Ond, is the issue of whether, in addition to stuttered disfluencies, “non-stuttered,” “other” or “normal” disfluencies are salient to our understanding and/or classification of developmental stuttering in preschool-age children. Third, is the issue of misattribution of effect, that is, do third-order variables (e.g., age, gender or speech-language status) confound our understanding of between-group differences in speech disfluency. Fourth, is the issue of whether there is an association between parents/caregivers’ expressed reports of concern thatJ Commun Disord. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 May 01.Tumanova et al.Pagetheir child is or is suspected to be stuttering and examiners’ measurement of the child’s instances of stuttered disfluencies? Below, we briefly examine each of these issues.NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author ManuscriptThe first issue, the distribution of speech disfluencies, has received little attention in data analyses, with a few exceptions. For example, Johnson, Darley, and Spriestersbach (1963) noted that the frequency distributions of speech disfluencies “are considerably skewed or “long-tailed in one direction” with “piling up of scores toward the low end of the distribution” (p. 252). Similar descriptions were also reported by Davis (1939) and Jones, Onslow, Packman, and Gebski (2006). Johnson and colleagues further speculated that from such distributions “we may draw the generalization that there are more relatively mild than relatively severe stutterers” (p. 252). Interestingly, however, researchers assessing betweengroup differences in speech fluency (e.g., Yaruss, LaSalle, et al., 1998; Yaruss, Max, Newman, Campbell, 1998) have typically employed parametric inferential statistical analyses that assume normality of distribution (e.g., analysis of variance, t-tests, etc.). Unfortunately, despite the observations of Johnson and colleagues, as well as Davis and others, there is little empirical evidence in the literature that the underlying distributions of reported speech disfluencies (e.g., stuttered disfluencies, non-stuttered disfluencies and so forth) are normally distributed. If the distributions of (non)stuttered disfluencies assume a non-normal or non-Gaussian form (e.g., strong positive skew), then the use of parametric inferential statistics may be problematic. If the assumption of normality cannot be met, then the assumption of ordinary least squares regression or analysis of variance is violated, possibly leading to the rejection of the null hypothesis when in fact it is true. If such violation is the case, it leads to the suggestion that researchers’ consider employing analytical statistical models that better fit the data’s actual distribution. A second Setmelanotide web question concerns the frequency of stuttered disfluencies and non-stuttered or normal disfluencies exhibited by children who do and do not stutter. Many studies of developmental stuttering, and reasonably so, have classified the two talker groups based on frequency of instances of “stuttering” (e.g., Ambrose Yairi, 1999; Anderson Conture, 2001; Logan LaSalle, 1999; Sawyer Yairi, 2006; Watkins Yairi, 1997). It should be noted that that some differences do exist across various studies in the way stuttered disfluencies are described as well as what constitutes a stuttered PNPP site disfluency (for further review, see Einarsdottir Ingham, 2005). At present, however, some have classified children as stuttering if.Ond, is the issue of whether, in addition to stuttered disfluencies, “non-stuttered,” “other” or “normal” disfluencies are salient to our understanding and/or classification of developmental stuttering in preschool-age children. Third, is the issue of misattribution of effect, that is, do third-order variables (e.g., age, gender or speech-language status) confound our understanding of between-group differences in speech disfluency. Fourth, is the issue of whether there is an association between parents/caregivers’ expressed reports of concern thatJ Commun Disord. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 May 01.Tumanova et al.Pagetheir child is or is suspected to be stuttering and examiners’ measurement of the child’s instances of stuttered disfluencies? Below, we briefly examine each of these issues.NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author ManuscriptThe first issue, the distribution of speech disfluencies, has received little attention in data analyses, with a few exceptions. For example, Johnson, Darley, and Spriestersbach (1963) noted that the frequency distributions of speech disfluencies “are considerably skewed or “long-tailed in one direction” with “piling up of scores toward the low end of the distribution” (p. 252). Similar descriptions were also reported by Davis (1939) and Jones, Onslow, Packman, and Gebski (2006). Johnson and colleagues further speculated that from such distributions “we may draw the generalization that there are more relatively mild than relatively severe stutterers” (p. 252). Interestingly, however, researchers assessing betweengroup differences in speech fluency (e.g., Yaruss, LaSalle, et al., 1998; Yaruss, Max, Newman, Campbell, 1998) have typically employed parametric inferential statistical analyses that assume normality of distribution (e.g., analysis of variance, t-tests, etc.). Unfortunately, despite the observations of Johnson and colleagues, as well as Davis and others, there is little empirical evidence in the literature that the underlying distributions of reported speech disfluencies (e.g., stuttered disfluencies, non-stuttered disfluencies and so forth) are normally distributed. If the distributions of (non)stuttered disfluencies assume a non-normal or non-Gaussian form (e.g., strong positive skew), then the use of parametric inferential statistics may be problematic. If the assumption of normality cannot be met, then the assumption of ordinary least squares regression or analysis of variance is violated, possibly leading to the rejection of the null hypothesis when in fact it is true. If such violation is the case, it leads to the suggestion that researchers’ consider employing analytical statistical models that better fit the data’s actual distribution. A second question concerns the frequency of stuttered disfluencies and non-stuttered or normal disfluencies exhibited by children who do and do not stutter. Many studies of developmental stuttering, and reasonably so, have classified the two talker groups based on frequency of instances of “stuttering” (e.g., Ambrose Yairi, 1999; Anderson Conture, 2001; Logan LaSalle, 1999; Sawyer Yairi, 2006; Watkins Yairi, 1997). It should be noted that that some differences do exist across various studies in the way stuttered disfluencies are described as well as what constitutes a stuttered disfluency (for further review, see Einarsdottir Ingham, 2005). At present, however, some have classified children as stuttering if.
