Cited by 55Stuttering Research and TreatmentVoice and Speech DisordersAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

Self-efficacy and quality of life in adults who stutter

Carter, Alice, Breen, Lauren, Yaruss, J. Scott, Beilby, Janet·2017·Journal of Fluency Disorders

Abstract

Purpose Self-efficacy has emerged as a potential predictor of quality of life for adults who stutter. Research has focused primarily on the positive relationship self-efficacy has to treatment outcomes, but little is known about the relationship between self-efficacy and quality of life for adults who stutter. The purpose of this mixed- methods study is to determine the predictive value of self-efficacy and its relationship to quality of life for adults who stutter.Method The Self-Efficacy Scale for Adult Stutterers and the Overall Assessment of the Speaker's Experience with Stuttering were administered to 39 adults who stutter, aged 18- 77. Percentage of syllables stuttered was calculated from a conversational speech sample as a measure of stuttered speech frequency. Qualitative interviews with semi-structured probes were conducted with 10 adults and analyzed using thematic analysis to explore the lived experience of adults who stutter.Results Self-efficacy emerged as a strong positive predictor of quality of life for adults living with a stuttered speech disorder. Stuttered speech frequency was a moderate negative predictor of self-efficacy. Major qualitative themes identified from the interviews with the participants were: encumbrance, self-concept, confidence, acceptance, life-long journey, treatment, and support.Conclusion Results provide clarity on the predictive value of self-efficacy and its relationship to quality of life and stuttered speech frequency. Findings highlight that the unique life experiences of adults who stutter require a multidimensional approach to the assessment and treatment of stuttered speech disorders.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jfludis.2017.09.004

Cites

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?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 48 · Cited by 55

Authors
Carter, A., Breen, L., Yaruss, J. S., & Beilby, J.
Affiliations
  • Curtin University (AU)
  • Michigan State University (US)
Corresponding author
Beilby, Janet
Venue
Journal of Fluency Disorders
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-12
Volume
54
Pages
14-23
ISSN
0094-730X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2758942818
Cited by
55
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 3
FWCI
4.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Fluency Disorders (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eSpace (Curtin University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Stuttering Research and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Voice and Speech Disorders
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
stuttering, self-efficacy, quality of life, adults who stutter, lived experience, self-concept, acceptance, support
MeSH terms
Adult, Communication, Female, Humans, Interviews as Topic, Male, Middle Aged, Quality of Life, Self Concept, Speech, Speech Disorders, Stuttering, Self Efficacy, Qualitative Research

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