Stuttering assessment report template for speech and language therapists

A stuttering assessment report is the written document in which the speech and language therapist describes a person's fluency, how they experience their stuttering and its impact, states the therapy diagnosis and proposes a treatment plan. In France it goes to the prescribing doctor and becomes the baseline for later reassessments.

The framework in France, Belgium, Switzerland and the UK

In France, the assessment is usually carried out on medical prescription. The FNO (the French federation of speech and language therapists) states that a written report is mandatory, that it includes the therapy diagnosis and that it is sent to the prescribing doctor, the health insurance medical service receiving it only on request (FNO booklet on the assessment, 2018). For the general structure, see our speech and language therapy assessment report template.

In Belgium, the assessment is done by a logopède, and INAMI publishes a restricted list of stuttering assessment tests (version applicable from 01/04/2017; check the current version), covered in our page on INAMI test lists. In Switzerland, the canton of Vaud strongly recommends seeing a speech therapist (logopédiste or orthophoniste) trained in stuttering, especially if it has lasted more than six months, is getting worse or worries the parents; the page gives the DPPLS school service as a contact (canton of Vaud page). In the UK, the RCSLT uses the word stammering, includes the client's awareness and insight in the assessment and describes working in partnership with adults towards goals for change (RCSLT stammering overview).

AMO billing for the assessment in France is the therapist's responsibility under the NGAP. We do not give a code here; see our page on AMO billing in 2026.

Complete stuttering assessment report template

Copy this template and keep the sections in this order. Replace the text in square brackets.

1. Header and reason for referral

• Patient: [first name, surname, date of birth, age at assessment], [school year or occupation].
• Prescription: [assessment with therapy if needed, or investigative assessment], from Dr [name], dated [date].
• Assessment date(s): [date], [number of appointments], [people present].
• Reason for referral: "[concern in the family's or patient's own words]". Example: "He gets stuck on the first word and gets cross when we rush him."

2. Case history

• Onset: age, sudden or gradual, context (new sibling, starting school, illness).
• Course: easier and harder periods, worsening or stable over [duration].
• Family history: relatives who stutter or stuttered, and whether it resolved or persisted.
• Development and language: language milestones, other language or articulation difficulties, home languages, hearing.
• Contexts: when fluency is better (play, singing, one parent) and harder (tiredness, excitement, phone, speaking in class).
• Reactions of others: what parents, school or colleagues say; any teasing.
• Previous therapy: who, when, which approach, what helped.

3. Fluency observation

Describe spontaneous talk (conversation, picture narrative) and reading aloud separately if the person reads. State the size and type of each sample and the counting unit (syllables or words), so the next assessment can be compared.

• Repetitions: of sounds or syllables ("b-b-ball"), of one-syllable words, with the usual number of iterations.
• Prolongations: a sound held too long ("mmmmummy").
• Blocks: a stop at the start of or within a word, mouth ready but no sound, with or without visible tension.
• Other disfluencies: hesitations, revisions, fillers ("um", "like"), kept apart from stuttering-like disfluencies.
• Frequency and duration: [measured rate, unit, sample], length of the longest moments of stuttering.
• Rate and rhythm: overall rate, speeding up, pauses, coordination of breathing and voice.
• Variability: differences between conversation, narrative, reading and tasks set during the assessment.

4. Associated behaviours

• Loss of eye contact, blinking, facial tension, head or hand movements.
• Avoidance: switching words, giving up, letting someone else talk, starter words.
• Level of tension and visible effort during blocks.

5. Feelings and attitudes

Report what the person says about their stutter in their own words, then the results of the attitude or impact questionnaires you chose. Give the name of the tool, its version and who completed it (child, parent, adult). For a child, note whether they are aware of their stuttering and talk about it.

6. Impact on daily life

• School or work: joining in orally, presentations, phone calls, interviews.
• Relationships: friends, family, activities avoided.
• Self-esteem and how much room the stutter takes in the person's life.

7. Conclusion and therapy diagnosis

Summarise in a few sentences: type and severity of the fluency disorder, how long it has been present, factors pointing towards persistence or a favourable course, any associated difficulties, and the weight of the person's experience. Example: "The assessment shows a fluency disorder of the stuttering type, present for [duration], with [types of disfluency] and [associated behaviours]."

8. Treatment plan and recommendations

• Indication: therapy indicated or not, proposed frequency, length of the first block of sessions.
• Goals: two or three observable goals agreed with the family or the patient.
• Approach: programme or method chosen, role of parents, any group sessions.
• Recommendations: advice for family and school, referral to another professional if needed.
• Review: planned date of the reassessment.

Adapting the template for teenagers and adults

With adults, the history goes further back and the person's experience often matters more than the frequency of disfluencies. Add these points:

• Previous therapy and what the person took from it.
• Covert stuttering: someone who avoids a lot may seem fluent in the session. Write down what they report, not only what you see.
• The situations that matter to them: meetings, phone calls, presentations, ordering in a restaurant.
• Their own goals and realistic expectations discussed together.
• Recent onset in adulthood: the RCSLT notes that a neurological or psychological cause may then need prompt investigation; flag it to the doctor in the report.

Fictional completed example: Leo, aged 6

Fictional example. Names, dates and values are invented for illustration.

• Patient: Leo M., born 12/03/2020, 6 years 7 months, first year of primary school.
• Prescription: speech and language therapy assessment with therapy if needed, Dr Martin, GP, 02/10/2026.
• Assessment: two appointments, 14 and 21/10/2026, both parents present at the first.
• Reason for referral: "He gets stuck on the first word and stamps his foot when it won't come out."

Case history

Disfluencies started gradually at around three and a half, when his sister was born. They fluctuated, then increased since he started school this year. His paternal uncle stuttered as a child and still stutters as an adult. No reported language delay, hearing checked as normal in 2025, French only at home. Leo is more fluent when playing alone with his father and has more difficulty when tired or when he wants to tell a story quickly at dinner. His parents sometimes tell him to "breathe" or "start again slowly". A classmate imitated him in the playground. No previous therapy.

Fluency observation

Conversation and picture narrative, one sample per context, counted in syllables (sample sizes in appendix). Reading not assessed, still being learned. Leo shows syllable repetitions ("I-I-I want") often with three or four iterations, sound prolongations at the start of utterances and silent blocks on the first word, the longest lasting about two seconds (fictional duration, for illustration). Rate of stuttered syllables higher in narrative than in conversation (rates in appendix; no figure is given here, as it would be an invented value). Fast rate in narrative, with sentence revisions. Disfluencies drop clearly when the adult slows their own rate.

Associated behaviours

Blinking during blocks, looking away, foot stamping to "push" the word out. Early avoidance: Leo sometimes says "forget it" and changes the subject.

Feelings and attitudes

Leo says that "sometimes the words get stuck" and that he "doesn't like it when people laugh". An age-appropriate communication attitude questionnaire, chosen and scored by the therapist, shows a negative attitude towards talking; the tool's name, the score and the manual's reference for interpretation are in the appendix. His parents are worried and feel at a loss.

Impact

According to his teacher, Leo puts his hand up less than last year. He joins in games but avoids telling stories in front of the group.

Conclusion

The assessment shows a fluency disorder of the stuttering type, present for three years, with repetitions, prolongations and blocks with tension, associated behaviours and early avoidance. Several factors point to a risk of persistence, among those listed by APB in its leaflet for GPs: stuttering for more than six months to a year, worsening, male, family history, awareness, and concern in the child and the parents. No other language difficulty identified during the assessment.

Treatment plan

• Speech and language therapy indicated, one session a week, with a parent taking part.
• Goals: reduce tension during blocks, help Leo talk about his stutter without embarrassment, help parents adapt the pace of conversation.
• Advice for school: give Leo time to finish, do not finish his sentences, do not tell him to "breathe". A letter to the teacher is offered with the parents' agreement.
• Reassessment planned after the first block of sessions.

Common mistakes in a stuttering assessment report

• A number without a method: a percentage with no unit or sample size cannot be compared at the next assessment.
• Judging from one sample: stuttering varies a lot with context; a fluent session does not mean a mild disorder.
• Leaving out the person's experience: an adult who avoids a lot may seem barely affected. APB, the French stuttering association, says the main aim is for stuttering to move into the background, without avoidance (APB page for therapists).
• Writing "wait and see" for a young child without reasons: APB warns against this advice, as no one can tell which child will keep stuttering.
• Mixing observation and interpretation: describe what you saw first, then conclude.
• Jargon the doctor and family cannot follow: technical terms need a plain explanation.
• No concrete recommendations for the family and the school.

Checklist before sending

• Prescription, dates and people present noted.
• Onset, course and family history filled in.
• Samples described: context, size, counting unit.
• Types of disfluency and associated behaviours described in plain words.
• Experience reported in the patient's words, with the names of the questionnaires used.
• Impact on school, work and relationships described.
• Clear therapy diagnosis and treatment plan.
• Reassessment date and sending to the prescriber planned.

To send it, you can start from our letter to the prescribing doctor template, then build on this report for the reassessment.

Country pointers

• France: orthophoniste, assessment usually on medical prescription, written report sent to the prescriber with a therapy diagnosis (FNO).
• Belgium: logopède, tests chosen from the INAMI restricted list for stuttering, where each test is classed as descriptive (D), experience (E) or both.
• Switzerland (Vaud): speech therapist trained in stuttering, DPPLS school service given as a contact by the canton of Vaud.
• United Kingdom: speech and language therapist, terminology and principles set out by the RCSLT.

Why Delta suits this assessment

Delta is the clinical assistant for mental health and allied health professionals, more than a scribe: it keeps the memory of each patient. After the assessment you dictate your observations, or Delta transcribes what is said during the case history interview, then it drafts the report in your structure and vocabulary, learned from your existing reports. It does not score tests, calculate any score, code the procedure or handle billing: you keep control of scores and conclusions. The patient record is updated, so the whole course of care is in one place up to the reassessment. Data is hosted in France with an HDS-certified host; for Belgium, Switzerland and the UK it stays in Europe, in France, on infrastructure certified for health data. See Delta for speech therapists, what Delta is and our clinical document templates.

Sources

• FNO, Qu'est-ce que le bégaiement ? (in French, published 07/12/2018, accessed 03/11/2026).
• FNO, professional booklet on the assessment (in French, 2018).
• APB, page for speech and language therapists and leaflet for GPs (in French, undated).
• INAMI, restricted list of stuttering assessment tests (version applicable from 01/04/2017).
• RCSLT, Stammering overview (last updated October 2025).