ArticleJournal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR2015
Characteristics of Fluency and Speech in Two Families With High Incidences of Stuttering.
Article in Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis study presents data from 2 families with high incidence of stuttering, comparing methods of phenotype assignment and exploring the presence of other fluency disorders and corresponding speech characteristics.
methodThree methods for assigning phenotype of stuttering were used: self-identification, family identification, and expert identification. Agreement on which individuals were assigned by each of these methods was studied. Multiple measures of fluency and speech production were obtained.
resultsSelf-reports and descriptions of blocking rather than self-identification as a person who stutters demonstrated the best agreement with expert identification of stuttering. Family identification showed poor agreement with both expert and self-identification of stuttering. Using binary categories of fluent or stuttering, 90% of individuals in 1 family were classified by expert consensus. Only 70% of the other family could be similarly categorized. Experts required 2 other categories, cluttering and other fluency disorders, to fully characterize dysfluency within this family. These 2 families also demonstrated differences in speech production.
conclusionSome families with high incidence of stuttering may also have high incidence of other fluency disorders and other speech-production difficulties. This finding may have ramifications for genetic studies, including criteria for defining phenotype and collapsing data across multiple families.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.