery are all
factors that impact job satisfaction a schools continue to experience increased demands
for speech language pathologists and increased vacant positions. To increase job
satisfaction and retention of staff, administrators must analyze how to manage the
workload of speech-language pathologists best to improve the employee's job satisfaction
and ensure that students are receiving effective instruction and achieving meaningful
educational benefit.
Workload vs. Caseload Models
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (1993) recommended a
maximum caseload size of 40 students without considering the service delivery model for
a school-based speech-language pathologist. Many states across the United States
followed suit and adopted caseload maximums for SLPs in schools. In October of 2000,
twenty-one states in the United States clearly defined caseload maximums for school-

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

28

based speech-language pathologists ranging from 30 students to 80 students (Block,
2000). The American Speech-Language and Hearing Association (2002) published a
position statement highlighting the need for speech-language pathologist workload to be
considered rather than caseload. Despite this guidance in 2020, twenty states were
reported by ASHA to continue to use clearly defined caseload maximums in schools to
manage the workload of speech language pathologist (ASHA, 2020). ASHA (2020)
completed the Schools Survey and found that 79% of speech-language pathologists
worked in school-based settings in which the administration uses a caseload approach.
A caseload model accounts for the number of students a speech-language
pathologist supports who have Individualized Education Programs (ASHA, 2002).
Caseload models do not account for the impact of varied student needs, service delivery
models, or students who receive preventative services; therefore, the model creates
discrepancies regarding the workload that speech-language pathologists experience. For
example, a speech-language pathologist with a caseload of 50 students with moderate
speech sounds errors shares a lesser workload than a speech-language pathologist who
supports students with more complex needs. Students who receive articulation therapy to
address speech sound errors frequently receive group instruction one or two times per
week, whereas students with complex needs typically receive more individualized
instruction. A survey of Washington State school-based SLPs found that regardless of
student needs, the larger the speech-language pathologist's caseload, the more likely
students were to receive group therapy (Dowden et al., 2006). These findings support
ASHA's rationale for utilizing a workload model rather than a caseload model to prevent
professionals from making service delivery decisions based on time available rather than

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

29

student needs (ASHA, 2002). Further, a pure caseload model does not account for the
expanded professional practices of school-based speech-language pathologists such as
Response to Intervention, interprofessional collaboration practices, or facilitating literacy
interventions.
A workload model accounts for all activities that speech-language pathologists
engage in to comply with ASHA's guideline for the roles and responsibilities of the
speech-language pathologist and adhere to different district expectations (ASHA, 2002).
A workload model allows SLPs to account for varied service delivery models designed to
support individual students' needs and captures the time spent on indirect service delivery
and compliance-related tasks (Marante & Farquharson, 2021). The workload model
supports SLP's ability to comply with Individuals with Disabilities Act (2004) by putting
the student's needs at the forefront of decision making rather than determining supports
and services based on the time available. IDEA mandates that Individualized Educational
Programs be developed to ensure that students achieve meaningful educational benefits
(IDEA, 2004). School districts have long interpreted "meaningful educational benefit" to
mean that students must make progress even if the progress is minimal. The United States
Supreme Court decision in Endrew F. v. Douglas County (2017) clarified that meaningful
educational benefit requires an Individualized Education Program to be "appropriately
ambitious in light of the circumstances" and "merely more than de minimis." The impact
of this decision places increased accountability on the school district to ensure that
service delivery is based on student need rather than the time a professional has available
to support a student.

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

30

The American Speech-Language-Hearing Association has developed two
workload calculators to support speech-language pathologists' ability to collect, track and
report workload data to district administration. These tools were developed to assist
speech-language pathologists who desired to advocate for the implementation of
workload analysis rather than caseload analysis (ASHA, n.d.-c). The workload
calculators are Excel spreadsheets that require speech-language pathologists to track their
daily activities and report their time on various direct and indirect services. ASHA has a
weekly and monthly calculator available for use (ASHA, n.d.-c). ASHA (2002) position
statement advocates for school districts to implement a workload model, due to high
caseloads resulting in "poorer student outcomes" and "impede the intent of IDEA.”
However, despite ASHA's efforts to implement change and employ districts to utilize a
workload model, eighteen years later, only 17% of school-based speech language
pathologist reported using a workload approach (ASHA, 2020). ASHA (2020) indicated
that only 10% of speech-language pathologist report using the Workload Calculator on
ASHA's Website, and 52% of speech-language pathologists reported that they were not
aware of the workload calculator. It is unclear why school districts have not adopted a
workload model; however, it is possible that district administrators are unaware and
continue to use the guidelines set forth by their individual states.
ASHA's caseload chart from 2020 (ASHA, 2020) to the previously published
caseload chart from 2000 (Block, 2000), it is evident that many states are still utilizing
caseload models rather than workload models to guide practice. For example, Kentucky
and Nevada were noted to establish caseload maximums in the 2020 report that did not
exist in 2000. In addition, Illinois, Mississippi, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Virginia

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

31

were all noted to reduce the maximum caseload numbers during this period; however, all
five states still established caseload maximums that were above the 1993 ASHA
recommended caseload of 40 (ASHA, 1993; ASHA, 2020; Block, 2000). Thus, although
the changes in caseload size could indicate states identifying the need to reduce the
workload of speech-language pathologists in schools to ensure better outcomes for
students, ASHA continues to advocate for implementing a workload model rather than
caseload (ASHA, 2002).
Special Education Leadership and Administration
School district directors of special education fulfill a unique and challenging role
in the school system. They are tasked with providing a free and appropriate public
education to eligible students in the least restrictive environment to achieve meaningful
educational benefit. Lashley and Boscardin (2003) outlined the role of the directors of
special education as overseeing special education programming, which includes related
service providers, and ensuring alignment with federal, state, and local legislation,
policies, and procedures. Luckner and Movahedazarhouligh (2019) highlighted the
increased expectations and challenges for school district special education directors,
which include:


finance and budgeting with reducing funding allocations



emphasis on accountability, including testing requirements



ensuring implementation of evidence-based instruction and data-based decision
making



teacher Effectiveness



determination of student eligibility for programming

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD



compliance with federal and state mandates



collaboration with families and outside providers

32

School districts must provide a continuum of supports and services to ensure that
each student's individualized educational needs are appropriately met. Special education
directors are responsible for recruiting and retaining a workforce of qualified special
education teachers and related service providers to develop and implement programming
within the district to support a continuum of services (Lashley & Boscardin, 2003).
Luckner and Movahedazarhouligh (2019) surveyed special education administration and
found that 88.52% of respondents indicated that hiring qualified personnel is challenging
and that 78.69% reported challenges related to retaining personnel. Given the continued
need for speech-language pathologists in schools, district administrators are challenged to
recruit and retain qualified personnel.
School administrators are responsible for allocating funds to employ staff and
operate programming to provide a continuum of services. Sansositi et al. (2011)
interviewed focus groups and found that special education administrators consistently
reported a decline in special education funding that does not cover the increased costs of
related services. Respondents during the interviews also discussed the challenges of
balancing finances with the legal requirement of special education services (Sansositi et
al., 2011). Luckner and Movahedazarhouligh (2019) reported that 55.73% of special
education administrators indicated challenges in engaging in data-based decision-making
to operate programs and services for students with disabilities due to the budget and
staffing limitations. A theme was identified: school districts needed more funding for
special service providers like speech-language pathologists. This presents a challenge to

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

33

special education administrators. They are tasked with maximizing the productivity of
speech-language pathologists to reduce the overall cost while ensuring that they can
implement evidence-based instructional practices.
The need for school administrators to maximize staff productivity, reduce cost,
and ensure evidence-based instruction practices are being employed is critical for student
success. However, directors of special education are given limited tools for managing the
caseload and workload of specialized service providers. Many states mandate caseload
maximums for districts to adhere to; however, these numbers do not provide information
related to workload and productivity. The lack of data collection tools increases the
challenges special education administrators face when making program decisions to
ensure that students receive the appropriate services, service providers have a reasonable
workload and cost of service delivery are fiscally responsible.
District special education administrators are further challenged to monitor related
service providers' caseloads to ensure realistic expectations to maintain qualified staff
members and not lose them through attrition. Realistic expectations for related service
providers are also crucial to ensure that students receive appropriate educational
programming to meet their individual needs. Bon and Bigbee (2011) found that special
education administrators reported concerns regarding the rising cost of special education
litigation. When students’ individualized education programs do not meet their individual
needs, the school district puts itself in jeopardy of facing legal action from families.
Special education directors engage in a juggling act to balance ensuring the
implementation of evidence-based instruction by a qualified staff member compliant with

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

34

federal and state mandate and avoids potential litigation while also being fiscally
responsible.
Summary
The field of special education continues to evolve, including the expanding scope
of practice of speech-language pathologists in educational settings. Special education
administrators are responsible for ensuring speech-language pathologists can fulfill their
responsibilities so that students receive appropriate evidence-based instruction that results
in meaningful educational benefits. With the increased challenges of recruiting and
retaining speech-language pathologists, school administrators must improve data
management systems to analyze the workload of related service providers to maximize
productivity and maintain fiscal responsibility while also ensuring appropriate evidencebased instructional practices are being employed. This research aims to determine if
utilizing a caseload or workload model for school-based speech-language pathologists
better support administrative data collection and analysis for programmatic decisions that
focus on instructional effectiveness.

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

35

CHAPTER III
Methodology
A comprehensive literature review supported the researcher's need to investigate
strategies and tools that assist school administrators in assigning workloads to itinerant
staff members, including speech-language pathologists. Research reviewed indicated that
school-based speech-language pathologists' job satisfaction corresponded with their
caseload and workload (Amir et al., 2021; Blood et al. 2002). The researcher also
identified in the literature significant challenges special education directors face to recruit
and retain qualified staff members to provide the necessary related services for students
to achieve meaningful educational benefits. Luckner and Movahedazarhouligh (2019)
reported that special education directors indicated challenges related to their ability to
make data-based decisions to operate special education programs while considering
staffing and fiscal limitations.
This research study aimed to examine practical ways for school administrators to
assign workloads to speech-language pathologists, resulting in students receiving
effective services while also ensuring fiscal responsibility. This chapter defines the
purpose of the research study and the established research questions. Research
participants and the setting are detailed in this chapter and an outline of the research plan
is provided. A comprehensive overview of the research design, methods of research
employed, and data collection tools and procedures are explained. Further, the study's
validity is clarified to support the implication of the findings.

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

36

Purpose
This study investigated speech-language pathologists’ perceived instructional
effectiveness in relation to their caseloads and workload to assist school administrators
with the selection of an effective model of caseload management for itinerant employees.
The roles and responsibilities of school-based speech-language pathologists have
expanded over the last fifty years. As the roles and responsibilities increase for speechlanguage pathologists, school administrators are finding it more challenging to attract and
retain professionals to provide high-quality, effective instruction to meet the needs of
students. In addition, established laws and policies provide school administrators with
mandated caseload maximums in many states. In contrast, the American SpeechLanguage-Hearing Association (ASHA) advocates that caseload management models do
not provide administrators with the necessary information to make a programmatic
decision. Therefore, ASHA supports the use of workload analysis to guide school
administrators when managing the caseloads of a school-based speech-language
pathologist. (ASHA, 2002).
This study utilized a quantitative research design to examine the impact of using a
caseload and workload model to predict perceived teacher effectiveness. The research
intended to determine if a caseload or workload model was a more effective tool for
school administrators managing speech-language pathologist workload. By comparing
caseload and workload data to survey data capturing speech-language pathologists'
perceived effectiveness of specific job functions, the study analyzed the effectiveness of
each model. Participants reported their caseloads and completed ASHA's Weekly

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

37

Workload Calculator for one week each month during a six-month timeframe. Data
analysis addressed three research questions.
Research Questions:
1. What are school Speech-Language Pathologist's perceptions of their job
effectiveness in relation to their caseload vs. workload?
2. How does a Speech-Language Pathologist's caseload impact the amount of time
spent engaging in required job responsibilities, specifically direct instruction and
compliance-related job functions?
3. How does a Speech-Language Pathologist's caseload and workload impact the
employees' ability to complete recommended job responsibilities, specifically
interprofessional practice and professional development?
The first research question specifically compared participants' perceived job
effectiveness with their reported caseload and their reported workload. The second and
third questions analyzed the participants perceived effectiveness concerning specific
required and recommended job functions. All three research questions focused on
analyzing which administrative management model would best support an administrator's
ability to maximize the productivity of itinerant employees without compromising
instruction.
Setting
The study targeted speech-language pathologists practicing in school-based
settings in the Westmoreland Intermediate Unit's service area. The Westmoreland
Intermediate Unit is one of Pennsylvania's 29 regional educational service agencies,
established in 1971 by the General Assembly (Westmoreland Intermediate Unit, n.d.)

