Objectives: This systematic review synthesized cross-linguistic evidence on speech error patterns in children with speech sound disorders (SSDs), focusing on percent consonants correct (PCC), SODA (substitution, omission, distortion, and addition) error profiles, and phonological processes, as well as factors contributing to variations in error patterns. Method: Comprehensive searches were conducted in PubMed, CINAHL Ultimate, Scopus, Web of Science, and Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Eligible studies included empirical research on children with phonological, articulation, or functional SSDs that reported quantitative error analyses. Twenty-eight studies met the inclusion criteria. Methodological quality, evaluated using a 16-item framework, ranged from 50.0% to 100.0% ( M = 82.7%). Results: The 28 studies spanned nine languages (English, German, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, French, Turkish, Korean, and Chinese), including three dialects each of Spanish and Chinese and two dialects of Portuguese. Reported PCC values (typically 65.0%–85.0%) indicated predominantly mild–moderate to moderate impairment. Substitution errors were the most prevalent across languages, followed by omissions and distortions. Both language-common and language-specific phonological processes were documented. Discussion: The findings indicate that PCC is generally comparable across languages, whereas SODA error profiles and phonological processes reflect both cross-linguistic similarities and language-specific characteristics. Phonological processes, in particular, exhibit greater cross-linguistic variation. Collectively, these results emphasize the need for culturally responsive diagnostic practices and highlight the importance of developing cross-linguistic frameworks to guide the assessment of SSDs. Supplemental Material: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.32649549
Lee et al. (Thu,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: