ArticleJournal of fluency disorders2020
Lexical diversity and lexical skills in children who stutter.
Article in Journal of fluency disorders, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring the Activation of Target Words in Picture Naming in Children Who Stutter: Evidence From Event-Related Potentials.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2024Article
- Mental state verb use in play by preschool-age children who stutter and their mothers.Journal of fluency disorders · 2024Article
- Comparing Scores on the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test and Receptive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test in Preschoolers With and Without Hearing Loss.American journal of speech-language pathology · 2023Article
- Stalling for Time: Stall, Revision, and Stuttering-Like Disfluencies Reflect Language Factors in the Speech of Young Children.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2023Article
- The Association between Difficulties with Speech Fluency and Language Skills in a National Age Cohort of Children with Down Syndrome.Brain sciences · 2021Article
- Novel word recognition in childhood stuttering.Topics in language disordersArticle
- Linguistic aspects of stuttering: research updates on the language-fluency interface.Topics in language disordersArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeNumerous "small N" studies of language ability in children who stutter have produced differing conclusions. We combined test and spontaneous language data from a large cohort of children who stutter (CWS) and typically fluent peers, gathered from independent laboratories across the US, to appraise a variety of lexical measures.
methodStandardized receptive and expressive vocabulary test data and spontaneous language samples from 99 pairs of CWS (ages 25-100 months), and age-, gender-, and SES-matched children who do not stutter (CWNS) were compared. Language sample transcripts were analyzed with four measures of lexical diversity. Correlations between lexical diversity measures and expressive vocabulary scores were also calculated.
resultsOn standardized tests of both receptive and expressive vocabulary, there were significant differences between CWS and CWNS. In contrast, on spontaneous language measures of lexical diversity, CWS did not differ in their lexical diversity, across analyses, compared to CWNS. Three of the four lexical diversity analyses, MATTR, VocD, and NDW, were significantly correlated with each other.
conclusionsWe were able to confirm prior findings of relative disadvantage on standardized vocabulary tests for a very large sample of well-matched CWS. However, spontaneous language measures of lexical diversity did not distinguish the groups. This relative weakness in CWS may emerge from task differences: CWS are free to encode their own spontaneous utterances but must comply with explicit lexical prompts in standardized testing situations.
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.