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

38

Intermediate Units provide cost-effective programs and services to support public and
nonpublic education and serve as the link between the Pennsylvania Department of
Education and county school districts. The Westmoreland Intermediate Unit is in
Southwestern Pennsylvania and supports 17 school districts in Westmoreland
County. Westmoreland County is located east of the Pittsburgh metro area
(Westmoreland Intermediate Unit, n.d.). The majority of Westmoreland County sits
within the Laurel Highlands and covers 1,027.55 square miles with a population of 355.4
per square mile (United States Census, n.d.).
Westmoreland County is comprised primarily of rural and suburban areas with a
population of 354,663, centered around the city of Greensburg with a population of
14,976 (United States Census, n.d.). Census results indicated 170,864 housing units in the
county, with 77.2% of those units occupied by the owners. Further, 91% of the
individuals surveyed resided in their homes for more than one year (United States
Census, 2019). These statistics indicate that residents of Westmoreland County and the
member school district primarily live in owner-occupied units for extended timeframes.
In addition, the 2019 census reported that 18.2% of the population of Westmoreland
County was below 18 years old, and 94.7% of the population identified their race as
white. The 2019 census indicated that 94.4% of the population graduated from high
school, and 29.1% held a bachelor's degree or higher. Diversity exists regarding the size
and structure of each school district in the Westmoreland Intermediate Unit's service area.
However, the 2019 census data indicate that Westmoreland County has a very
homogenous population living in a primarily rural or suburban area.

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

39

School districts range drastically in size within the Westmoreland Intermediate
Unit's service area. The largest school district is Hempfield Area School District, with
enrollment as of December 1, 2020, of 5,338 students. Norwin School District follow
closely behind with a registration of 5,119 (Pennsylvania Department of Education, n.d.).
The enrollment of these two districts is in sharp contrast to Burrell School District, Derry
Area School District, Ligonier Valley School District, Mount Pleasant School District,
New Kensington Arnold School District, and Yough School District. Based on December
2021 child count, all of these districts have enrollments under 2,000 students. The county
also has several mid-size districts with enrollment between 2,000 and 4,000, including
Penn Trafford School District, Kiski Area School District, Greensburg Salem School
District, Greater Latrobe School District, and Belle Vernon Area School District
(Pennsylvania Department of Education, n.d.). Although the districts vary significantly in
their size based on enrollment, 11 out of the 13 districts that participated in this study,
reported special education enrollment within 5% of the state average of 18% of students
in 2021 (Pennsylvania Department of Education, n.d.). Data demonstrated consistent
special education eligibility across the Westmoreland Intermediate Unit school districts.
Thirteen of the seventeen school districts in the county, had at least one participant
volunteer to participate in the study.
Participants
The participants in the research study were speech-language pathologists who
worked in school districts in the Westmoreland Intermediate Unit's service area. There
were approximately 57 speech-language pathologists who met the established criteria for
participation. All participants provided speech and language support services for

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

40

students’ kindergarten through twenty-one years of age within the public-school setting
or the Westmoreland Intermediate Unit's community-based school. Participants held a
Pennsylvania Department of Education instructional certificate or education specialist
certificate. All participants maintained employment at a local school district or the
Westmoreland Intermediate Unit and worked under conditions established by agreements
with the boards of directors and education association. Thirty-two speech-language
pathologists initially volunteered to participate in the research by completing and
submitting a participant informed consent form (Appendix E). Eighteen participants were
employed by the Westmoreland Intermediate Unit and assigned to public schools in the
service area. Thirteen of the participants employed by the Westmoreland Intermediate
Unit were contracted as full-time employees in a local school district. The remaining five
speech language pathologists divided their time between multiple school districts or
provided services to students in the Westmoreland Intermediate Unit's community-based
school. The remaining fourteen participants were employed directly by the school
districts within the Westmoreland Intermediate Unit's service area. Participants' caseloads
vary based on their assigned location within a school district where speech-language
pathologists may provide services to a specific building and age group or provide
services in multiple buildings with a wide range of age groups.
Further caseload variability exists regarding disability eligibility categories of
students that the speech-language pathologist serves. Given that local school districts
often centralize special education classrooms to enhance programming and reduce costs,
caseloads will vary from assignment to assignment. For example, a speech-language
pathologist's caseload may consist of students with a primary disability of speech-

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

41

language impairment, and another speech-language pathologist may serve students in
Life Skills or Autistic Support classrooms. Although all participants were employed in a
school-based setting across Westmoreland County, their assignments and caseloads
varied.
Intervention & Research Plan
As the scope of practice for school-based speech-language pathologists expanded
in response to evidence-based research, educational reform, and legal mandates, the
workload demands for SLPs continued to increase. Speech-language pathologists were
forced to prioritize responsibilities to ensure students received appropriate instruction,
resulting in meaningful educational benefit. District administrators' responsibilities
include recruiting and retaining speech-language pathologists and managing their
workload. State caseload guidelines established by many states to set workload
expectations do not provide administrators with adequate information to ensure a
reasonable and equitable workload across speech-language pathologists. Nor do state
caseload guidelines provide administrators with the information to make programmatic
decisions that support effective instruction. The American Speech-Language-Hearing
Association (ASHA) advocates for school districts to adopt a workload analysis model to
manage expectations more effectively for school-based speech-language pathologists.
ASHA developed two workload analysis systems, Workload Calculator-Weekly and
Workload Calculator-Monthly, to support a speech-language pathologist's ability to
account for time spent completing tasks related to the responsibilities of a school-based
speech-language pathologist. However, the tools provided by ASHA did not provide

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

42

recommendations or guidelines for school administrators or speech-language pathologists
to determine a manageable workload (ASHA, 2002).
The established research plan utilized ASHA's Workload Calculator-Weekly
(Appendix A) to collect workload data for school-based speech-language pathologists
over six months. In addition, the traditional caseload data was collected from each
participant monthly, corresponding to the week that they were required to report
workload data. A survey was administered in March 2022 to collect data on speechlanguage pathologists' perceptions of their effectiveness related to specific job
responsibilities outlined in ASHA's Workload Calculator- Weekly. The research analyzed
and compared the efficiency of using a caseload or workload model to predict the speechlanguage pathologist's perceived instructional effectiveness. School administrators must
manage the need to ensure students receive effective instruction while also monitoring
staff productivity. They are required to maximize employee productivity to ensure
fiscally responsible programmatic operations without compromising the quality of
students' education. The analysis of the traditional caseload and the workload model
concerning perceived instructional effectiveness was intended to provide school
administrators with information to better support school districts' decision-making
regarding staffing and assignments for speech-language pathologists.
Research Design, Methods & Data Collection
The quantitative research design selected analyzed the established research
questions for this study. Participants collected and reported three different forms of
quantitative data for analysis. Data collection required participants to record caseload
data, report workload data, and complete a survey. All three forms of data were compiled

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

43

and compared to analyze the established research questions. Quantitative data related to
caseloads required participants to report the number of students on their caseload each
month. This number reflected the number of students on their rosters identified as eligible
for special education. The number consisted of students who received direct and indirect
services from the speech-language pathologist. This number did not include students
receiving speech-language supports or services through response to intervention, nor did
it include students being screened or evaluated for special education eligibility.
Participants reported caseload data monthly using a Google Form (Appendix B).
The second form of data collected asked participants to complete the American
Speech-Language-Hearing Association's Weekly Workload Calculator for one week each
month. The weekly workload calculator was designed to collect speech-language
pathologists' time in various job-related activities during their contracted workday
(ASHA, n.d.-b). The tool requires speech-language pathologist to report time spent on
tasks in five categories: Direct Services, Indirect Services, Indirect Services in General
Education Setting, Compliance to Support Federal, State, and District Mandates, and
Case Management Duties and Other Activities (ASHA, n.d.-c). Specific work-related
tasks aligned with the American Speech-Language and Hearing Association's
recommended roles and responsibilities (ASHA, 2002; ASHA, 2010). The workload
calculators design helps speech-language pathologists balance the workload and share the
data with colleagues and administration (ASHA, n.d.-b). Participants were required to
track the time spent daily engaged in job-related activities and record time in the
workload calculator for one designated week each month for six months. ASHA’s
Weekly Workload Calculator is an Excel spreadsheet which was submitted through email

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

44

to the researcher. ASHA’s Weekly Workload Calculator is publicly available on the
ASHA’s website; however, the researcher reached out to ASHA to ensure approval to use
the tool for this research. On July 19, 2021, the ASHA’s Associate Director of School
Services, provided written correspondence indicating that permission was not needed
unless the tool was reprinted in a subsequent publication (Appendix, C).
To assess the participant's perceptions of job effectiveness, each participant
completed a survey as the third form of quantitative data to analyze the established
research questions. The survey was designed to collect data related to the participant's
perception of the impact of their workload on their ability to complete specific job-related
functions effectively. The specific job-related functions assessed directly correlated with
activities found in ASHA's Weekly Workload Calculator. Participants rated the impact of
their workload on their effectiveness regarding specific activities by indicating their
agreement with statements using a five-point Likert scale ranging from Strongly Disagree
to Strongly Agree (Appendix D). The survey required participants to rate their
effectiveness related to twenty-five specific job responsibilities aligned with the
established research questions that focused on instruction, compliance-related activities,
interprofessional practices, and professional development. Participants completed the
survey during the fifth month of the study and the third quarter of the school year using a
Google Form distributed through email. Figure 1 reflects the statements included in the
Speech-Language Pathologist Job Effectiveness Perception Survey.

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

45

Figure 1
Speech-Language Pathologist Job Effectiveness Perception Survey Statements
1
2
3
4

5
6
7

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

16
17
18

My workload supports my ability to provide effective face to face pull out
services.
My workload supports my ability to provide effective face to face services
within the student's classroom or other setting.
My workload supports my ability to provide effective face to face services
to evaluate and reevaluate students.
My workload supports my ability to effectively prepare and plan for
instruction including the following activities: analyzing curriculum,
scoring and interpreting test results, creating student materials, designing
lesson plans, and designing transition plans.
My workload supports my ability to effectively develop and provide
professional development.
My workload supports my ability to effectively communicate and consult
with parents/caregivers.
My workload supports my ability to effectively prepare and plan for
instruction for students, including the following activities: programming
Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) devices and
maintaining AAC devices.
My workload supports my ability to effectively train
teachers/paras/parents.
My workload supports my ability to effectively complete student
observations (for all purposes except evaluations).
My workload supports my ability to effectively engage in pre-referral
activities including teacher consultation and attendance at meetings.
My workload allows me to provide effective preventative services through
a RTI/MTSS model.
My workload supports my ability to effectively adapt general education
curriculum for my students.
My workload supports my ability to effectively plan lessons that connect
students’ IEP goals with standards.
My workload supports my ability to effectively collaborate with teachers
to match students’ learning styles and teaching styles.
My workload supports my ability to attend compliance related meetings
including staff meetings, evaluation/reevaluation meetings, student
support meetings, annual review meetings, IEP meetings and IEP
development meetings.
My workload supports my ability to effectively complete speech language
and hearing screenings.
My workload supports my ability to effectively work on district-wide
initiatives.
My workload supports my ability to effectively engage in school duties
(i.e., lunch duty, bus duty).

