Middle School Students Perceptions of Stuttering

1
Middle School Students Perceptions of Stuttering

• David Evans
• Nori Kawai
• E. Charles Healey
• Susan Rowland

2
Purpose of Study

• To determine if different amounts stuttering
  frequency affect middle school students
  affective, behavioral, and cognitive perceptions
  of a peer who stutters.

3
Motivation

• Few studies that have examined children's
  perceptions of stuttering and peer perceptions of
  stuttering within a middle school setting.
• Peer perceptions of stuttering may provide a more
  realistic description of how stuttering is
  perceived within a school setting.

4
Previous Studies

• People who stutter are often perceived negatively
  and labeled as tense, insecure, passive, afraid,
  nervous, etc. ( Panico et al, 2005 Franck et al,
  2003 Dorsey Guenther, 2000 Cooper Cooper,
  1996 Woods Williams, 1976).
• Classroom teachers (Crowe Walton, 1981) and
  special education teachers (Lass et al., 1994)
  have negative images/stereotypes (i.e., shy,
  nervous, quiet) for children who stutter.

5
Previous Studies

• Children assign negative personality traits to
  adults who stutter (Franck, Jackson, Pimentel,
  Greenwood, 2003), prefer fluent speech at 4 to 5
  years of age and use the term stuttering at 8 to
  10 years of age (Giolas Williams, 1958 Culatta
  Sloan, 1977).
• Students who stutter are at higher risk of being
  bullied than students who do not stutter (Blood
  Blood, 2004 Langevin et al., 1998).
• Evaluating perceptions of stuttering using
  affective, cognitive, and behavioral components.
  Langevin Hagler (2004).

6
Previous Studies

• Research has frequently reported that male
  children have less favorable ratings of a
  disabled peer than female children (Krajewski
  Flaherty, 2000 Rosenbaum, Armstrong, King,
  1986 Voeltz, 1980).
• This finding has also been observed in
  communication disordered populations (Freeby
  Madison, 1989 Lilienfeld Alant, 2002 Beck,
  Fritz, Keller, Dennis, 2000)

7
Method

• Research Questions
• 1) Does stuttering frequency affect middle school
  students perceptions of a peer who stutters?
• 2) Do differences exist between affective,
  behavioral, and cognitive perceptions of a peer
  who stutters?
• 3) Do males and females in middle school perceive
  a male peer who stutters differently?

8
Method

• Research Hypotheses
• 1) Higher frequencies of stuttering will be
  perceived more negatively.
• 2) Stuttering frequency will affect Affective,
  Behavioral, and Cognitive perceptions.
• 3) Males will perceive a peer who stutters more
  negatively than females.

9
Method

• Participants
• Video Speaker
• Video Observers

10
Participants

• Video Speaker
• 16 year-old male in the 10th grade
• Previously seen for fluency therapy
• Able to simulate a variety of stuttering types
• Currently a very mild stuttering severity
• Able to demonstrate control of his fluency while
  reading
• Unknown to video observers

11
Participants

• Video Observers
• 64 students (30 males/34 females) from the 6th,
  7th, and 8th grades from two middle schools in
  Lincoln, Nebraska (population approx 225,000).
• Age Range 10-14 years M 12.7 years
• Observers had no hearing, speech, language,
  learning, behavioral, or neurological disorders.
• No close friend or family member who stutters.

12
Procedure

• Stimuli
• The Joke
• Video speaker read a 356 word story
• 14 (3.05), 10 (2.30), 5 (2.06), and lt1 (1.36)
  
• lt1 fleeting in duration, no secondaries.
• Balanced between Repetitions, MWWR,
  Prolongations, and Blocks
• Duration of stuttering for the 5, 10, 14
  ranged from 1 to 2.5 seconds with minimal
  secondary behaviors. Simulated stuttering.

13
There was a b-b-big event in a city where all of
the the hotel rooms were taken. A t-t-teacher
came into one hotel and asked the manager for a
room. The m-m-manager said, Were all full
except for the rrrroom on the 13th floor, but
thats where the ghost with the the two white
eyes lives. The teacher said, Wwwwell, I dont
believe in ghosts so Ill Ill take that room.
14
Procedure

• Four Conditions
• Each participant will be randomly assigned to
  view the ONE joke at a ONE stuttering severity.
• 16 participants per condition

15
Procedure

• Data Collection
• 1. Quantitative
• -Likert scale questionnaire
• 2. Verbal Responses
• -Open-ended questions about the video sample

16
Data Collection

• Likert Questionnaire
• Rating 1(S. Disagree) 3 (neutral/normal) to 5
  (Strongly agree)
• 3 practice Likert questions
• (e.g., Spider-Man moves really quickly)
• Questions addressing Affective perceptions
  (Feelings)
• Questions addressing Behavioral perceptions
• (Speech Production)
• Questions addressing Cognitive perceptions
  (Beliefs)

17
Data Collection

• Affective Questions
• I felt comfortable listening to this boy.
• I would feel comfortable talking with this boy at
  school.
• I would feel comfortable having this boy as one
  of my friends.
• This boy could speak for my group in a class
  presentation.
• My group of friends would feel comfortable
  including this boy in our group.

