ArticlePloS one2024
Observer-rated outcomes of communication-centered treatment for adults who stutter: A social validation study.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- CARE Model Assessment for school-age children who stutter: An overview and preliminary findings.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Social validation of post-treatment outcomes of adults who stutter who participated in CARE Model treatment: replication and extension.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2025Article
- CARE Model of Treatment for stuttering: Theory, assumptions, and preliminary findings.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Previous studies have reported that adults who stutter demonstrate significant gains in communication competence, per self-ratings and clinician-ratings, upon completion of a communication-centered treatment, or CCT. The purpose of this social validation study was to determine whether communication competence ratings reported by untrained observers are consistent with client and clinician judgments of communication competence gains following CCT. Eighty-one untrained observers completed an online survey that required each to view one of two videos depicting an adult who stutters during a mock interview recorded prior to CCT or after CCT. Observers were then asked to rate the communication competence of the interviewee on a 100-point visual analog scale and provide additional demographic information. Communication competence of the adult who stutters who had completed CCT was rated significantly higher in their post-treatment video. Upon controlling for two demographic factors found to be associated with observer ratings (years of education, years the observers had known an adult who stutters), significantly higher ratings of communication competence for the post-treatment video were maintained. These preliminary findings provide social validity for CCT by demonstrating that the gains in communication competence reported in previous studies through clinician and client observations are also reported by untrained observers who are not familiar with CCT.
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.