{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.026832460732984294, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0058900523560209425, 'mean_word_length': 5.318181818181818, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A Study of the Experiences of Speech-Language Pathologists in Writing Evaluation and Intervention

the career, licenses, and educational experience of the SLPs. Methods: An appropriately developed questionnaire was used according to the purpose of this study, and the responses of 125 SLPs who responded to the questionnaire were distributed. The survey consisted of basic information (9 questions), writing evaluation (6 questions), and writing intervention (5 questions). Results: Among the SLPs, 53.2% of them experienced writing evaluation, therefore, it can be seen that about half of the SLPs did not experience writing evaluation. In the intervention experience, it can be seen that many SLPs used their own learning materials as intervention tools due to the absence of various intervention tools suitable for children; this accounted for the largest percentage. For the writing evaluation, there were significant differences according to career, SLP license, and the educational experience. Conversely, for the writing intervention, the results showed significant differences only in the experience of the SLPs. Conclusions: Although children need writing evaluation, evaluation cannot be carried out due to lack of knowledge and lack of time of SLPs. In this regard, the further development of a teaching tools needs to be improved through. Further, due to a lack of diversity of assessment and intervention tools, SLPs must be provided with sufficient time to use informal tools or to create their own teaching tools.