Document Type : Original Articles


1 Department of Linguistics, faculty of literature, humanities and social Sciences, science and research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

2 Neuromuscular Rehabilitation Research Center, Semnan University of Medical Sciences, Semnan, Iran (Islamic republic of)

3 Department of Department of Linguistics, faculty of humanities, Tarbiat Modarres University, Tehran, Iran


Backgrounds: Many Speech and language pathologists (SLPs) are employed by Iran’s Ministry of Education, with services traditionally delivered through a pull-out model. However, alternative service delivery models (SDMs), such as classroom-based and consultant approaches, are also available for SLPs working in schools. While the advantages of these approaches have been established in other countries, their effectiveness in the Iranian context remains unexplored. This study sought to determine which SDM is more effective in enhancing language skills among Persian-speaking children with intellectual disability (ID) in Iran.
Methods: This study employed a single-blind, randomized, controlled trial design. Twenty-one preschoolers, with a mental age of approximately 4:6, were randomly assigned to one of three groups (pull-out, classroom-based, and consultant) to receive speech therapy services. Language skills of all students were assessed by an experienced speech therapist using the Persian version of Test of Language Development-Persian:3 (TOLD-P:3), which has demonstrated favorable content validity and acceptable reliability. The language age of students on core subtests and their compositions were compared using the Kruskal-Wallis test.
Results:Analyzing language areas and compositions revealed that speech therapy was effective across all delivery service models. However, notable changes were observed in students under the consultant model, particularly in their "Grammatical completion" score (p = 0.011). Additionally, significant improvements were noted in four other composition scores: 'spoken language' (p = 0.05), 'organizing' (p = 0.009), 'speaking' (p = 0.017), and 'syntax' (p = 0.055).
Conclusion: The findings of this study demonstrate that speech therapy, irrespective of the service delivery models (SDMs), effectively improves language skills in children with ID. However, the consultant model emerged as the most effective among the three models (pull-out, classroom-based, and consultant) for children with ID.