18
Data Collection

• Behavioral Questions
• This boy is a good speaker.
• This boy had an easy time telling the joke.
• This boy has smooth speech.

19
Data Collection

• Cognitive Questions
• I think this boy would be teased about his
  speech.
• I think this boy would fit in well at our school.
  
• I think this boy would have an easy time making
  friends.

20
Data Collection

• Interview Questions
• Tell me all you can about what you just saw.
• What did you notice about the way he talked?
• How did you feel while the boy talked?
• What you were thinking while you listened to the
  boy.
• Have you ever seen someone talk like him?

21
Data Analysis

• Interview Questions
• Verbal responses were transcribed and analyzed
  descriptively.
• Statements were labeled and analyzed as
  Affective, Behavioral, or Cognitive statements
  (Inter-judge agreement of statements 91).
• Affective (comfortable, uncomfortable,
  sympathetic)
• Behavioral (stuttering, severity, disfluency,
  other speech)
• Cognitive (teasing, friends, comprehension)

22
Data Analysis

• Likert Questions
• Between Group and Mixed Group Factorial ANOVA
• Question x Stuttering Frequency
• Question Type (A,B,C) x Stuttering Frequency
• Gender x Stuttering Frequency
• Affective, Behavioral, Cognitive Questions
• Gender x Question

23
Interview Results

• Affective Responses
• At each frequency more participants stated
  feeling more comfortable than uncomfortable
  watching the video.
• Many more participants stated feeling more
  comfortable viewing lt1 (41) than 5, 10, or 14
  stuttering (26).
• An increasing tendency to make statements showing
  sympathy as stuttering frequency increased. (18
  - 50).

24
Interview Results

• Behavioral Responses
• Most participants (85) used the word
  stuttering when viewing 5 or greater, fewer
  (68) when viewing lt1.
• Many commented the teen stuttered a lot when
  viewing the 14 sample (39), fewer (8) for the
  lt1 sample.
• Many more commented about other speech
  characteristics for the lt1 sample (59), fewer
  when viewing greater stuttering frequencies (
  17).

25
Interview Results

• Cognitive Responses
• A progressive increase in statements about
  teasing as stuttering increased (12 - 47).
  Decline at 14 stuttering (13).
• Few made statements about a difficulty for the
  teen to make friends (10). Not related to
  stuttering frequency.
• Statements about having difficulty understanding
  the joke appeared related to stuttering frequency
  (12 - 56).

26
Results

• Question x Stuttering Frequency
• Does stuttering frequency affect how the
  students answered individual Likert questions?
• Those who viewed lt1 stuttering were
  significantly more positive in their ratings of
  the teen than those who viewed 5, 10, and 14
  stuttering.
• Pairwise comparisons Observed stuttering
  frequency did not affect having the boy as a
  friend or including the boy in our group of
  friends.

27
Results

• Question Type (A,B,C) x Stuttering Frequency
• Do differences exist in ratings of Affective,
  Behavioral, and Cognitive questions independent
  of stuttering frequency?
• Affective questions were rated significantly more
  positive than Behavioral and Cognitive questions.
  
• Cognitive questions were rated significantly more
  positive than Behavioral questions.
• (continued)

28
Results

• Stuttering Frequency did not significantly affect
  responses to Affective questions.
• Stuttering Frequency significantly affected
  responses to Behavioral questions (lt1 gt
  5,10,14) (5 gt 10,14)
• Cognitive questions (lt1 gt 5,10,14)

29
Results

• Do males and females in middle school perceive a
  male peer who stutters differently?
• No main effect gender differences across all
  questions, question type, and stuttering
  frequencies.
• Males rated the statement, I think this boy
  would be teased about his speech significantly
  lower than females.
• No gender difference regarding having the boy who
  stutters as a friend.

30
Conclusions

• Students are pretty comfortable with stuttering!
• lt1 and 5 stuttering can make a difference!
• Sometimes it only matters if you stutter a lot.
• Consistency was seen between Likert results and
  Interview results.
• No gender differences other than males perceiving
  the boy would be teased more than females.

31
Conclusions

• Interview Quotes
• lt1 His speech was not enough to make a
  difference.
• He wasnt really smiling a lot
• 5 6th graders are really prejudiced toward
  people with differences.
• Id be his friend.
• 10 As long as hes comfortable (stuttering),
  I dont really care.
• A kid about 12 or 13 was
• 14 I was just trying to keep up and
  understand him.
• He seems normal other than his speech.

32
Limitations of Findings

• Only from 2 Middle Schools in Nebraska.
• Other attributes of a person affect their
  perception of the individual besides stuttering.
  (ex, Athlete)
• Participants knew they were participating in a
  study about speech.
• Cultural, Ethnic, and Regional differences.

33
Questions?

• Thank you