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

19

20
21
22
23
24
25

46

My workload supports my ability to effectively maintain accurate student
records including the following: completing daily service logs, completing
progress reports, scoring and interpreting tests, writing evaluation
summary reports, completing MA billing, copying all documentation.
My workload supports my ability to effectively participate in professional
development.
My workload supports my ability to effectively participate in school
committees.
My workload supports my ability to travel between buildings.
My workload supports my ability to effectively supervise graduate
students and clinical fellows.
My workload supports my ability to effectively complete IDEA/Chapter
14 documentation including: PTE/PTRE, ER/RR, Invite, IEP, NOREP
and notes.
My workload supports my ability to effectively engage in case
management related communication with IEP Team members.
To analyze the first research question, What are school Speech-Language

Pathologists' perceptions of their job effectiveness in relation to their caseload vs.
workload? required data collection using all three quantitative data tools. During one
designated week a month for six months, participants completed the American SpeechLanguage-Hearing Association's (ASHA) Weekly Workload Calculator, which collected
data related to the amount of time a professional spent completing itemized tasks during
the workweek. Data collection took place during the following weeks: November 15-19,
2021, December 13-17, 2021, January 10-14, 2022, February 14-18, 2022, March 14-18,
2022, April 11-15, 2022. Data was submitted to the researcher the following week
through email by attaching the Excel spreadsheet created using the ASHA Weekly
Workload Calculator (Appendix A). Participants reported their caseload on the Monday
of each data collection week. This number included the number of students on their
caseload who are eligible to receive speech-language support services under the
eligibility guidelines established by IDEA. An email provided participants with a link to a

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

47

Google Form and ASHA's Weekly Workload Calculator the week before the established
data collection week. Participants completed the Speech-Language Pathologist Job
Effectiveness Perception Survey (Appendix D) in March of 2022. The survey utilized a
Google Form which was distributed to participants. Research question one required the
researcher to analyze caseload data and workload data compared to the data collected
through the survey. The researcher sought to determine if there was a relationship
between the participant's caseload and their perceived job effectiveness and a relationship
between the workload and their perceived job effectiveness. By comparing the
effectiveness of each model with the participants' sensed job effectiveness data, the
researcher wanted to determine which model would most effectively assist school
administrators when managing the caseloads of speech-language pathologists to support
program operations in a fiscally responsible manner.
The second research question, How does a Speech-Language Pathologist's
caseload impact the employees' amount of time spent engaging in required job
responsibilities, specifically direct instruction and compliance-related job
functions?, examined caseload data compared to data reported using ASHA's Weekly
Workload Calculator. To answer the research question, data indicating time spent
engaged in specific job functions that corresponded with direct instruction and
compliance-related job functions were analyzed and compared to the participant's
caseload data.
Participants’ data collected analyzing time spent in direct instruction was pulled
from rows 16-18 in ASHA's Workload Calculator, which assessed the following job
responsibilities:

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD


face-to-face pull-out services



face-to-face in class or other setting services



face-to-face initial evaluation and reevaluations (administered tests, observe

48

student in class for evaluation purposes)
To analyze the amount of time participants spent engaged in compliance-related
responsibilities, data was pulled from rows 50, 53, 54, 55, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 68, 72, 73,
74, 76, 77, 78, 79 in ASHA’s Weekly Workload Calculator, which assessed the following
job responsibilities:


attend evaluation/reevaluation meetings



attend annual review meetings



attend IEP meetings



develop IEPs



complete daily service logs



complete progress reports



score and interpret tests



write evaluation summary reports



complete Medicaid billing



write funding reports



write exit summaries and notices for exiting students



send notices for evaluations and reevaluations



obtain parental permission



note-taking related to IEP meetings, etc.



keep due process files up to date and in compliance

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD


copying, other clerical



other case management tasks.

49

The data collected within the ASHA’s Weekly Workload Calculator related to direct
instruction was combined and compared to the participants’ caseload data. Time spent
engaged in compliance-related tasks was combined and compared to the participant's
caseload. The data was then analyzed to determine the relationship between the
participant's caseload and time spent engaged in the outlined required job
responsibilities.
The third research question, How does a Speech-Language Pathologist's caseload
impact the employees' ability to complete recommended job responsibilities, specifically
interprofessional practice and professional development?, investigates the time
participants spent engaged in recommended job-related functions compared to their
caseloads. Recommended job functions are tasks that professionals should engage in to
provide high-quality services, but there is limited accountability to ensure practices are
implemented during the workday. This research specifically analyzed the time spent
engaging in job functions associated with interprofessional practice and professional
development. To assess the time participants spent engaged in job functions related to
interprofessional practice, data was analyzed in ASHA's Weekly Workload Calculator
(Appendix A) associated with rows: 23, 27, 29, 34, 40, 41, 45, 49, 51, 52, 57, 66, 75, 84.
The highlighted rows assessed the following job responsibilities:


attending Student Meetings



develop and Provide Professional Development



consult with parents/caregivers

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD


train teachers/paras/parents



observe students in classrooms (for all purposes except evaluation)



pre-referral activities, including teacher consultation and attendance at meetings



consult with teachers to match student learning style and teaching style



attend staff meetings



attend student support meetings



attend other compliance-related meetings



work on district initiatives



participate in school committees



communicate with other school team members



district emails, phone calls, etc.

50

Data was analyzed from rows 26 and 65 in ASHA's Workload Calculator (Appendix
A) to assess the participants' time engaged in job functions associated with professional
development. Rows 26 and 65 captured time related to the following job responsibilities:


conduct research on evidence-based practices



participate in professional development

Participants' data related to the recommended interprofessional practice and
professional development practices were combined and analyzed compared to their
caseload data. Data analysis sought to determine a relationship between speech-language
pathologists' amount of time in the recommended practices and their caseloads.
The researcher submitted proposal #20-047 to the Institutional Review Board (IRB)
at the California University of Pennsylvania before initiating the outlined research plan,
the. The IRB granted approval effective 8/13/21 with an expiration date of 8/12/2022

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

51

(Appendix E). The data collection tools selected were available online at no cost to
implement the outlined research. Therefore, the fiscal implications of conducting the
study were minimal. In addition, participants completed data collection during their
workday; thus, no additional costs were accrued for the intermediate unit or the
participating school district. The researcher designed a plan to investigate models of
workload management to assist school administrators with assigning caseloads for
speech-language pathologists in a fiscally responsible manner while promoting effective
instruction. Given the selected data collection tools were available at no cost to school
administrators, the fiscal implications were minimal.
Validity
Hendricks (2017) described validity as the "trustworthiness" of a study and
outlines Lincoln and Guba's (1985) criteria for trustworthiness as a tool for determining
the validity of an action research plan. Lincoln and Guba (1985) highlight four criteria to
address validity: credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability. The
researcher designed the research plan to include strategies to address the outlined criteria
to increase the study's validity.
Two strategies discussed by Hendricks (2017) were employed to address the
credibility of the study: triangulation and accurate data recording. The research design
utilized three sources of data: caseload, workload, and survey. All three data sources were
collected from 30 participants and combined, increasing the findings' corroboration. To
address the accurate data recording, the research design employed ASHA's Workload
Calculator (ASHA, n.d.-b), an established tool to support speech-language pathologists'
ability to advocate appropriate caseload assignment. In addition, the workload calculator

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

52

required participants to record time spent engaged in specific job-related responsibilities
established by ASHA for school-based speech-language pathologists (ASHA, 2010). To
enhance the study's credibility, the questions asked in the survey Speech-Language
Pathologist Job Effectiveness Perception Survey (Appendix D) corresponded directly
with the job responsibilities found in ASHA's Workload Calculator, increasing the
credibility by recording accurate data.
Transferability was addressed by providing an in-depth description of the setting
and participants to increase the validity of the research. The research design included
participants employed in public schools K-12 in Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania.
Participants maintained employment in various school districts with considerable
enrollment variations; however, data represented a homogenous population who reside in
a primarily suburban environment. In addition, to increase the validity, a review of
special education eligibility was provided again, demonstrating minimal variation across
the county. By providing a comprehensive overview of participants and setting, the
research design addresses transferability to increase the validity of the research.
To address the dependability of the research design, the researcher utilized the
strategies of triangulation of data, creating an audit trail, and providing a thick description
outline by Hendrick (2017) to increase validity. In addition, workload data collected by
multiple participants over six months increased the dependability of the data by
minimizing the impact of outlying data points. Participants also submitted their data
collected using ASHA's Weekly Workload calculator in an Excel spreadsheet, which
provides an audit trail for the collected data. Finally, a comprehensive description of the
setting, participants, and research design also supported the dependability of the research.

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

53

Lincoln and Guba (1985) established a validity criterion to include
confirmability. To address the confirmability of research, the research design employed
the strategies of creating an audit trail, using an ASHA endorsed data collection tool, and
collecting multiple forms of data to support triangulation. In addition, by developing a
survey tool aligned with ASHA's Weekly Workload calculator, the research design
supported data triangulation. As a result, it increased the validity of the data regarding its
confirmability.
To ensure the trustworthiness of the research design, the research design
addressed all four criteria outlined by Lincoln and Guba (1985). Hendrick (2017)
provided specific strategies to support the validity of the research to address each of the
outlined criteria. Triangulation of data, audit trail, accurate recording, and thick
description were all employed in the outlined research design to address validity.
Summary
The research study aimed to investigate models for caseload management of
school-based speech-language pathologists. This quantitative research design focused on
school-based speech-language pathologists working in K-12 public schools in
Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania. Three different quantitative data collection tools
were implemented to answer the established research questions. First, participants
completed ASHA’s Weekly Workload (Appendix A) calculator capturing their time spent
engaged in various job functions for one week a month over six months. In addition,
participants reported their caseload data monthly using a Google Form (Appendix B) in
correspondence with their completion of ASHA’s Weekly Workload Calculator. Finally,
in March, participants completed a Speech-Language Pathologist Job Effectiveness

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

54

Perception Survey (Appendix D) which captured the speech-language pathologists’
perceptions of their job effectiveness related to specific job functions outlined in ASHA’s
Weekly Workload Calculator. All three data collection tools were designed to analyze the
established research questions to determine the most effective model for school
administrators to utilize.
School administrators are tasked with ensuring students receive supports and
services that result in them obtaining meaningful educational benefits while being fiscally
responsible. Chapters I and II provided an overview of the identified problem to be
addressed by the research and a comprehensive review of current literature. Chapter III
detailed the participants, setting, research plan, research design, methods, and data
collection and discussed the validity of the research design. Chapter IV will provide a
detailed report of the data analysis conducted, the results of the study, and an in-depth
discussion of the interpreted results.

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

55

Chapter IV
Data Analysis and Results
This research design aimed to determine practical strategies for school
administrators to assign workloads to speech-language pathologists by examining the
relationships between caseloads, workloads, and speech-language pathologists' perceived
effectiveness. The outlined research plan in Chapter III detailed procedures used to
collect workload, caseload, and perception data. The American Speech-LanguageHearing Association's Weekly Workload Calculator supported the collection of workload
data that captured participants' time in job-related responsibilities. A Google Form
collected caseload data from each participant throughout the six-month study. Using a 15 Likert scale, a Google Form was also used to collect data related to participants' job
effectiveness perceptions. This chapter analyzes the data collected to examine the
established research questions and determine if a relationship exists between speechlanguage pathologist caseloads, workloads, and their perceived effectiveness. Details
discussed how the study's quantitative data were compiled and analyzed from each
participant to examine three established research questions. This chapter also provides a
detailed discussion of the interpretation of the results related to the established research
questions.
Research Questions
1. What are school Speech Language Pathologists’ perceptions of their job
effectiveness in relation to their caseload vs. workload?

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

56

2. How does a Speech Language Pathologist’s caseload impact the employees’
amount of time spent engaging in required job responsibilities specifically direct
instruction and compliance related job functions?
3. How does a Speech Language Pathologist’s caseload impact the employees’
ability to complete recommended job responsibilities specifically
interprofessional practice and professional development?
Data Analysis
Participants
Thirty-four participants agreed to participate and signed the established consent
form at the onset of the research study. Many participants withdrew throughout the study,
resulting in nineteen participants collecting and reporting the required monthly caseload
numbers, workload analysis, and perception survey outlined in the established research
plan. Three participants withdrew from the study due to a change in their employment.
One participant withdrew because of time spent supervising a graduate student. The
researcher then eliminated data for eleven other participants because they did not
complete one or more month's data. The researcher determined that including partial data
would impact the study's validity; therefore, only data from the nineteen participants that
submitted the required monthly workload analysis, caseload information, and teacher
perception survey were included. To ensure confidentiality, each participant was assigned
a letter of the alphabet to associate with reported data. The researcher speculated that
many participants could not complete the required data collection and submission due to
the challenges and increased burden they experienced during the school year as they

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

navigated the return to in-person instruction after the previous two years of remote and
hybrid learning.
Data Analyses Procedure
The quantitative data submitted by the nineteen participants needed to be
compiled and organized to facilitate analysis. Pertinent data collected from ASHA's
Weekly Workload Calculator, caseload data, and relevant data reported in the SpeechLanguage Pathologist Job Effectiveness Perception Survey were combined for each
participant as outlined in Chapter III. Each participant's results were then collected to
support the researcher's ability to run statistical analyses for correlation to examine the
established research questions.
First, each participant completed ASHA's Weekly Workload Calculator for one
designated week for six months. ASHA's Weekly Workload Calculator required
individuals to collect data highlighting their weekly activities by listing the amount of
time they engaged daily in specific activities. This research included particular tasks in
the data analysis related directly to the following categories: Direct Instruction,
Compliance, Interprofessional Practices, and Professional Development. Many of the
activities listed in ASHA's Weekly Workload Calculator did not apply to the research
study; therefore, specific reported time was extracted from each participant's monthly
submission and added to an Excel spreadsheet for further analysis. In addition, each
participant's total time monthly was captured in the Excel spreadsheet. Once data were
reported and compiled for all six months in each participant's Excel spreadsheet, these
data were averaged to reflect the mean amount of time recorded over six-month data
collection period. Therefore, each participant reported data that reflected the mean

57

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

58

amount of time engaged in tasks to reflect the following: total time reported, total direct
instruction time, total compliance time, total interprofessional practice time, and total
professional development time.
Each participant's monthly caseload that corresponded with their workload data
was reported on their individualized Excel spreadsheet. The caseload data was then
averaged to provide a mean caseload over the six-month study for each participant.
Caseloads for the nineteen participants ranged from an average of 34 students to 65
students. Five participants reported caseload averages between 34 and 49 students, nine
reported average caseloads between 50-59 students, and five reported cases above 60
students. Participants’ average caseloads are presented in Figure 2.
Figure 2
Participant Caseload Average

Data collected from the Speech-Language Pathologist Job Effectiveness
Perception Survey utilized a Likert Scale indicating the following: 1- Strongly Disagree,
2-Disagree, 3-Neutral, 4-Agree, 5-Strongly Agree. The Speech-Language Pathologist Job

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

59

Effectiveness Perception Survey design assesses perceptions directly related to the data
collected in ASHA’s Weekly Workload Calculator and ratings corresponding with tasks
associated with the four assessed domains: direct instruction, compliance,
interprofessional practice, and professional development. Questions related to each of the
four domains were extracted from the survey and reported in an Excel document based on
the numerical values of the five-point Likert scale. The questions that targeted each of the
four domains are presented in Figure 3.
Figure 3
Survey Questions Associated with Assess Domains
Direct Instruction
My workload supports my ability to provide effective face to face pull out services.
My workload supports my ability to provide effective face to face services within the
student's classroom or other setting.
My workload supports my ability to provide effective face to face services to evaluate
and reevaluate students.
Compliance
My workload supports my ability to attend compliance related meetings including
staff meetings, evaluation/reevaluation meetings, student support meetings, annual
review meetings, IEP meetings and IEP development meetings.
My workload supports my ability to effectively maintain accurate student records
including the following: completing daily service logs, completing progress reports,
scoring and interpreting tests, writing evaluation summary reports, completing MA
billing, copying all documentation.
My workload supports my ability to effectively complete IDEA/Chapter 14
documentation including: PTE/PTRE, ER/RR, Invite, IEP, NOREP and notes.
Interprofessional Practice
My workload supports my ability to effectively develop and provide professional
development.
My workload supports my ability to effectively communicate and consult with
parents/caregivers.
My workload supports my ability to effectively train teachers/paras/parents.
My workload supports my ability to effectively complete student observations (for all
purposes except evaluations).
My workload supports my ability to effectively engage in pre-referral activities
including teacher consultation and attendance at meetings.

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

60

My workload supports my ability to effectively collaborate with teachers to match
student's learning styles and teaching styles.
My workload supports my ability to effectively work on district-wide initiatives.
My workload supports my ability to effectively participate in school committees.
Professional Development
My workload supports my ability to effectively participate in professional
development.
Participants’ numerical response data were then combined to determine a mean
score that corresponded with their overall job effectiveness perception as well as a mean
score for each of their job effectiveness perceptions related to the established domains:
direct instruction, compliance, interprofessional practice and professional development.
Three types of analyses were employed to answer the three established research
questions, and the method of analysis varied based on each individual question. The first
analysis was a one-way between-groups analysis of variance (ANOVA). This is a
significance test that divides the variance between groups (group-to-group variance) by
the variance within groups across the same dependent variable (Mertler, 2019). The
second type of analysis utilized one sample t-tests. Independent t tests seek to determine
if there is a statistical significance between two groups on the same dependent variable
(Mertler, 2019). The final method of analysis looked to determine if there was a linear
relationship between two variables through bivariate analyses. To analyze the research
questions, significance tests using the Pearson correlation coefficient (r) were utilized to
determine if there were significant relationships between two variables being assessed
(Mertler, 2019). Although all three methods of analyses were conducted to answer the
first research question, the Pearson correlation method was used to examine all three
research questions. IBM’s SPSS Statistic software was employed to conduct data
analysis.

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

61

Results
Research Question 1
The first research question aims to answer, "What are school Speech-Language
Pathologist's perceptions of their job effectiveness in relation to their caseload vs.
workload?" After data were compiled, several tests were conducted, including one-way
analyses of variance, one-sample t-test, and Pearson correlation to determine if a
relationship exists between caseload and perception of effectiveness and workload and
perception of effectiveness.
Two one-way between-group analyses of variance (ANOVA) assessed if a
relationship existed between caseload and perception of job effectiveness and workload
and perception of job effectiveness. For the independent variable, participants were
grouped based on their caseload size (small, medium, large) and workload size (small,
medium, large). Participants' mean perceptions of their effectiveness across the
individually assessed domains of direct instruction, compliance, interprofessional
practice, and professional development – set on a 5-point Likert scale with lower values
representing less confidence in effectiveness, higher values meaning more confidence in
the effectiveness, and 3.00 representing a neutral perception of effectiveness – served as
the dependent variable. For caseload and workload, Tukey HSD post-hoc analyses were
run on both analyses of variance, and no significance was indicated. The lack of
statistical significance suggests no significant differences among low, medium, and high
groups when compared by caseload or workload to mean perceived effectiveness across
all domains.

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

62

To further analyze if a relationship exists between a speech-language pathologist's
job effectiveness perceptions and caseload or workload, five one-sample t-tests compared
the speech-language pathologist's perceived effectiveness in each of the four domains:
direct instruction, compliance, interprofessional practice, and professional development.
The fifth t-test compared a mean score for job effectiveness perception when assessing all
four domains together. Each of the five values representing the sample means were
individually compared to the hypothesized population mean value of "3.00," determined
using the neutral Likert scale of the Speech-Language Job Effectiveness Perception
Survey. None of the t-tests found statistically significant relationships between caseload
or workload and speech-language pathologist job effectiveness perception.
Finally, Pearson correlation analyzed the relationship between caseload or
workload variables and the mean job effectiveness perception. For caseload (X), and
mean job effectiveness perception across all domains (Y), 𝑟(19) = −.342, 𝑝(0.152) >
0.05. Analysis presented in Table 1.
Table 1
Correlation: Caseload and Mean Perception of Effectiveness
Caseload
Caseload

Pearson Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Mean
Pearson Correlation
Perception of Sig. (2-tailed)
Effectiveness N

1
19
-.342
.152
19

Mean Perception of
Effectiveness
-.342
.152
19
1
19

For workload (X), and mean job effectiveness perception across all domains (Y),
𝑟(19) = .228, 𝑝(0.348) > 0.05. Analysis presented in Table 2. Neither of these
correlational analyses suggest a statistically significant correlation between caseload (X)

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

63

and mean perception of effectiveness across all domains (Y) or workload (X) and mean
perception of effectiveness across all domains (Y).
Table 2
Correlation: Workload and Mean Perception of Effectiveness
Caseload
Workload

Mean Perception of
Effectiveness
.228
.348
19
1

Pearson Correlation
1
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
19
Mean
Pearson Correlation
.228
Perception of Sig. (2-tailed)
.348
Effectiveness N
19
19
Analysis of participants' monthly workload data, monthly caseload data, and job
effectiveness perception survey examined in the first research question if a relationship
existed between a speech-language pathologist's caseload and their perceived
effectiveness or workload and their perceived effectiveness. The one-way test of
variances (ANOVA), one-sample t-tests, and Pearson correlation all resulted in statistical
findings that did not meet the criteria for significance. The findings indicated that neither
a speech-language pathologist caseload nor workload correlated with their job
effectiveness perception. Furthermore, a statistically significant relationship was not
observed when categorizing the participants' caseloads and workloads as low, medium, or
high.
Although statistical significance was not found, the researcher noted the Pearson
correlation results found a negative trend, 𝑟(19) = −.342, 𝑝(0.152) > 0.05, when
caseloads were compared to speech-language pathologist perceptions of their job
effectiveness and a positive trend, 𝑟(19) = .228, 𝑝(0.348) > 0.05, when workloads
were compared. Hypothetically, given the linear relationship, if the negative trend were

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

64

more significant, the results would indicate that the higher a speech-language
pathologist's caseload, the less effective they perceived their job effectiveness. In turn,
the positive trend regarding workload would suggest that the higher the speech-language
pathologist workload, the more effective they perceived their job effectiveness. The
difference in the negative trending relationship for caseload and positive trending
relationship workload appeared to contradict; however, the results may imply the
relationship between workload and an individual's productivity. Given that workload is
not determined by the caseload, a speech-language pathologist may have a low caseload
which facilitates the ability to spend more time engaging in job responsibilities that
positively impact effectiveness. After reviewing the findings, the researcher also
speculates that the lack of statistically significant results may have been affected by the
smaller sample size. Even though analyses of the data did not find a statistically
significant relationship between caseload or workload and speech-language pathologists'
perceived job effectiveness, the data provides insight into future research focuses.
Research Question 2
The second research question, "How does a Speech-Language Pathologist's
caseload impact the employees' amount of time spent engaging in required job
responsibilities, specifically direct instruction and compliance-related job functions?"
aimed to analyze the impact of a speech-language pathologist's caseload on time spent
engaged in required job responsibilities. Direct instruction and compliance are
responsibilities that comply with federal, state, and local regulations. Significance tests
featuring Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to determine if a significant
linear relationship existed between a speech-language pathologist’s caseload and direct

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

65

instruction or compliance-related tasks. To assess the relationship between caseload and
the time spent engaged in required tasks, caseloads were compared to values representing
a sample mean specific to direct instruction and compliance, respectively, using the
Likert scale of the Speech-Language Job Effectiveness Perception Survey. The research
used multiple data sources to determine if a relationship existed.
Direct Instruction. Pearson correlation analyses were utilized to determine the
relationship between caseload and the amount of time a speech-language pathologist
spent on direct instruction tasks. This correlational analysis does not suggest a
statistically significant finding for analyses of caseload (X) and time spent engaged in
direct instruction (Y), 𝑟(19) = .228, 𝑝(0.349) > 0.05. Data presented in Table 3.
Table 3
Correlation: Caseload and Direct Instruction Time
Caseload
Caseload
Direct Instruction
Time

Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N

1
19
.228
.349
19

Direct Instruction
Time
.228
.349
19
1
19

To further analyze if a relationship exists between caseload and direct instruction,
Pearson correlation was employed to compare caseload and participants' job effectiveness
perception related to items associated with direct instruction. For participants' caseloads
(X) and mean job effectiveness perception related to direct instruction (Y), 𝑟(19) =
−.331, 𝑝(0.167) > 0.05, which did not result in statistical significance. The data
analysis is presented in Table 4.

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

66

Table 4
Correlation: Caseload and Mean Effectiveness Perception Direct Instruction
Caseload
Caseload

Mean
Effectiveness/Direct
Instruction

Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N

1

Mean
Effectiveness/Direct
Instruction
-.331

19
-.331

.167
19
1

.167
19

19

Correlation: Caseload and Direct Instruction. Data analyses aimed to answer
the research question, "How does a Speech-Language Pathologist's caseload impact the
employees' amount of time spent engaging in required job responsibilities, specifically
direct instruction?" did not find statistically significant results that would imply a
relationship exists between the participants’ caseloads and the amount of time a
participant spent engaging in tasks associated with direct instruction. The Pearson
correlation analyzed data comparing participants' caseloads and the amount of time
reported engaging in direct instruction as well as caseload and the participant's mean job
effectiveness perception value related to direct instruction. Both analyses supported the
evidence that no significant relationships exist.
Compliance. In the same manner, a correlational analysis was utilized to address
if a relationship exists between caseload and the amount of time spent engaging in
compliance related responsibilities. This correlational analysis does not suggest a
statistically significant finding for analyses of caseload and time spent engaged in

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

67

compliance related tasks. For caseload (X) and time spent in compliance related tasks
(Y), 𝑟(19) = −.112, 𝑝(0.649) > 0.05. Results reported in Table 5.
Table 5
Correlation: Caseload and Compliance Time
Caseload
Caseload
Compliance Time

Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N

1
19
.112
.649
19

Compliance
Time
.112
.649
19
1
19

To further analyze if a relationship exists between caseload and direct instruction,
the Pearson correlation was employed to compare caseload and participants' job
effectiveness perception related to items associated with compliance. Participants'
caseloads (X) were compared to their mean effectiveness perception related to
compliance (Y), and 𝑟(19) = −.089, 𝑝(0.717) > 0.05, which resulted in no
statistically significant finding. Findings are reported in Table 6.
Table 6
Correlation: Caseload and Mean Effectiveness Perception Compliance
Caseload
Caseload

Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Mean
Pearson
Effectiveness/Compliance Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N

1

Mean
Effectiveness/Compliance
-.089

19
-.089

.717
19
1

.717
19

19

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

68

Correlation: Caseload and Compliance. Data analyses aimed to answer the
research questions, “How does a Speech-Language Pathologist’s caseload impact the
employees’ amount of time spent engaging in required job responsibilities, specifically
direct instruction and compliance-related job functions?” did not find statistically
significant results that would imply a relationship exist between their caseload and the
amount of time a participant spent engaging in compliance-related responsibilities or
their mean effectiveness perception score related to compliance. The Pearson correlation
when comparing caseload and compliance time spent engaged in activities and with mean
effectiveness perception scores related to compliance are both nearing zero representing a
lack of relationship or a presumed occurrence of chance.
Research Question 3
The third research question, "How does a Speech-Language Pathologist's caseload
impact the employees' ability to complete recommended job responsibilities, specifically
interprofessional practice and professional development?" targets the impact that speechlanguage pathologists’ caseloads have on their ability to engage in recommended job
responsibilities. These responsibilities are recommended practice but do not have the
level of legal accountability found with the required responsibilities addressed in the
previous research question. The Pearson correlation sought to determine if a correlational
relationship exists between a speech-language pathologist's ability to complete the
recommended practices of interprofessional practice and professional development when
compared to their caseload. Participants' caseloads were compared to the time spent
engaged in the outlined recommended practice and the participants' mean job
effectiveness perception score.

