Balancing promise and risk: artificial intelligence use, knowledge, and perceptions among speech and language therapists in Türkiye

BMC MEDICAL EDUCATION, ss.1-22, 2026 (SCI-Expanded, SSCI)

Yayın Türü: Makale / Tam Makale
Basım Tarihi: 2026
Doi Numarası: 10.1186/s12909-026-10426-0
Dergi Adı: BMC MEDICAL EDUCATION
Derginin Tarandığı İndeksler: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI)
Sayfa Sayıları: ss.1-22
Anadolu Üniversitesi Adresli: Evet

Abstract

Background Artificial intelligence (AI) holds transformative potential in Speech and Language Therapy, offering

important opportunities while also raising risks that require careful consideration. Despite rapid developments,

evidence on perspectives of speech and language therapists (SLTs) toward AI remains limited. In this context, the

current study aimed to explore the knowledge, use, and perceptions of SLTs in Türkiye regarding AI.

Method A mixed-method (quantitative and qualitative), cross-sectional design was employed. A total of 262 SLTs

working across Türkiye were recruited through convenience sampling, via the national professional association’s

mailing list, social media, and clinical/educational settings. The data collection took place between February and

April 2025. Data were collected online using a questionnaire developed by the authors based on the recent AI

literature in Speech and Language Therapy, including Likert-type and open-ended items covering demographics,

AI knowledge, AI use, perceptions of the future of AI, and ethics. Quantitative data were analyzed using descrip-

tive and non-parametric statistics, while qualitative responses were examined using thematic analysis.

Results A substantial proportion of participants reported using AI in professional practice, with usage varying

significantly by years of experience. Less experienced SLTs demonstrated higher levels of AI use across disorder

groups and clinical stages (p < .01). Participants highlighted benefits such as increased efficiency in material

preparation, time management, and academic tasks, while also expressing concerns about ethical issues, limited

individualization, and potential impacts on professional roles. Qualitative findings indicated that AI was primar-

ily perceived as a supportive tool rather than a replacement for SLTs, emphasizing the importance of human

interaction and clinical expertise.

Conclusions The participants generally view AI as a useful and supportive tool; however, limitations remain in

knowledge, proficiency, and ethical confidence. While AI shows considerable potential, its safe and effective

integration requires improved AI literacy, clear ethical and professional guidelines, and stronger evidence-based

practices