Developed with a strong awareness of past injustices, South Africa's progressive constitution emphasises a full spectrum of human rights. While the constitution celebrates many languages and cultures, speech-language pathologists (SLPs) face challenges in translating these values into practice with a diverse clientele. Similarly, Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights focuses on freedom of expression in one's language of choice, but is often perceived as a "Cinderella" right (i.e. one that is frequently neglected). This paper presents a literature review undertaken in association with the Health Professions Council of South Africa to produce guidelines to support SLPs in their practice with diverse linguistic and cultural groups. The aim was to identify key points for inclusion in a set of human rights-driven guidelines. Specific objectives were to critique: (1) current guidelines for SLPs working with diverse cultural and linguistic groups; and (2) equivalent guidelines for related professions. Content analysis of the datasets revealed key themes which formed the basis of an initial skeleton, to be further developed through a consultative process and discussion, ultimately aiming to provide supportive, practical guidelines to better equip South African SLPs to serve all the people of the country.

Background In speech-language pathology (SLP), there is a paucity of resources to provide just and equitable services to South Africa’s culturally and linguistically diverse population. Although South Africa is a multilingual country, English remains the dominant language. However, there is limited research on resources for English additional language (EAL) speakers. Objectives This article addresses this gap by presenting the results of a critique of a commonly used language screening tool, the Renfrew Action Picture Test (RAPT), on EAL speakers. Method This tool is used as an example to broadly critique the use of culturally biased assessment instruments with EAL speakers from an indigenous linguistic and cultural background. It is administered to children who are EAL speakers and then critiqued by the children too. Their voice, often ignored in research, is central to the research. A mixed methods approach is used, including focus groups and test administration. This article is based on the results of the thematic analysis used to closely examine the patterns that emerge. Results A key finding is that the cultural and linguistic background of the child assessed cannot be disregarded, as it plays a crucial role in understanding the response of the child. The interpretation of the response of the child to the presented material of the language assessment tool significantly influences the result of the assessment. Conclusion The speech language therapist has a responsibility to avoid skewed results based on uninformed interpretation of the response of the child. These findings provide useful insights for clinicians regarding culture-fair assessment.