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

69

Interprofessional Practice (IPP). The Pearson correlation analyses were applied
to determine the relationship between caseload and the amount of time spend engaged in
interprofessional practices. For caseload (X) and amount of time spend engaged in
interprofessional practice (Y), 𝑟(19) = −.574, 𝑝(0.010) > 0.05. Results are presented in
Table 7. The data analysis indicates a statistically significant negative linear relationship
between caseload and the amount of time speech-language pathologists engage in
interprofessional practice. Hence, the higher the speech-language pathologist caseload
one can anticipate, the less time spent engaging in interprofessional practice.
Table 7
Correlation: Caseload and IPP Time
Caseload
Caseload
IPP Time

Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N

1
19
-.574
.010
19

IPP Time
-.574
.010
19
1
19

To further examine if a relationship exists, data was analyzed comparing the
speech-language pathologist caseload and their mean effectiveness perception specific to
survey data that assessed the perception of participants' effectiveness related to
interprofessional practice. For caseload (X) and mean perception of effectiveness related
to interprofessional practice (Y), 𝑟(19) = −0.397, 𝑝(0.093) > 0.05. Results are
presented in Table 8. Although findings do not indicate a statistically significant
relationship when comparing caseload and mean effectiveness perception, the researcher
noted the trend toward the benchmark. A negative relationship when comparing caseload
and mean effectiveness perception with regards to interprofessional practice would

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

70

indicate the higher a speech-language pathologist's caseload, the less the participants
perceived their effectiveness in engaging in interprofessional practice.
Table 8
Correlation: Caseload and Mean Effectiveness Perception of IPP
Caseload
Caseload
Mean
Effectiveness/IPP

Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation

19
-.397

Mean
Effectiveness/IPP
-.397
.093
19
1

Sig. (2-tailed)
N

.093
19

19

1

Correlation: Caseload and Time Spent/Mean Effectiveness Perception of
IPP. Data analyses aimed to determine if there was a relationship between a speechlanguage pathologists’ caseload and their ability to engage in the recommended practice
of interprofessional practice (IPP). When triangulating participants' data, including their
reported caseload, reported time spent engaging in tasks associated with interprofessional
practice, and their perceived job effectiveness related to interprofessional practice
analyses indicates that a negative correlational relationship does exist. A statistically
significant relationship was found when analyzing caseload and time spent engaging in
interprofessional practice. Although the findings when analyzing caseload and speechlanguage pathologist mean job effectiveness related to interprofessional practice were not
statistically significant at the 0.05 level, the negative trending statistic does correspond to
the negative relationship found when comparing caseload and time spent engaged in
interprofessional practice. When interpreting the results There is a clear indication of a
negative correlational relationship when interpreting the results. The higher a speech-

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

71

language pathologist's caseload, the less likely they will spend time engaged in tasks
associated with interprofessional practice.
Professional Development. Pearson correlation analyses were applied to
determine the relationship between caseload and the amount of time spent engaged in
professional development. For caseload (X) and amount of time spend engaged in
professional development (Y), 𝑟(19) = −.191, 𝑝(0.433) > 0.05. Results are presented
in Table 9. Findings did not demonstrate a statistically significant relationship.
Table 9
Correlation: Caseload and Professional Development Time
Caseload
Caseload
Professional
Development Time

Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N

1
19
-.191
.433
19

Professional
Development
Time
-.191
.433
19
1
19

To examine if a relationship exists between caseload and a speech-language
pathologist's ability to engage in professional development, data were analyzed
comparing the speech-language pathologist caseload (X) and their mean effectiveness
perception specific to survey data that assessed the perception of participants'
effectiveness related to professional development (Y). Pearson correlation analyses were
applied, finding 𝑟(19) = −.477, 𝑝(0.039) > 0.05, which represent a statistically
significant negative relationship. Results are presented in Table 10. The findings indicate
a negative linear relationship between caseload and speech-language pathologists'
perceived ability to engage in professional development effectively. The association

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

72

suggests that the larger the caseload, the lower that speech-language pathologists perceive
their ability to engage effectively in professional development.
Table 10
Correlation: Caseload and Mean Effectiveness Perception Professional Development
Caseload
Caseload
Mean Effectiveness
PD

Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N

1
19
-.477
.039
19

Mean
Effectiveness
PD
-.477
.039
19
1
19

Correlation: Caseload and Time Spent/Mean Effectiveness Perception of
Professional Development. The correlational results found when comparing caseload
and the time reported engaged in professional development should be interpreted with
caution. Participants recorded workload data using ASHA’s Workload calculator during
the week of April 11-15, 2022. During this time the Westmoreland Intermediate Unit
held a mandatory in-service day when employees received five hours of professional
development. The Westmoreland Intermediate Unit employed eleven of the nineteen
participants; thus, it is likely that the increased number of hours reported across
participants for professional development was inflated. Comparing caseload and mean
effectiveness perception may be a more accurate indicator of the existence of a
relationship. The researcher hypothesizes that the negative relationship established would
be more conclusive if the study was repeated to capture a typical work week rather than
one with professional development embedded. However, caseload analyses and the mean

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

73

effectiveness perception related to professional development alone provide robust
findings.
Discussion
The research aimed to examine strategies for school administrators to assign
workloads to speech-language pathologists by examining the relationships between
caseloads, workloads, and speech-language pathologists' perceived effectiveness.
Participants reported data using three specific data collection tools. Data were collected
from all nineteen participants and compiled for analysis. The Pearson correlation analyses
were used to address all research questions to analyze the collected data to determine if a
correlational relationship existed. Pearson correlation sought to determine the strength of
the relationship between two variables.
To analyze the first research question, "What are school Speech-Language
Pathologist's perceptions of their job effectiveness in relation to their caseload vs.
workload? Participants' caseloads and workloads were individually compared to each
participant's established mean effectiveness perception score using a Likert scale from
survey results. Analyses revealed no statistically significant relationship between
caseload and perceived effectiveness or workload and perceived effectiveness. Although
not statistically significant, results indicated a negative correlation between caseload and
effectiveness perception and a positive correlation between workload and effectiveness
perception. A negative correlation between caseload and effectiveness perception would
suggest that the higher the caseload, the less likely the participant would report higher
perceived effectiveness. In contrast, the positive correlation between caseload and
effectiveness perception would indicate that the higher the workload, the higher the

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

74

perceived effectiveness. The impact of productivity could explain one hypothesis with
regard to the positive relationship between workload and perceived effectiveness. Given
the participants are employed in a school-based setting, time restraints exist. Therefore, a
higher workload may result in higher productivity reported by participants, which could
increase perceived effectiveness. The lack of a statistically significant relationship
between caseload and workload compared to speech-language pathologists' perceived
effectiveness provides insight for school administrators who seek to determine strategies
to assign workloads.
The second research question examined, "How does a Speech-Language
Pathologist's caseload impact the employees' amount of time spent engaging in required
job responsibilities, specifically direct instruction and compliance-related job functions?"
School administrators, historically, rely on caseload maximums to assign workloads to a
school-based speech-language pathologist. This research question aimed to analyze the
impact of using caseload to set workload. Again, data analysis focused on determining if
a correlational relationship existed between a speech-language pathologist's caseload and
the time they spent engaging in required job responsibilities such as direct instruction and
compliance-related tasks. Further analysis sought to determine if a relationship exists
between participants' caseload and the speech-language pathologist's job effectiveness
perceptions related to the specific responsibilities of direct instruction and compliancerelated tasks. The Pearson correlation found no relationship between caseload and time
spent in direct instruction or compliance-related tasks. In addition, no association was
found between caseload and speech-language pathologists' perceived effectiveness in
direct instruction or compliance. Interpretation of findings could imply that regardless of

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

75

a speech-language pathologist's caseload the amount of time spent engaging in direct
instruction and compliance-related tasks vary. Therefore, the findings could indicate that
caseload is not an effective way to determine the amount of time a speech-language
pathologist spends providing direct instruction or engaging in compliance-related tasks.
Although analyses did not find a statistically significant relationship between caseload
and the amount of time spent engaged in required job responsibilities, the lack of
connection provides essential insight for school administrators.
To further analyze organizational strategies that support workload assignments for
a speech-language pathologist in a school-based setting, the third research question
focused on the impact of caseload on speech-language pathologists' ability to engage in
the recommended practices of interprofessional practice and professional development.
Again, the Pearson correlation analyses were completed to examine if a linear
relationship exists, either positive or negative. To assess the "ability of speech-language
pathologists," the time spent engaged in interprofessional practices and professional
development was compared to caseloads. The mean numerical values reported in the
Speech-Language Pathologist Job Effectiveness Perception Survey were also compared
to caseloads. A statistically significant negative relationship was found when comparing
caseload and the time participants engaged in interprofessional practice. This finding
indicates the higher a speech-language pathologist's caseload, the less time they spend in
tasks associated with interprofessional practice. When comparing caseload with speechlanguage pathologists’ perceived job effectiveness related to interprofessional practice, a
statistically significant relationship was not found; however, the findings did demonstrate
a negative trend supporting the results when comparing caseload and time spent.

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

76

A Pearson correlation was used to compare caseload and time spent engaged in
professional development and caseload and participants' perceived effectiveness related
to professional development. Analyses did not find a statistically significant relationship
when comparing caseload and time spent. The time participants reported engaged in
professional development was likely skewed because eleven out of the nineteen
participants were required to attend a mandatory in-service day which provided five
professional development hours during the established recording week. Given that most
school districts only require employees to attend a few in-service days a year, increasing
the amount of time spent engaged in professional development is likely not indicative of
typical behavior. To further analyze if a relationship exists between caseload and
professional development, a Pearson correlation found a statistically significant negative
relationship between caseload and participants perceived effectiveness with regards to
professional development. The negative relationship indicates that the higher the speechlanguage pathologist caseload, the lower the perceived effectiveness related to
professional development. The result further supports the likelihood that the lack of
relationship between caseload and time spent engaged in professional development may
have been inaccurate.
In summary, the research aimed to investigate if relationships existed between
caseloads, workloads, and perceived effectiveness to better understand strategies that
school administrators could employ when assigning workloads to speech-language
pathologists so that they can facilitate effective instruction in a fiscally responsible
manner. Analyses found that neither caseload nor workload had a statistically significant
relationship to speech-language pathologists' perceived job effectiveness. Further,

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

77

analyses indicated that caseload did not have a significant relationship with the amount of
time spent engaging in required job responsibilities of direct instruction and compliance.
Finally, results found a negative association between caseload and a speech-language
pathologist's ability to engage in job functions associated with interprofessional practice
and professional development. Although results did not indicate statistically significant
findings for all three research questions, the evidence has a direct implication for
administrative practices for managing the workload of school-based speech-language
pathologists.
Summary
This quantitative research design focused on school-based speech-language
pathologists working in K-12 public schools in Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania.
Three quantitative data collection tools were implemented to collect and analyze data to
determine if relationships existed between targeted variables in each of the three research
questions. Chapter IV provided a detailed report of the data analyses, the results, and a
discussion related to the interpretation of results. Chapter V discusses the conclusions
formulated from the analyzed results and the implications for school administrators as
well as a discussion related to the research limitation. Finally, recommendations for
future research are provided.

