Cited by 26Stuttering Research and TreatmentAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesCommunication in Education and Healthcare

Fear of negative evaluation, trait anxiety, and judgment bias in adults who stutter

Brundage, Shelley B., Winters, Katherine L., Beilby, Janet M.·2017·American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology

Abstract

PURPOSE: Persons who stutter (PWS) and those with social anxiety disorder may exhibit fear of negative evaluation (FNE) and anxiety in social situations. However, the information processing biases that perpetuate these characteristics have had limited investigation. This study investigated judgment bias in social situations. METHOD: Participants included 50 adults who stutter and 45 age- and gender-matched fluent persons who do not stutter (PWNS), who made up the control group. Participants completed the Interpretation and Judgmental Questionnaire (Voncken, Bögels, & deVries, 2003), and threat scores were calculated. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between PWS and PWNS in social threat or nonsocial threat scores. When the PWS group was divided on the basis of FNE and compared with PWNS participants without heightened anxiety (n = 35), the PWS with high FNE had significantly higher total social threat scores than the PWS with low FNE. The three groups did not differ in threat ratings for ambiguous or profoundly negative social situations. CONCLUSIONS: Judgment bias in PWS is mediated by the magnitude of FNE present; not all PWS exhibit judgment bias for social situations. Treatment implications include the need for psychosocial support addressing the negative impacts on quality of life and restrictions on social engagement that stuttering may cause in some individuals.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1044/2017_ajslp-16-0129

Cites

92 of 92 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Brundage, S. B., Winters, K. L., & Beilby, J. M.
Affiliations
  • George Washington University (US)
  • Curtin University (AU)
Venue
American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology
Published
2017-05-17
Volume
26
Issue
2
Pages
498-510
ISSN
  • 1058-0360 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-9110
OpenAlex
W2611358480
Cited by
26
References
89
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 3
FWCI
1.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eSpace (Curtin University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Stuttering Research and Treatment
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Communication in Education and Healthcare
Keywords
stuttering, fear of negative evaluation, trait anxiety, judgment bias, social danger, social anxiety, information processing biases, adults who stutter, psychosocial support
MeSH terms
Phobia, Social, Adult, Anxiety, Culture, Educational Status, Fear, Female, Humans, Individuality, Interpersonal Relations, Judgment, Male, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Stuttering, Thinking, Reproducibility of Results, Bias, Anticipation, Psychological

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