Reliability of Listeners' Stuttering Counts: The Effects of Instructions to Count Agreed Stuttering

A. Packman, M. Onslow
{"title":"Reliability of Listeners' Stuttering Counts: The Effects of Instructions to Count Agreed Stuttering","authors":"A. Packman, M. Onslow","doi":"10.3109/ASL2.1995.23.ISSUE-1.03","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The reliability with which listeners record or count stuttering events has long been of concern in stuttering treatment and research. Two recent studies (Kully & Boberg, 1988; Ingham & Cordes, 1992) found low levels of agreement in total stuttering counts across treatment centres. One possible reason for low agreement is the perceptual overlap between stuttering and normal disfluency. The present study investigated the intrajudge and interjudge agreement of seven experienced clinicians who worked closely together in the same treatment centre. In Part One of the study the judges were found to have high intrajudge reliability; however, there were considerable discrepancies in the judges' total stuttering counts. Part Two of the study investigated the effect on interjudge agreement of instructing the judges to count only those events which they were “certain other judges would agree are stuttering.” The total counts decreased significantly in response to this instruction but the level of interjudge agreement...","PeriodicalId":426731,"journal":{"name":"Australian journal of human communication disorders","volume":"57 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1995-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian journal of human communication disorders","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3109/ASL2.1995.23.ISSUE-1.03","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The reliability with which listeners record or count stuttering events has long been of concern in stuttering treatment and research. Two recent studies (Kully & Boberg, 1988; Ingham & Cordes, 1992) found low levels of agreement in total stuttering counts across treatment centres. One possible reason for low agreement is the perceptual overlap between stuttering and normal disfluency. The present study investigated the intrajudge and interjudge agreement of seven experienced clinicians who worked closely together in the same treatment centre. In Part One of the study the judges were found to have high intrajudge reliability; however, there were considerable discrepancies in the judges' total stuttering counts. Part Two of the study investigated the effect on interjudge agreement of instructing the judges to count only those events which they were “certain other judges would agree are stuttering.” The total counts decreased significantly in response to this instruction but the level of interjudge agreement...
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
听者口吃计数的可靠性:计数一致口吃的指令的影响
听者记录或计数口吃事件的可靠性一直是口吃治疗和研究中关注的问题。最近的两项研究(Kully & Boberg, 1988;Ingham & Cordes(1992)发现各治疗中心的口吃总数一致性较低。一致性低的一个可能原因是口吃和正常不流利之间的知觉重叠。本研究调查了在同一治疗中心密切合作的7名经验丰富的临床医生的内部法官和法官之间的协议。在第一部分的研究中,我们发现法官具有较高的法官内部信度;然而,在法官的口吃总数上有相当大的差异。研究的第二部分调查了指示法官只计算那些他们“确定其他法官会同意的口吃事件”对法官间一致性的影响。根据这一指令,总数显著下降,但法官间的一致程度……
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Australian and United States Perspectives on Stuttering in Preschool Children Beliefs about Stuttering and Anxiety: Research and Clinical Implications Anxiety in Children and Young Adolescents who Stutter Post-treatment Stuttering Severity under Different Assessment Conditions Early Stuttering and the Vmodel
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1