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

78

Chapter V
Conclusion and Recommendations
Special education administrators are responsible for operating special education
programming in school districts to provide effective instruction that ensures students
achieve meaningful educational benefits. Operations must be done in a fiscally
responsible manner considering the rising cost associated with special education. This
study aimed to provide special education administrators with guidance on managing
speech-language pathologists’ caseloads and workloads to ensure student growth while
maximizing productivity and reducing cost. The caseload model employed by many
states does not support administrators’ ability to effectively analyze the workload placed
on a speech-language pathologist and only accounts for data collected through student
enrollment, which in Pennsylvania limits caseloads to 65 students (Public School Code,
1949). In contrast, the American Speech-Language and Hearing Association advocates
for school administrators to employ a workload model when establishing caseloads. In
addition, there is a lack of research-based evidence to support that a workload model is
more effective and results in improved instructional effectiveness compared to a caseload
model.
The quantitative research design set out to answer three research questions, which
targeted the impact of utilizing a caseload model and workload model. Nineteen speechlanguage pathologists employed in K-12 public schools in Westmoreland County,
Pennsylvania, participated in the study. Participants collected data related to their
caseload, workload, and perceived effectiveness using three specific data collection tools
to determine if a relationship exists between the targeted variables outlined in each

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

79

research question. Chapter III outlined the research design, including a description of
each data collection tool, timelines, and methods. Chapter IV provided a detailed report
of the data analyses, the results, and a discussion related to interpreting the results.
Finally, chapter V discusses the conclusions formulated from the analyzed results, the
implications for school administrators, and a discussion related to the research’s
limitations. In addition, recommendations are provided for future research.
Conclusion
The quantitative research design aimed to determine a correlational relationship
between several variables in each established research question. The investigation sought
to provide school administrators with guidance when selecting an appropriate model to
employ when assigning caseloads and workloads to a school-based speech-language
pathologist. The following section discusses the conclusions for each research question,
details how the results support the findings, and describes how they apply to current
administrative practices for improvement. A review of the financial implication of the
research study is also provided.
Research Question 1: What are school Speech Language Pathologist’s perceptions of
their job effectiveness in relation to their caseload vs. workload?
The first research question analyzed participants' data related to their workload,
caseload, and perceived job effectiveness to determine if a correlational relationship
existed between caseload and speech-language pathologists' perceived job effectiveness
and workload and their perceived job effectiveness. The study design aimed to determine
if there was a statistically significant negative or positive relationship. Analyses of results
indicated a lack of a statistically significant relationship when comparing caseload or

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

80

workload data to speech-language pathologist perceived effectiveness data found in the
job effectiveness survey results. Although statistical significance was not found when
utilizing the Pearson correlation for analyses, the result did indicate a negative linear
trend when comparing caseload and speech-language pathologist job effectiveness
perceptions and a positive linear trend when comparing workload and job effectiveness
perceptions. Although findings are inconclusive, if the negative trend were more
significant the results would indicate that the higher a speech-language pathologist's
caseload, the less effective they perceived their job effectiveness. Conversely, the
positive trend associated with workload and perceived job effectiveness would suggest
the higher the speech-language pathologist workload, the more effective they perceive
their job effectiveness.
The contradiction between the negative trend associated with caseload and the
positive trend with workload provides an opportunity for further interpretation. Although
not statistically significant, the negative trend indicating the higher a speech-language
pathologist's caseload, the lower their perceived job effectiveness corresponds with
current practices. The more students on a caseload typically results in a greater workload,
limiting the time available for a speech-language pathologist to plan and provide studentspecific interventions. Historically in Pennsylvania, special education administrators have
used caseload maximums to set workloads for speech-language pathologists. The current
caseload maximum for speech-language pathologists providing supplemental supports
and services is 65 students (Public School Code, 1949). Using the caseload model, school
administrators could presume that the closer to the maximum, the larger the workload and
greater the likelihood of implications for impacting their practice. Out of the study's

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

81

nineteen participants, five reported a caseload greater than 60 students, nine reported a
caseload between 50-59, and five reported a caseload under 50 students. Given the
majority of the participating speech-language pathologists' caseloads ranged between 5059 students, one could speculate that special education administrators understand a
negative correlation may exist and assign caseloads beneath the mandated maximum
caseload. The implication of the analysis that sought to find a correlational relationship
between caseload and speech-language pathologist job effectiveness, although not
statistically significant, appears to support current practices that assume the higher the
caseload, the less effective a speech-language pathologist's practice. This knowledge
provides insight to school administrators as they assign caseloads while attempting to
maximize speech-language pathologists’ productivity and ensure students demonstrate
meaningful educational benefits. The question remains: is Pennsylvania's mandated
caseload maximum of 65 appropriate given the current roles and responsibilities of
school-based speech-language pathologists (Public School Code, 1949)?
In contrast to the negative trend observed when comparing caseload and job
effectiveness perceptions, a positive trend was noted when comparing workload and job
effectiveness perceptions although not statistically significant. A positive correlational
result indicates that the higher a speech-language pathologist's workload, the more likely
they would report a positive job effectiveness perception. The positive trending
correlation has significant implications for special education directors when assigning
caseloads. In this comparison, the workload is not associated with the caseload. A
speech-language pathologist may have a low caseload which facilitates the ability to
spend more time engaging in job responsibilities with fewer students, therefore,

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

82

positively impacting the job effectiveness perception. The findings suggest that speechlanguage pathologists' effectiveness may be more accurately predicted by analyzing their
workload; however, statistically significant evidence to support this finding was not
found.
Even though neither caseload nor workload provided a statistically significant
result, the negative trend when comparing caseload and the positive trend when
comparing workload have possible implications for school administrators. In short,
neither model demonstrated statistically significant results that imply school
administrators should not employ either model in isolation. However, the trend may
indicate that each method has some value when establishing workload and caseload
assignments for speech-language pathologists.
Research Question 2: How does a Speech Language Pathologists’ caseload impact the
employees’ amount of time spent engaging in required job responsibilities, specifically
direct instruction and compliance related job functions?
To further investigate the impact of using a caseload model to assign workload to
a school-based speech-language pathologist, the second research question aimed to
determine if a correlational relationship existed between caseload and the required job
responsibilities of direct instruction and compliance-related tasks. The Individuals with
Disabilities Education Improvement Act IDEIA (2004) legally mandates special
education in public schools and provides legislative regulations that guide special
education. Therefore, this research question focused on responsibilities required or
mandated to adhere to the federal statute and, in turn, support state regulations. The
impact of participants’ caseload was analyzed to determine if a correlational relationship

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

83

existed between caseload and the amount of time, they spent engaged in tasks associated
with direct instruction and caseload and the amount of time spent engaging in functions
related to compliance. A correlational analysis examined caseload and job effectiveness
perception related to direct instruction and caseload and job effectiveness perception
related to compliance-related tasks. Multiple correlational studies resulted in no
statistically significant findings.
Data analyses aimed to examine the relationship between caseload and direct
instruction targeted caseload compared to the amount of time speech-language
pathologists engaged in direct instruction during the study. The result did not find a
statistically significant relationship. Findings indicated an absence of a relationship
between caseload and participant’s job effectiveness perception related to direct
instruction, which also has significant implications for practice. The lack of relationship
gives special education administrators valuable information to consider when assigning
caseloads for speech language pathologists in schools. Currently, special education
administrators utilize caseload maximums established by the state to assign workloads for
speech-language pathologists. The lack of correlational relationship, however, may
indicate that the caseload model may not be an effective tool when determining the
amount of direct instruction, a speech-language pathologist provides or the effectiveness
of their instruction. School administrators, therefore, may need to consider more factors
than student enrollment data when assigning workload to a speech-language pathologist.
To further analyze the relationship between caseload and the impact of required
job responsibilities, the analysis sought to compare caseload and the time speechlanguage pathologists spent engaged in compliance-related tasks and caseload and job

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

84

effectiveness perceptions related to compliance. Correlational analysis utilized in both
scenarios found a lack of a statistically significant relationship. Both analyses resulted in
findings nearing zero, which represents a chance occurrence. Although a significant
relationship was not noted the findings have an important implication for special
education administrators responsible for assigning workloads to speech-language
pathologists. The result indicates that caseload cannot predict the time a speech-language
pathologist engages in a compliance-related task or their perceived effectiveness with the
associated tasks.
In summary, the result of the research found that caseload does not have a
correlational relationship with direct instruction or compliance-related tasks. Therefore,
caseload alone may not give special education administrators enough information to
assign workloads to speech-language pathologists in schools. The lack of relationship can
be explained when comparing two hypothetical speech-language pathologists. Speechlanguage pathologist one has a caseload of 58 students where 45 students are eligible for
special education due to their speech-language impairment. This SLP may provide 15
hours a week of direct instruction to the 58-students using a service delivery model of
pull-out group therapy with three to four students. In contrast, the second speechlanguage pathologist may have a caseload of 35 students where 20 students receive Life
Skill Support or Autistic Support. This SLP may provide 15 hours a week of direct
instruction to students individually or with one other student. This fictional scenario
provided an explanation that supports the lack of statistically significant relationship
found in the research related to direct instruction.

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

85

Similarly, the hypothetical scenario above provides a basis for the lack of a
relationship between caseload and time spent engaged in compliance-related tasks and
job effectiveness perceptions. In the scenario, the first speech-language pathologist has a
caseload of 58 students, where 45 of the students receive service to address their speechlanguage impairment only. In this situation, the speech-language pathologist would be
considered the case manager for 45 of the students and responsible for all compliancerelated tasks and documentation. In contrast, the second speech-language pathologist is a
related service provider for 20 students and the case manager for the remaining 15
students. However, given the more significant needs of the students on the second
speech-language pathologist caseload, it is likely that the number of compliance-related
tasks could vary significantly. In short, the study found a lack of a correlational
relationship between caseload and direct instruction and caseload and compliance. These
findings are relevant for school administrators, given that caseloads are the primary tool
used to determine speech-language pathologists’ workload in most states.
Research Question 3: How does a Speech Language Pathologist’s caseload impact the
employees’ ability to complete recommended job responsibilities, specifically
interprofessional practice and professional development?
To investigate the value of using a caseload model as a tool to assign workload to
speech-language pathologists in schools, the third research question targeted the impact
of caseload on a speech-language pathologist's ability to engage in job responsibilities
that are recommended by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA,
2010). Interprofessional practice and professional development are two responsibilities of
a speech-language pathologist; however, there is limited accountability established to

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

86

ensure that professionals engage in these practices within the education environment.
Therefore, this research question sought to determine a correlational relationship between
caseload and interprofessional practice by comparing caseload data with time spent
engaged in interprofessional practice and job effectiveness perceptions related to
interprofessional practice. Caseload was compared to time spent engaged in professional
development and job effectiveness perceptions data related to professional development.
When comparing caseload with interprofessional practice and professional development,
statistically significant findings were identified.
Two separate analyses investigated the relationship between caseload and
interprofessional practice. First, data analyses aimed to determine if there was a
relationship between a speech-language pathologists’ caseloads and their ability to
engage in the recommended practice of interprofessional practice. A statistically
significant negative correlational relationship was found when comparing caseload to
time spent engaged in interprofessional practice. The analysis suggests that the higher a
speech-language pathologist's caseload, the less time they will spend engaged in
interprofessional practice.
A correlational analysis compared caseload and job effectiveness perceptions
related to interprofessional practice to support findings further. The results of this
analysis did not indicate a statistically significant finding; however, a strong trend toward
a negative relationship existed. Although not statistically significant, the strong negative
trend when analyzing job effectiveness perception and the statistically significant
relationship established when comparing time spent engaged in interprofessional practice
substantiated the negative relationship between caseload and interprofessional practice.

