An investigation of interclinic agreement in the identification of fluent and stuttered syllables

Abstract Experienced clinicians in several treatment centers were provided with audio-recorded speech samples from eight stutterers and two normal speakers. They were asked to 1) count the total number of syllables in each sample, 2) count the number of stuttered syllables in each sample, and 3) rate each speaker on a seven-point stuttering severity scale. There were substantial interclinic discrepancies in all three measures. The implications of these results are discussed, and suggestions to improve interclinic agreement are provided.

[1]  W. Perkins Stuttering as a Categorical Event , 1984 .

[2]  G. Andrews,et al.  Stuttering: overt and covert measurement of the speech of treated subjects. , 1982, The Journal of speech and hearing disorders.

[3]  O. Bloodstein A handbook on stuttering , 1969 .

[4]  J. M. Fletcher The Problem of Stuttering. , 1932 .

[5]  R. Martin,et al.  Contingent self-stimulation for stuttering. , 1982, The Journal of speech and hearing disorders.

[6]  F. Minifie,et al.  Ratings of stuttering by audio, visual, and audiovisual cues. , 1963, Journal of Speech and Hearing Research.

[7]  R. Curlee Observer agreement on disfluency and stuttering. , 1981, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[8]  R. Martin,et al.  Stuttering identification: standard definition and moment of stuttering. , 1981, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[9]  J. Costello The establishment of fluency with time-out procedures: three case studies. , 1975, The Journal of speech and hearing disorders.

[10]  Richard R. Martin,et al.  The Effects of Response Contingent Shock on Stuttering , 1966 .

[11]  B. Ryan Programmed Therapy for Stuttering in Children and Adults , 1980 .

[12]  R. Martin,et al.  Stuttering and speech naturalness. , 1984, The Journal of speech and hearing disorders.

[13]  M. A. Young,et al.  Observer agreement for marking moments of stuttering. , 1975, Journal of speech and hearing research.