Stuttering Severity Judgments by Speech-Language Pathologists of Bilingual Children Who Do and Do Not Stutter.

IF 1.1 4区 医学 Q3 AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY
Selma Saad Merouwe, Raymond Bertram, Sami Richa, Kurt Eggers
{"title":"Stuttering Severity Judgments by Speech-Language Pathologists of Bilingual Children Who Do and Do Not Stutter.","authors":"Selma Saad Merouwe,&nbsp;Raymond Bertram,&nbsp;Sami Richa,&nbsp;Kurt Eggers","doi":"10.1159/000528520","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Recent studies conducted with bilingual populations have shown that bilingual children who do not stutter (CWNS) are often less fluent than their monolingual counterparts, which seems to affect the accuracy with which speech-language pathologists (SLPs) identify stuttering in bilinguals. That is, misdiagnosis appears frequently in bilingual children and is more likely to occur with bilingual CWNS (false positives) than with bilingual CWS (false negatives).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The goal of the current study was to gain insight in the extent of this misdiagnosis. Speech samples of 6 Lebanese bilingual CWNS and 2 CWS were rated by Lebanese SLPs in an audio-only and audiovisual presentation mode. SLPs had to identify each child as stuttering or not and subsequently rate on a 6-point scale the stuttering severity for each child. SLPs also provided background information by means of a questionnaire.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The results showed that stuttering severity ratings (1) were on average significantly higher for CWS than for CWNS, (2) were for each CWS higher than for all but one of the CWNS, (3) varied significantly among the CWNS but not the CWS, (4) were not affected by the presentation mode, and (5) correlated positively with the percentage of stuttering-like disfluencies (SLD) and the mean number of iterations, but not with the percentage of other disfluencies (OD).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Misdiagnosed bilingual CWNS are perceived by the SLPs as having a mild stutter, primarily based on the frequency of their disfluencies, but can be occasionally rated at par with CWS. Further research differentiating the disfluent speech of bilingual children who do and do not stutter is needed to reach a more adequate diagnosis of stuttering.</p>","PeriodicalId":12114,"journal":{"name":"Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000528520","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Recent studies conducted with bilingual populations have shown that bilingual children who do not stutter (CWNS) are often less fluent than their monolingual counterparts, which seems to affect the accuracy with which speech-language pathologists (SLPs) identify stuttering in bilinguals. That is, misdiagnosis appears frequently in bilingual children and is more likely to occur with bilingual CWNS (false positives) than with bilingual CWS (false negatives).

Methods: The goal of the current study was to gain insight in the extent of this misdiagnosis. Speech samples of 6 Lebanese bilingual CWNS and 2 CWS were rated by Lebanese SLPs in an audio-only and audiovisual presentation mode. SLPs had to identify each child as stuttering or not and subsequently rate on a 6-point scale the stuttering severity for each child. SLPs also provided background information by means of a questionnaire.

Results: The results showed that stuttering severity ratings (1) were on average significantly higher for CWS than for CWNS, (2) were for each CWS higher than for all but one of the CWNS, (3) varied significantly among the CWNS but not the CWS, (4) were not affected by the presentation mode, and (5) correlated positively with the percentage of stuttering-like disfluencies (SLD) and the mean number of iterations, but not with the percentage of other disfluencies (OD).

Conclusion: Misdiagnosed bilingual CWNS are perceived by the SLPs as having a mild stutter, primarily based on the frequency of their disfluencies, but can be occasionally rated at par with CWS. Further research differentiating the disfluent speech of bilingual children who do and do not stutter is needed to reach a more adequate diagnosis of stuttering.

语言病理学家对有和无口吃双语儿童口吃严重程度的判断。
导读:最近对双语人群进行的研究表明,不口吃的双语儿童(CWNS)通常不如单语儿童流利,这似乎影响了语言病理学家(slp)识别双语者口吃的准确性。也就是说,在双语儿童中经常出现误诊,并且双语CWNS(假阳性)比双语CWS(假阴性)更容易发生。方法:当前研究的目的是深入了解这种误诊的程度。6名黎巴嫩双语CWNS和2名CWS的语音样本由黎巴嫩slp在纯音频和视听呈现模式下进行评分。slp必须确定每个孩子是否有口吃,然后用6分制对每个孩子的口吃严重程度进行评分。slp还通过问卷提供了背景资料。结果:口吃严重程度评分(1)CWS平均显著高于CWNS,(2)每个CWS均高于除一个外的所有CWNS,(3)在CWNS之间差异显著,而在CWS之间不存在差异,(4)不受呈现方式的影响,(5)与类口吃不流畅百分比(SLD)和平均迭代次数呈正相关,而与其他不流畅百分比(OD)不相关。结论:被误诊的双语CWNS被slp认为是轻度口吃,主要基于他们不流利的频率,但偶尔可以被评为与CWS相同。需要进一步的研究来区分有口吃和没有口吃的双语儿童的言语不流利,以达到更充分的口吃诊断。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica
Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY-OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
10.00%
发文量
28
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Published since 1947, ''Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica'' provides a forum for international research on the anatomy, physiology, and pathology of structures of the speech, language, and hearing mechanisms. Original papers published in this journal report new findings on basic function, assessment, management, and test development in communication sciences and disorders, as well as experiments designed to test specific theories of speech, language, and hearing function. Review papers of high quality are also welcomed.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信