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

87

The findings of the correlational analyses align with previous research. Pfeiffer et
al. (2019) found that speech-language pathologists reported time restraints and
scheduling as factors that impacted their ability to engage in interprofessional practice.
The Individual Education Program team under the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (2004) requires professionals to engage in collaboration; therefore, the negative
correlational relationship provides valuable insight for school administrators when
assigning workloads for speech-language pathologists. The implications of the findings
provide guidance to special education administrators who desire to promote
interprofessional practices that facilitate collaboration across team members. They must
consider the negative correlational relationship specifically with the time available to
engage in collaboration when serving a high caseload. Given the results of this study
specific to analyzing the third research question, caseload may serve as an essential tool
when establishing workloads for speech-language pathologists. Consider the example of
contrasting workloads in the previous research question discussion. The difference
between a speech-language pathologist's workload when serving students who are
primarily eligible for speech-language support services due to a speech-language
impairment and the workload of a speech-language pathologist who supports students
with more significant needs vary significantly. One could presume that students with
more significant needs would require increased collaboration to meet their educational
needs. This knowledge, in conjunction with the findings substantiating the negative
correlational relationship, provide special education administrators with guidance as they
establish workloads. As special education administrators increase the caseload of speechlanguage pathologists, there is an understanding that the time they have available to

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

88

engage in interprofessional practice will decrease. In this case, caseload had a statistically
significant relationship to interprofessional practice; however, even with this knowledge
a caseload model alone does not appear sufficient to support special education
administrators' ability to assign workload to speech-language pathologists.
The second recommended practice targeted by the third research question
examined if there is a correlational relationship between caseload and the amount of time
speech-language pathologists engaged in professional development or their job
effectiveness perceptions associated with professional development. As discussed in
chapter IV, the correlational results found when comparing caseload and the time
reported engaged in professional development during this study need to be interpreted
with caution. The study's research design dictated six specific weeks for workload data
collection. During the designated week in April, however, eleven out of the nineteen
participants were required to attend a mandatory Westmoreland Intermediate Unit inservice, which facilitated each participant recording five professional development hours.
Each school year, agency-sponsored in-service days are limited. For example, the
Westmoreland Intermediate Unit schedules five in-service days each year to provide
employees with professional development. Given that 1/5 of participants recorded this
mandated professional development time, the findings of the correlational analyses are
likely inaccurate. Therefore, comparing caseload and mean effectiveness perception may
be more accurately indicative of the existence of a relationship.
To further analyze the relationship between caseload and recommended practices,
caseload was compared to job effectiveness perception data related to professional
development. The Pearson correlational analyses compared caseload to participants' job

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

89

effectiveness perception survey results finding a statistically significant negative
correlation. Results indicated that speech-language pathologists' perceptions of their
ability to engage in professional development decreased as their caseloads increased. In
conjunction with previous research by Hutchins et al. (2016), which reported that only
11.8% of speech-language pathologists reported having time to "access and review
research," and 10% reported having time to consult with experts, this study’s finding are
essential for special education administrators to consider. Professional development hours
are required by state education agencies and national certification organizations. The
negative correlation between caseload and professional development and the previous
research indicates that school administrators need to consider the impact of speechlanguage pathologist caseloads on their ability to engage in professional development.
Although the findings are statistically significant regarding caseload having a negative
correlation to job effectiveness perceptions regarding professional development, the
school administrator may use this knowledge to seek alternative solutions beyond
reducing caseload. For example, school administrators could increase the time available
during the school year for mandated professional development. The impact of the
findings guide school administrators by indicating that speech-language pathologists who
maintain high caseloads may have a reduced opportunity to engage in professional
development.
Overview of Results
The established research design aimed to determine if there was a correlational
relationship between the established research questions to provide special education
administrators with guidance when selecting an appropriate model to employ when

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

90

assigning caseloads and workloads to school-based speech-language pathologists.
Analysis seeking to determine if a relationship exists between caseload and perceived job
effectiveness and workload and perceived job effectiveness found no statistically
significant relationship. Although findings did not determine a relationship, the lack of a
relationship is important for special education administrators to consider when assigning
caseloads and workload. School districts commonly employ a caseload model; however,
the research findings indicate that caseload or workload alone does not correlate with job
effectiveness perception. The lack of relationship provides doubt related to using a
caseload model alone to manage the workload of speech-language pathologists to
promote opportunities for instructional effectiveness. Further, the second research
question analyzed the impact of caseload and time spent engaged in the required job
responsibilities of direct instruction and compliance-related tasks. Again, findings
indicated a lack of a statistically significant relationship between caseload and direct
instruction and compliance-related tasks, further calling into question the reliability of
using a caseload model alone to determine the workload of a school-based speechlanguage pathologist. The final research question did find a statistically significant
negative relationship between caseload and time spent engaged in interprofessional
practice and caseload and job effectiveness perceptions related to professional
development. In both cases, results found that as caseloads increased the amount of time
spent engaged in interprofessional practice and job effectiveness perception pertaining to
professional development decreased.
In short, the findings of all three research questions provide valuable insight to
special education administrators responsible for assigning workload. Although the

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

91

caseload model commonly used to assign workload is an invaluable tool, the lack of
relationship associated with overall job effectiveness perception and time spent engaged
in required practices suggests limitations. Continued research is warranted to further
investigate the impact of the caseload model compared to a workload model. This
research suggests that school administrators need to consider additional information
beyond caseload when assigning workload to speech-language pathologists.
Limitations
The established research design and implementation resulted in two fundamental
limitations, which potentially impacted the results and findings. The first significant
limitation focuses on the number of participants completing all research study
components. At the onset of the study, thirty-four speech-language pathologists
volunteered to participate in the research; however, only nineteen participants fulfilled all
aspects of data collection. The limited sample size likely influenced the ability to acquire
significantly significant results. The second fundamental limitation of the study focuses
on the data collection related to the amount of time participants reported engaging in
professional development. Participants recorded professional development time during
designated weeks over six months. The designated April week, however, fell over a
mandated in-service day for the Westmoreland Intermediate Unit. As a result, attendance
resulted in eleven out of the nineteen participants reporting five professional development
hours during this week. Although participants accurately reported their activities, the
schedule in-service day may have skewed the result because the work week was atypical
for these participants. Therefore, the reported time spent engaged in professional
development was likely inflated.

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

92

The focus of the research examined models of workload management employed
by special education administrators by targeting relationships between caseload,
workload, and perceived job effectiveness. Although the research findings suggest that a
caseload workload management model for school-based speech-language pathologists
has significant flaws, given the lack of correlational relationships, the research finding
did not provide statistically substantial alternatives. Further research is warranted to
investigate workload management tools that can be employed by special education
administrators that facilitate their ability to assign workload that promotes educational
growth for students in the most fiscally responsible manner.
Recommendations for Future Research
The findings of this research study warrant further investigation to confirm and
further verify the validity of the results and expand upon the scope of the research. In
addition to the research design, each established research question provides an
opportunity for further investigation to provide more conclusive guidance to special
education administrators, who are tasked with assigning caseloads and workloads to the
speech-language pathologist that facilitate effective interventions while also maximizing
productivity and promoting fiscal responsibility. The first recommendation would be to
conduct the outline research design on a larger scale. As mentioned previously, the study
began with thirty-four participants, but only nineteen completed all components of the
research study to be included in the data analyses. Nineteen participants did not provide a
statistically significant sample. Research on a larger scale may result in statistically
significant findings, whereas the current research study only demonstrated trends in a
negative or positive direction. Conducting a similar study on a state or national level may

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

93

result in more conclusive findings. Increasing the sample size is warranted, specifically
targeting the first research question that compared caseload and workload with job
effectiveness perceptions. A correlational analysis between caseload or workload and job
effectiveness perceptions found a negative trend concerning caseload and a positive trend
concerning workload. If conducted on a larger scale, findings could result in statistical
significance.
The results of this study, although not statistically significant, suggest a positive
correlation between workload and job effectiveness perceptions. If a positive relationship
exists between the two variables, further research is necessary to investigate why there is
a correlational relationship between workload and job effectiveness perceptions. One
possibility discussed is related to workload and productivity. Assuming that highly
effective individuals maximize their productivity, one could presume they have a higher
workload. The American Speech-Language-Hearing Workload Calculator used in this
research study is an excellent tool to collect quantitative data to support the continued
investigation. Further analysis to determine if there is a statistically significant
relationship and a detailed investigation into the cause of the increased perceptions would
result in valuable information for special education administrators tasked with managing
the caseload of speech language pathologists.
Additional research is again warranted regarding the second research question that
sought to determine a relationship between caseload and required job responsibility. The
result of this study indicated that a statistically significant relationship does not exist
between caseload and the required job responsibilities of direct instruction or compliance.
Special education administrators: however, use caseload as their primary means of

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

94

assigning and managing the workload of a speech-language pathologist, given that the
state of Pennsylvania provides caseload maximums within school code (Public School
Code, 1949). The question remains, If the caseload model does not provide adequate
information to determine the workload of a speech-language pathologist, what model
would support this administrative function?
The third research question, which aimed to identify if a relationship exists
between caseload and interprofessional practice and caseload and professional
development, which found statistically significant results, opens the door to numerous
research studies. The study demonstrated a strong negative relationship between caseload
and speech-language pathologists' time engaged in interprofessional practice. Research is
growing every day, supporting the benefits of interprofessional practice not only in the
educational setting but also within the medical profession; however, the nuances of the
topic are extensive. Therefore, further research is warranted to substantiate the benefits
and identify the challenges and strategies to overcome these challenges. In addition, the
negative correlation between caseload and time spent engaged in interprofessional
practice does not provide special education administrators with a suggested alternative to
better support school-based speech-language pathologists' ability to engage in the
proposed collaborative approach.

The third research question also found a statistically

significant negative relationship between caseload and job effectiveness perceptions of
professional development. This finding, however, was not supported by the results that
compared caseload and time spent engaged in professional development due to a flaw in
the research timeline. Given the atypical hours reported during data collection week, the
results likely do not represent current practice. Nevertheless, future research to repeat this

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

95

portion of the study may result in statistically significant findings and support the
negative correlational relationship between caseload and professional development.
Although the quantitative research design resulted in findings that directly affect special
education administrators the data-driven statistics leave many questions unanswered.
Qualitative research may prove beneficial in investigating effective strategies for special
education administrators to employ to manage the workload of speech-language
pathologists in school-based settings. Future research utilizing mixed methods combining
quantitative data collected through workload analyses and qualitative data obtained
through observations and interviews may also have beneficial implications for special
education administrators.
Summary
Special education administrators oversee special education supports and services
within school districts. Their responsibilities include assigning workloads to speechlanguage pathologists that ensure students receive high-quality supports and services that
result in meaningful educational benefits. With the increasing demands for special
education and rising cost associated with providing supports and services, special
education administrators walk a fine line between maximizing caseloads to reduce cost
and ensuring students receive adequate instruction. In Westmoreland County school
administrators frequently rely on the caseload maximum of 65 established by the state to
manage caseloads (Public School Code, 1949). Speech-language pathologists, however,
report feeling overwhelmed by their workload. This quantitative research study examined
the relationship between caseload, workload, and speech-language pathologist
perceptions of job effectiveness.

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

96

Chapter I provided an overview of the identified problem and justified why this
topic required investigation. Chapter II provided an in-depth review of research currently
available related to establishing research questions and explained the impact of legislative
and judicial actions that have impacted the field of special education. The quantitative
research design, methodology, and timelines were outlined in Chapter III. Chapter IV
provided a comprehensive analysis of the statistical findings and the implications for
special education administrators. Chapter V discussed the conclusion drawn from the
research and how results can be utilized by special education administrators, the study's
limitations as well as recommendations for future research. In summary, the research
found that the traditional use of a caseload model to manage the workload of speechlanguage pathologists has merits. When used alone, however, it will likely not provide
special education administrators with enough information to ensure students receive highquality supports and services that will foster educational growth.

