ArticleJournal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR2025
Assessing Childhood Stuttering Recovery: Incorporating Self-Identification and Caregiver/Clinician Reports Through Adolescence.
Article in Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Extended Clinical Follow-Up and Long-Term Stuttering Outcomes: A 24-Month Observational Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeInvestigating stuttering recovery rates can be challenging, as recovery status can change based on self-report, later recovery, or relapse. In this study, we contacted previous child participants from our longitudinal studies (now older children to young adults) who were originally assigned persistence/recovery status guided by clinician and caregiver reports only. Their stuttering status as adolescents and young adults was re-evaluated based on currently assessed clinician and caregiver reports, observable stuttering severity assessments, and self-reports.
methodSeventy-nine participants were contacted based on their current age and time since their last longitudinal study visit (> 2 years). Of these, 23 participated in this follow-up investigation. Participants and caregivers completed follow-up questionnaires, and participants' speech samples were recorded for offline stuttering disfluency ratings by a speech-language pathologist.
resultsWhen considering participant and caregiver reports as well as clinician report based on stuttering severity ratings, recovery status changed for nine of the 23 participants (39.13%). All nine self-identified as recovered, although four of the nine were judged to exhibit very mild stuttering. Five of the nine were viewed to be late recovery cases, occurring after the conclusion of the prior longitudinal study. The presence of stuttering behaviors was often reported consistently across clinician and participant/caregiver reports (the basis for "persistence" judgments by the clinician), but in eight cases (34.78%), participants did not self-identify as stutterers despite reported presence of stuttering.
conclusionsOur results highlight the importance of assessing stuttering beyond early childhood to examine recovery rates. Furthermore, self-reports on stuttering status reveal that the concept of recovery is nuanced: The presence of overt stuttering does not necessarily correlate with self-identification of stuttering. These findings have implications on how best to define stuttering persistence and recovery for future research and clinical practice. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.28654565.
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.