  1. American Speech-Language H, Association,. Types of Services 2023a [Available from:
  2. American Speech-Language HA. School-Based Service Delivery in Speech-Language Pathology USA: ASHA; 2023b [Available from:
  3. Farquharson K, Therrien M, Barton-Hulsey A, Brandt AF. How to Recruit, Support, and Retain Speech-Language Pathologists in Public Schools. Journal of School Leadership. 2020;32(3):225-45.
  4. American Speech-Language HA. Service Delivery Models and SLPs in Schools. In: Association AS-L-H, editor. Let's Talk. USA: American Speech-Language-Hearing Association; 2010.
  5. Paul R, Norbury C. Language disorders from infancy through adolescence: Listening, speaking, reading, writing, and communicating. USA: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2012.
  6. Ebbels SH, McCartney E, Slonims V, Dockrell JE, Norbury CF. Evidence‐based pathways to intervention for children with language disorders. International journal of language & communication disorders. 2019;54(1):3-19.
  7. Elenko KR. School-Based Speech-Language Pathologist Collaborative Practice: A Literature Review. USA: University of Montana; 2020.
  8. Archibald LMD. SLP-educator classroom collaboration: A review to inform reason-based practice. Autism & Developmental Language Impairments. 2017;2:2396941516680369.
  9. Cirrin FM, Schooling TL, Nelson NW, Diehl SF, Flynn PF, Staskowski M, et al. Evidence-based systematic review: effects of different service delivery models on communication outcomes for elementary school-age children. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools. 2010;41(3):233-64.
  10. Meaux AB, Norris JA. Curriculum-Based Language Interventions: What, Who, Why, Where, and How? Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools. 2018;49(2):165-75.
  11. Center for planning human resources and administrative affairs. Ministry of Education: how to organize human resources. Tehran: Ministry of Education; 2021.
  12. Islamic republic of Iran Exceptionl Education Organization. Providing speech therapy services through 386 speech therapists Tehran: Islamic republic of Iran Exceptionl Education Organization; 2021 [
  13. Maasoomi Jahandizi H. Prevalence of speech disorders among zanjan primary school students in 2000. Journal of Advances in Medical and Biomedical Research. 2001;9(36):17-21.
  14. Sadollahi A, Kasbi F, Genabi MS, Zanjani MO, Eftekhari Z, Ghorbani R. Survey of the prevalence of the articulation disorders in primary-school children (semnan-2004). Koomesh. 2004;6(1):57-62.
  15. Mousavi SA, Valinezhad M, Shirkarami F. An investigation of the prevalence of learning disabilities in primary schools. The first Islamic- Human Conference2016.
  16. Yavari A, Fatehi F, Dalvand H, Valizadeh A, Moradzadeh R, Mirhoseini FS. Prevalence of Speech Disorders in Arak Primary School Students, 2014-2015. HBI_Journals. 2016;19(6):87-94.
  17. Soleimani A, Mohammadi H, Khazayi H, Ertiyahi F. The prevalence of speech disorders in students, Kermanshah, 2008-2009. Journal of Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences. 2011;15(3):213-9 [Persian].
  18. Enderby P, Davies P. Communication disorders: planning a service to meet the needs. The British journal of disorders of communication. 1989;24(3):301-31.
  19. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. Annual workforce data: 2021 ASHAcertified audiologist- and speech-language pathologist-to-population ratios. USA: ASHA; 2022 6/6/2023.
  20. Brandel J, Frome Loeb D. Program intensity and service delivery models in the schools: SLP survey results. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools. 2011;42(4):461-90.
  21. Biancone TL, Farquharson K, Justice LM, Schmitt MB, Logan JA. Quality of language intervention provided to primary-grade students with language impairment. Journal of communication disorders. 2014;49:13-24.
  22. Swaminathan D, Farquharson K. Using response to intervention for speech sound disorders: Exploring practice characteristics and geographical differences. Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups. 2018;3(16):53-66.
  23. Cirrin FM, Gillam RB. Language intervention practices for school-age children with spoken language disorders: a systematic review. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch. 2008;39(1):S110-37.
  24. Boyle JM, McCartney E, O'Hare A, Forbes J. Direct versus indirect and individual versus group modes of language therapy for children with primary language impairment: principal outcomes from a randomized controlled trial and economic evaluation. International Journal of Language Communication Disorders. 2009;44(6):826-46.
  25. Lowe H, Henry L, Müller LM, Joffe VL. Vocabulary intervention for adolescents with language disorder: a systematic review. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2018;53(2):199-217.
  26. Heisler L, Thousand J. A Guide to Co-Teaching for the SLP: A Tutorial. Communication Disorders Quarterly. 2019;42:152574011988631.
  27. Hasan Zadeh S, Minayi A. The test of language development: TOLD-P:3. Tehran: Education Research Institute; 2010.
  28. Fey ME. Language intervention with young children. Boston: Allyn & Bacon; 1986.
  29. McCauley RJ, Fey MJ, Gillam RJ. Treatment of language disorders in children. Baltimore: Paul. H. Brookes; 2017.
  30. Gillam SL, Gillam RB, Reece K. Language Outcomes of Contextualized and Decontextualized Language Intervention: Results of an Early Efficacy Study. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools. 2012;43:276-91.
  31. Stone L. The effects of three service delivery models on vocabulary learning by second-grade children. USA: University of Kentucky; 2020.
  32. Throneburg R, Calvert L, Sturm J, Paramboukas A, Paul P. A Comparison of Service Delivery Models: Effects on Curricular Vocabulary Skills in the School Setting. American journal of speech-language pathology. 2000;9(1):10-20.
  33. Farber JG, Klein ER. Classroom-based assessment of a collaborative intervention program with kindergarten and first-grade students. Language, Speech & Hearing Services in Schools. 1999;30(1):83-91.
  34. Ellis L, Schlaudecker C, Regimbal C. Effectiveness of a collaborative consultation approach to basic concept instruction with kindergarten children. Language, Speech & Hearing Services in Schools. 1995;26(1):69-74.
  35. Yaruss JS, Coleman CE, Quesal RW. Stuttering in school-age children: a comprehensive approach to treatment. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools. 2012;43(4):536-48.
  36. Brosseau-Lapré F, Greenwell T. Innovative Service Delivery Models for Serving Children with Speech Sound Disorders. Seminar in Speech Language. 2019;40(2):113-23.
  37. Hoffman LM, Ireland M, Hall-Mills S, Flynn P. Evidence-based speech-language pathology practices in schools: findings from a national survey. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools. 2013;44(3):266-80.
  38. Justice LM, Logan J, Schmitt MB, Jiang H. Designing Effective Speech-Language Interventions for Children in the Public Schools: Leverage the Spacing Effect. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 2016;3(1):85-91.
  39. Westby C. There's more to passing than knowing the answers. Language, Speech & Hearing Services in Schools. 1997;28(3):274.
  40. Ehren BJ. Maintaining a Therapeutic Focus and Sharing Responsibility for Student Success: Keys to In-Classroom Speech-Language Services. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch. 2000;31(3):219-29.
  41. Whitmire K. The Evolution of School-Based Speech-Language Services: A Half Century of Change and a New Century of Practice. Communication Disorders Quarterly. 2002;23(2):68-76.