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

97

References

American Federation of Teachers. (2009). The medically fragile child: Caring for
children with special healthcare needs in the school setting.
https://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/medicallyfragilechild_2009.pdf
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (1993). Guidelines for caseload size
and speech-language service delivery in the schools. ASHA, 35(Suppl 10), 33-39.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (1999). Guidelines for the roles and
responsibilities of school based speech-language pathologist.
http://faculty.washington.edu/jct6/ASHAGuidelinesRolesSchoolSLP.pdf
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2001). Roles and responsibilities of
speech language pathologist with respect to reading and writing in children and
adolescents. https://www.asha.org/policy/ps2001-00104/
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2002). A workload analysis approach
for establishing speech-language caseload standards in the school.
https://www.asha.org/policy/ps2002-00122/
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2010). Roles and responsibilities of
speech-language pathologist in schools. https://www.asha.org/policy/pi201000317/
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2018a). Schools survey report: SLP
caseload characteristic trends 2000-2018.
https://www.asha.org/siteassets/surveys/2018-schools-survey-caseload-trends.pdf
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2018b). 2018 Schools survey: SLP

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

98

caseload and workload characteristics.
https://www.asha.org/siteassets/surveys/schools-2018-slp-caseload-and-workloadcharacteristics.pdf
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2020). 2020 Schools Survey: SLP
caseload and workload characteristics.
https://www.asha.org/siteassets/surveys/2020-schools-survey-slp-caseload.pdf
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (n.d.-a). ASHA’s envisioned future:
2025. https://www.asha.org/about/ashas-envisioned-future/
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (n.d.-b). Implementation guide: A
workload analysis approach for establishing speech-language caseload standards
in schools. https://www.asha.org/slp/schools/implementation-guide/
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (n.d.-c). Workload calculator.
https://www.asha.org/slp/schools/workload-calculator/
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (n.d.-d). 2020 State-by-state caseload
guidance. https://www.asha.org/siteassets/practice-portal/caseloadworkload/statecaseload-chart.pdf
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (n.d.-e). About the American SpeechLanguage-Hearing Association. https://www.asha.org/about/
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (n.d.-f). History of ASHA.
https://www.asha.org/about/history/
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (n.d.-g). Maintaining your
certification. https://www.asha.org/certification/maintain-ccc/
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (n.d.-h). ASHA workload calculator

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

99

[PowerPoint slides]. https://www.asha.org/siteassets/uploadedfiles/workloadcalculator-presentation.pdf

Amir, R., Jones, E., Frankel, D., & Fritzsch, J. (2021) Job satisfaction of school-based
speech-language pathologists in New York State as a function of workplace
features. Perspectives of ASHA Special Interest Groups, 6(2), 470-484.
https://doi.org/10.1044/2020_PERSP-20-00196
Block, F. (2000). Current state caseload sizes for school speech-language pathologist.
Perspectives on School Based Issues, 1(1), 19-20.
https://doi.org/10.1044/sbi1.1.19
Blood, G. W., Ridenour, J. S., Thomas, E. A., Qualis, C. D., & Hammer, C. S. (2002).
Predicting job satisfaction among speech-language pathologist working in public
schools. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 33(4), 282-290.
https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2002/023)
Brandel, J., & Frome Loeb, D. (2011). Program intensity and service delivery models in
the schools: SLP survey results. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in
Schools, 42(4), 461–490. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2011/10-0019)
Bon, S. C., & Bigbee, A. J. (2011). Special education leadership: Integrating
professional and personal codes of ethics to serve the best interests of the
child. Journal of School Leadership, 21(3), 324–359.
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/347/483/
Bruce, S. M., & Bashinski, S. M. (2017). The trifocus framework and interprofessional

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

100

collaborative practice in serve disabilities. American Journal of Speech-Language
Pathology, 26(2), 162-179. https://doi.org/10.1044/2016_AJSLP-15-0063
Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. (2020). Occupational outlook
handbook. https://www.bls.gov/ooh/healthcare/speech-language-pathologists.htm
Center for Disease Control and Prevention. (n.d.). Premature birth.
https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/features/premature-birth/index.html
Cooper Duffey, K., & Eaker, K. (2017). Effective team practices: Interprofessional
contributions to communication issues with a parent’s perspective. American
Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 26(2), 181-192.
https://doi.org/10.1044/2016_AJSLP-15-0069
Dowden, P., Alarcon, N., Vollan, T., Cumley, G., Kuehn, C., & Amtmann, D. (2006).
Survey of SLP caseloads in Washington State schools: Implications and strategies
for action. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 37(2), 104-117.
https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2006/013)
Edgar, D. L., & Rosa-Lugo, L. I. (2007). The critical shortage of speech-language
pathologist in the public school setting: Features of the work environment that
affect recruitment and retention. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in
Schools, 38(1), 31-46. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2007/004)
Education For All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, Pub. L. No. 94-142, 89 Stat. 773
(1975). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-89/pdf/STATUTE-89Pg773.pdf
Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, 580 U.S. 1 (2017).
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-827_0pm1.pdf

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

101

Every Student Succeeds Act, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 (2015).
https://www.congress.gov/114/plaws/publ95/PLAW-114publ95.pdf
Giess, S. A., & Seriannie, R. (2018). Interprofessional practice in schools. Perspectives of
ASHA Special Interest Groups SIG 16, 3(3), 88-94.
https://doi.org/10.1044/persp3.SIG16.88
The Goals 2000: Educate America Act., Pub. L. No. 103-227, 108 Stat. 125
(1994). https://www.congress.gov/103/statute/STATUTE108/STATUTE-108-Pg125.pdf
Hendricks, C. (2017). Improving schools through action research (4th ed.). Pearson.
Hutchins, T. L, Howard, M., Prelock, P. A., & Belin, G. (2016). Retention of school
based SLPs: Relationships among caseload size, workload satisfaction, job
satisfaction and best practices. Communication Disorder Quarterly, 31(3), 139154. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525740109336870
Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C §12101 et
seq. (1990). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW108publ446/html/PLAW-108publ446.htm
Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-446,
118-446 (2004). https://www.congress.gov/bill/108th-congress/housebill/1350/text
Irving Independent School District v. Tatro, 468 U.S. 883 (1984).
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/468/883/
Katz, L. A., Maag, A., Fallon, K. A., Blenkarn, K., & Smith, M. K. (2011). What makes a

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

102

caseload (un) manageable? School based speech-language pathologist speak.
Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 41(2), 139-151.
https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2009/08-0090)
Lashley, C., & Boscardin, M. L. (2003). Special education administration at a crossroads.
Journal of Special Education Leadership, 16(2), 63-75.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
Luckner, J. L., & Movahedazarhouligh, S. (2019). Leadership in special education
administrators’ current challenges in one western state. Journal of Special
Education Leadership, 32(2), 103-116.
Marante, L., & Farquharson, K. (2021). Tackling burnout in the school setting: Practical
tips for school-based speech-language pathologist. Perspectives of ASHA Special
Interest Groups 6(3), 665-675. https://doi.org/10.1044/2021_PERSP-2000262
McKenna, M., Castillo, J., Dedrick, R. F., Cheng, K., & Goldstein, H. (2021). Speechlanguage pathologist involvement in multi-tiered system of supports
questionnaire: Advances in interprofessional practice. Language, Speech and
Hearing Services in Schools, 52(2), 597-611.
https://doi.org/10.1044/2020_LSHSS-20-00084
Mertler, C. A. (2019). Introduction to educational research (2 nd ed.). SAGE Publications,
Inc.
Mullen, R., & Schooling, T. (2010). The national outcomes measurement system for
pediatric speech language pathology. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in
Schools, 41(1), 44-60. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2009/08-0051)

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

103

No Child Left Behind Act, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2001).
https://www.congress.gov/107/plaws/publ110/PLAW-107publ110.pdf
Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children (PARC) v. Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, 343 F. Supp. 279 (E.D. Pa. 1972).
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/districtcourts/FSupp/343/279/1691591/
Pennsylvania Department of Education. (n.d.). Special Education Data Reporting.
Bureau
of Special Education. https://penndata.hbg.psu.edu/
Public School Code of 1949, Pub. L. 30 No. 14 (1949).
https://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/US/HTM/1949/0/0014..HTM
Pfeiffer, D. L., Pavelko, S. L., Hahs-Vaughn, D. L, & Dudding, C. C. (2019). A national
survey of speech-language pathologists’ engagement in interprofessional
collaborative practice in schools: Identifying predictive factors and barriers to
implementation. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 50(4), 639655. https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_LSHSS-18-0100
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Pub. L. No. 93-112, (1973).
https://www.eeoc.gov/rehabilitation-act-1973-original-text
Tambryraja, S. R., Schmitt, M. B., Farquharson, K., & Justice, L. M. (2015). Stability of
language and literacy profiles of children with language impairment in public
schools. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 58(4), 1167-1181.
https://doi.org/10.1044/2015_JSLHR-L-14-0197
Sansositi, F. J., Goss, S., & Noltemeyer, A. (2011). Perspectives of special education

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

104

directors on response to intervention in secondary schools. Contemporary School
Psychology, 15, 9-10.
United States Census Bureau. (n.d.). Quick facts Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania.
U.S. Department of Commerce.
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/westmorelandcountypennsylvania,gr
eensburgcitypennsylvania/EDU635219
United States Department of Education. (1994). The condition of education 1994.
https://nces.ed.gov/pubs94/94149.pdf
Westmoreland Intermediate Unit. (n.d.). Background.
https://www.wiu7.org/apps/pages/index.jsp?uREC_ID=1696629&type=d&pREC
_ID=1606239
Williamson, P., Hoppey, D., McLeskey, J., Bergmann, E., & Moore, H., (2020). Trends
in LRE placement rates over the past 25 years. The Journal of Special Education,
53(4), 236-244. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466919855052

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

APPENDIX A
ASHA’s Weekly Workload Calculator

105

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

106

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

107

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

*The Weekly Workload Calculator can be view on the American Speech Language
Hearing Association’s website using the link below:
https://www.asha.org/SLP/schools/Workload-Calculator/

108

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

APPENDIX B
Caseload Reporting Form

109

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

APPENDIX C
Email Authorization from ASHA

110

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

111

APPENDIX D
Speech Language Pathologist Job Effectiveness Perception Survey

Speech Language Pathologist Job Effectiveness Perception
Survey
This survey is designed to assess Speech Language Pathologist's perceptions of their job
effectiveness related to the job responsibilities outlined on American Speech Language
Hearing Association's Weekly Workload Calculator.

Email

1.

Name

2.

School District

3.

Number of students on your caseload.

Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements using a Likert Scale where
"1" indicates Strongly Disagree and "5" indicates Strongly Agree.

4.

services.

My workload supports my ability to provide effective face to face pull out

Mark only one oval.
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree

5.

My workload supports my ability to provide effective face to face services
within the student's classroom or other setting.
Mark only one oval.

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

112

Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree

6.

My workload supports my ability to provide effective face to face services to
evaluate and reevaluate students.
Mark only one oval.
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree

7.

My workload supports my ability to effectively prepare and plan for instruction
including the following activities: analyzing curriculum, scoring and interpreting test
results, creating student materials, designing lesson plans, and designing transition
plans.
Mark only one oval.
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree

8.

My workload supports my ability to effectively develop and provide
professional development.
Mark only one oval.

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

113

Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree

9.

My workload supports my ability effectively to communicate and consult with
parents/caregivers.
Mark only one oval.
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree

10.

My workload supports my ability to effectively prepare and plan for instruction
for students, including the following activities: programming Augmentative and
Alternative Communication (AAC) devices and maintaining AAC devices.
Mark only one oval.
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree

11.

My workload supports my ability to effectively train teachers/paras/parents.

Mark only one oval.

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

114

Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree

12.

My workload supports my ability to effectively complete student observations
(for all purposes except evaluations).
Mark only one oval.
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree

13.

My workload supports my ability to effectively engage in pre-referral activities
including teacher consultation and attendance at meetings.
Mark only one oval.
Strongly disagree

Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree

14.

My workload allows me to provide effective preventative services through a
RTI/MTSS model.

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD
Mark only one oval.
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree

15.

My workload supports my ability to effectively adapt general education
curriculum for my students.
Mark only one oval.
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree

16.

My workload supports my ability effectively to plan lessons that connect
student's IEP goals with standards.
Mark only one oval.
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree

17.

My workload supports my ability to effectively collaborate with teachers to
match student's learning styles and teaching styles.
Mark only one oval.

115

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

116

Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree

18.

My workload supports my ability to attend compliance related meetings
including:
staff meetings, evaluation/reevaluation meetings, student support meetings, annual
review meetings, IEP meetings and IEP development meetings.
Mark only one oval.
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree

19.

My workload supports my ability to effectively complete speech language and
hearing screenings.
Mark only one oval.
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree

20.

My workload supports my ability to effectively work on district-wide initiatives.

Mark only one oval.

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

117

Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree

21.

My workload supports my ability to effectively engage in school duties (i.e.
lunch duty, bus duty).
Mark only one oval.
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree

22.

My workload supports my ability to effectively maintain accurate student
records including the following: completing daily service logs, completing progress
reports, scoring and interpreting tests, writing evaluation summary reports, completing
MA billing, copying all documentation.
Mark only one oval.
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree

23.

My workload supports my ability to effectively participate in professional
development.
Mark only one oval.

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

118

Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree

24.

My workload supports my ability to effectively participate in school
committees.
Mark only one oval.
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree

25.

My workload supports my ability to travel between buildings.

Mark only one oval.
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree

26.

My workload supports my ability to effectively supervise graduate students and
clinical fellows.
Mark only one oval.

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree

27.

My workload supports my ability to effectively complete IDEA/Chapter 14
documentation including: PTE/PTRE, ER/RR, Invite, IEP, NOREP and notes.
Mark only one oval.
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree

28.

My workload supports my ability to effectively engage in case management
related communication with IEP Team members.
Mark only one oval.
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree

Survey questions were adapted from American Speech Language and Hearing Association's
Weekly Workload Calculator. Retrieved from: https://www.asha.org/SLP/schools/WorkloadCalculator/

119

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD
This content is neither created nor endorsed by Google.

Forms

120

SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST CASELOAD/WORKLOAD

APPENDIX E
Institutional Review Board Approval

121