For many speech-language pathologists, the time spent commuting to serve individuals with communication disorders can be greater than the time actually spent with the patient. Additionally, SLPs are often unable to serve all of the children that could benefit from their services due to caseload size. Consequently, individuals with the most significant cases tend to be served. Yet, academic performance and social interaction could be negatively impacted by even a simple articulation disorder. Telepractice may offer an efficient solution to these challenges. Therefore, the purpose of this review was to determine the relative effectiveness of telepractice vs. face-to-face intervention for treating articulation disorders in school-aged children. Following database searches and application of inclusion/exclusion criteria, one relevant study was identified and reviewed. In a study by Grogan-Johnson, et al (2013), fourteen students aged 6-11 were randomized to receive treatment face-to-face or via telepractice. The treatments were identical both in terms nature, frequency and duration. The outcome measures of interest included pre- post- standardized test scores and listener judgments of intelligibility. For both groups, students' performance post treatment improved significantly on standardized testing and listener judgment. Of importance to the clinical question here, there was no significant difference in improvement between groups on either measure, suggesting that telepractice was an efficient and acceptable alternative to face-to-face intervention. Implications for practice, education and future research will be discussed.