How our team researches, reviews, and maintains content for speech-language pathology students
This page sets out the editorial guidelines that govern every article on speechpathology.org. If you arrived here from a "Reviewed by" byline, you are likely a prospective or current speech-language pathology student trying to understand whether the program data, licensure rules, and career guidance you just read can be trusted.
What follows is a plain account of how that content gets made: the sources we cite, how we fact check claims, how we keep information current, who reviews the work before it publishes, and how we maintain editorial independence.
When we write about speech-language pathology programs, certification, and careers, we lean on a small set of authoritative bodies whose work defines the field. Building content from these primary sources, rather than secondary aggregators, is how we keep guidance accurate for students planning their next step.
The [American Speech-Language-Hearing Association](https://www.asha.org/) is our anchor for anything tied to clinical and professional standards: the Certificate of Clinical Competence, scope of practice, supervised clinical hour requirements, and the Praxis examination. When a page discusses what it takes to become a certified SLP, ASHA is the source we map back to.
For program accreditation, we cite the [Council on Academic Accreditation in Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology](https://caa.asha.org/). The CAA maintains the official roster of accredited graduate programs, so any list of accredited master's options on the site traces back to their published directory. If a program is not listed there, we do not present it as accredited.
For occupational outlook, employment projections, and wage figures, we use the [Bureau of Labor Statistics](https://www.bls.gov/). Any claim about job growth or typical earnings for speech-language pathologists ties back to BLS reporting.
For program-level and institution-level figures, including enrollment, tuition, and completions, we draw from [IPEDS, housed at the National Center for Education Statistics](https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/). This is the federal dataset that makes school-to-school comparisons consistent.
Licensure requirements vary meaningfully from one jurisdiction to another, so for state-specific rules we consult each state's licensure board directly rather than relying on summaries. When a page describes how to get licensed in a particular state, that state's board is the source of record.
When a number, requirement, or credential rule appears on speechpathology.org, our default is to trace it back to the body that publishes it firsthand rather than to a site that has summarized it. For speech-language pathology content, that means leaning on federal statistical agencies, the national professional association, and the recognized accreditor before reaching for any third-party source.
A primary source is the organization that originally produces the figure or sets the rule: the [American Speech-Language-Hearing Association](https://www.asha.org/) for ASHA certification requirements, the [Council on Academic Accreditation in Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology](https://caa.asha.org/) for program accreditation, the [Bureau of Labor Statistics](https://www.bls.gov/) for wage and employment data, and the [National Center for Education Statistics](https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/) for enrollment, completion, and tuition figures. A secondary source is a ranking site, blog, or aggregator that republishes those numbers, often months later and sometimes with the context stripped away.
Licensure rules, accreditation status, and salary figures shift on their own schedules, and aggregators tend to lag behind. A prospective clinician deciding between programs or planning a move across state lines needs the version of the figure that the issuing body currently stands behind, not a cached copy.
Where possible, a number is shown with the reporting period it covers and the body that published it, so readers can open the same source and confirm what they are seeing. When two primary sources report related figures using different definitions, or when their numbers do not line up, we say so in plain language rather than averaging the difference away.
Every claim on speechpathology.org that names a number, a rule, or a credential is traced back to where it originated. If a figure comes from a federal dataset, we read the dataset. If a licensure requirement comes from a state board, we read the board's own page. If an accreditation statement is made about a program, we confirm it against the institution and the recognized accreditor of record for the field.
Wherever possible, outbound links point to the source of record rather than to a secondary write-up or aggregator. A salary figure links to the agency that publishes it. A scope-of-practice rule links to the body that issued it. This makes it easier for readers to verify what they read, and it keeps a layer of interpretation from sliding in between the data and the page.
For program-level details (accreditation status, degree types offered, on-campus or online delivery, prerequisites), we check the institution's own official materials and cross-reference accredited graduate programs against the Council on Academic Accreditation directory. If an institution and the directory disagree, we note it rather than paper over it.
Quoted figures are checked when a page is first written and rechecked whenever that page is substantively updated. When a primary source revises its numbers, or when a reader or reviewer flags an error, we correct the page and the corrected information replaces the old. Material corrections are reflected directly in the published content.
Speech-language pathology is a field where the underlying facts shift: federal labor data gets refreshed, certification standards are revised, accreditation decisions are issued, and individual states amend their licensure statutes. Because of that, the content on speechpathology.org is reviewed and updated when the primary sources behind it change, not on a fixed timetable.
In practical terms, that means a page gets pulled back for review when something concrete happens upstream. New wage and employment figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics are a trigger. Revisions to ASHA's certification standards for the CCC-SLP are a trigger. Decisions and policy updates from the Council on Academic Accreditation, including changes in a program's accreditation status, are a trigger. Changes to state licensure statutes or scope-of-practice rules are a trigger. When any of these move, the affected pages are queued for a fresh pass against the new source material.
Older pages are revisited the same way. Rather than rotating content through an arbitrary refresh window, we go back to a page when the data or rules it relies on have been superseded. If the original source still stands, the guidance still stands. If the source has been updated, withdrawn, or replaced, the page is rewritten to match. The aim is simple: what you read should reflect what the authoritative source currently says.
Every page on speechpathology.org passes through the SLP Editoral Team before it goes live. The team is a collective group of editors and content reviewers with background in speech-language pathology education, higher education research, and student-facing content standards. They are not a single named author, and we do not list individual credentials or association memberships we cannot verify. Instead, the team functions as a shared editorial layer behind the work.
Before publication, reviewers read each piece for accuracy, sourcing, and clarity. That means confirming that program details, certification steps, and outcome figures trace back to a primary source, that nothing material is missing, and that the writing is plain enough for a prospective student to act on. If a claim cannot be supported, it gets revised or removed rather than softened.
The team's broader role is to make sure content on the site reflects current professional standards in speech-language pathology and the realities of graduate admissions, clinical fellowship, and state licensure, while keeping the language accessible to readers who are still deciding whether this is the right field for them.
When you see a reviewer byline on an article, it links back to this page so you can see the standards the work was held to.
The guidance on speechpathology.org is editorial, not promotional. Program mentions, school comparisons, and career recommendations are not paid placements, and no school can purchase inclusion in our coverage or influence how it is described.
Whether a program appears on the site is driven by accreditation status, relevance to the reader question at hand, and the availability of reliable public data about it. A CAA accredited master's program in a state we are covering will be discussed because it fits the reader's decision, not because of any commercial relationship with the institution. Programs without recognized accreditation are generally excluded from recommendation lists, regardless of any other factor. The same standard applies to specialized pathways such as no gre masters in speech language pathology programs.
The SLP Editoral Team operates independently of any sales, partnership, or sponsorship activity associated with the site. Editors and reviewers do not see advertiser lists when deciding which schools, sources, or salary figures to include, and commercial teams do not review or approve editorial copy before it is published. Where a page contains sponsored content or an advertising unit, it is labeled as such and kept visually distinct from the editorial body.
If a commercial relationship ever overlaps with a program we cover on the merits, the editorial treatment does not change: the same accreditation checks, the same primary source data, and the same review process apply.