CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 75Stuttering Research and TreatmentCommunication in Education and HealthcareVoice and Speech Disorders

Listener perceptions of stuttering across two presentation modes: A quantitative and qualitative approach

Panico, James, Healey, E. Charles, Brouwer, Kyle, Susca, Michael·2005·Journal of Fluency Disorders
DOI 10.1016/j.jfludis.2005.01.003
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Unlabelled The purpose of this study was to compare participants' quantitative and qualitative judgments of various forms and frequencies of stuttering, during either audiovisual or audio-only presentation modes. A total of 64 participants voluntarily agreed to participate in the study. Each participant was randomly assigned and exposed to only one of the four conditions of varying stuttering severity levels. The assigned speech sample was presented to the participant in either the audiovisual or audio-only mode. After watching or listening to the sample, participants completed a six-item Likert scale and were asked four open-ended questions. Comments made by listeners were developed into positive and negative comments as well as sorted into five theme clusters. The data analyses revealed a number of non-significant differences across mean Likert scale ratings for the six statements and for the number of positive and negative comments between the two presentation modes. However, the results provided partial support for the notion that as the frequency of stuttering increases, listeners tend to make increasingly more negative comments about the speaker. Additionally, there were no clear differences in comments across the five theme clusters between the two presentation modes. The findings suggest that the type of presentation mode does not appear to affect listeners' perceptions of stuttering to the same extent that stuttering severity does.Educational objectives The reader will be able to: (1) describe how listeners perceive and react to various frequencies of stuttering; (2) explain how audiovisual versus audio-only samples impact listener perceptions of stuttering and (3) provide examples of the ways in which qualitative data can enhance the understanding of how listeners react to various levels of stuttering.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jfludis.2005.01.003

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Disfluencies affect how speakers are perceived by others.

    “Disfluencies affect how speakers are perceived by others, and elevated rates of speech disfluencies have been linked to negative social perceptions of the speaker [8, 22, 45].”

    From Linguistic camouflage in girls with autism spectrum disorder (2017) · cites this paper as [45]

  • Elevated rates of speech disfluencies have been linked to negative social perceptions of the speaker.

    “Disfluencies affect how speakers are perceived by others, and elevated rates of speech disfluencies have been linked to negative social perceptions of the speaker [8, 22, 45].”

    From Linguistic camouflage in girls with autism spectrum disorder (2017) · cites this paper as [45]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Panico, J., Healey, E. C., Brouwer, K., & Susca, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Nebraska–Lincoln (US)
  • University of the Pacific (US)
Corresponding author
Panico, James
ORCID
Panico, James
Venue
Journal of Fluency Disorders
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2005-01
Volume
30
Issue
1
Pages
65-85
ISSN
0094-730X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.jfludis.2005.01.003
OpenAlex
W2027726438
Cited by
75
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 1
FWCI
2.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Journal of Fluency Disorders (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Scholarly Commons (University of the Pacific) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Stuttering Research and Treatment
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Communication in Education and Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Voice and Speech Disorders
Keywords
stuttering, listener perception, audiovisual presentation, stuttering severity, stuttering frequency, stigma, attitudes toward stuttering, speech perception
MeSH terms
Adult, Attitude to Health, Female, Humans, Judgment, Male, Middle Aged, Speech Perception, Stuttering, Videotape Recording

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review