ArticleJournal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR2026
Listener Ratings of Stuttering: Evaluating Two Auditory-Perceptual Scales.
Article in Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR, 2026. 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.
- Reliability and Concurrent Validity of the Likert-Type Stuttering Severity Scale and the Visual Analog Scale in Turkish-Speaking Adults Who Stutter.International journal of language & communication disordersObservational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeStuttering is a motor speech difference characterized by a disruption in the fluency, timing, and rhythm of speech. There is a lack of agreement on how to reliably and efficiently assess stuttering in research and the clinic. This study aims to compare the validity and reliability of two types of auditory-perceptual scales, direct magnitude estimation and equal-appearing interval scales, on assessing stuttering in adult speakers.
methodTwo experiments compared unfamiliar listener ratings of speech samples from adults who stutter. Raters used one of two different rating scales to determine the construct validity and reliability of scaling procedures for capturing stuttering. The two experiments varied by the number and duration of samples (set number of syllables vs. set duration) and by the training given to participants (defining stuttering severity vs. allowing participants to define severity themselves).
resultsBoth experiments demonstrated the appropriateness of both scales for rating stuttering.
conclusionsContrary to earlier studies, our findings indicated that a 7-point equal-appearing interval scale validly captured unfamiliar listeners' perception of stuttering severity. Future study is needed to determine the number of raters needed to provide stable ratings as well as the utility of average or single ratings to capture clinically relevant change.
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.