Non-stuttered and total disfluencies were not normally distributed. Specifically, the distribution for each of the dependent variables was skewed to the right (positively skewed) indicating that the mass of each of the distributions was concentrated in the lower end of the disfluency continuum with more “mild” disfluencies for CWS and greater fluency for CWNS. The descriptive indices of normality are presented in Table 3. 3.3. Hypotheses 2 and 3: between-group differences on speech disfluencies Since both the second and the third hypotheses were tested in the same statistical model, results of those analyses are reported together. Again, as described above, generalized linear regression analysis ?a procedure that can be used for various distributions of dependentJ Commun Disord. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 May 01.Tumanova et al.Pagevariables ?was employed to assess between-group differences (CWS vs. CWNS) in the frequency of stuttered, non-stuttered and total disfluencies during children’s conversational speech. To test the hypothesis of whether participants’ speech-language abilities, age and gender influence the frequency of their speech disfluencies the following covariates were entered into the generalized linear regression model of each dependent variable (stuttered, Cyclopamine chemical information nonstuttered and total disfluencies): GFTA standard score, PPVT standard score, EVT standard score, TELD receptive subtest standard score, TELD expressive subtest standard score, age, and gender. The model tested main effects of talker group and gender, the talker group x gender interaction and main effects of all covariates. 3.3.1. Stuttered disfluencies–As might be expected based on group classification criteria, analyses indicated a significant main PNPP side effects effect of group (Wald 2 = 912.27, df = 1, p < . 0001) for stuttered disfluencies, with CWS exhibiting more stuttered disfluencies than CWNS. There was no interaction between group and gender. None of the covariates in the model were significant, failing to support hypothesis 3 for stuttered disfluencies. The beta coefficients (i.e., estimates of effect size) for the group main effect in the regression model were as follows (with CWS boys, who produced the most stuttered disfluencies, as the reference): = -2.045 for CWNS girls and = -1.973 for CWNS boys, and = -0.100 for CWS girls. Negative beta weights indicate that, relative to CWS boys, all other groups produced fewer stuttered disfluencies. 3.3.2. Non-stuttered disfluencies--In general, although not included as a part of the CWS versus CWNS classification criteria, results of the analysis for non-stuttered disfluencies indicated four significant main effects, one for group (Wald 2 = 12.26, df = 1, p < .0001), one for gender (Wald 2 = 6.05, df = 1, p = .014), one for EVT standard score (Wald 2 = 6.66, df = 1, p = .010) and one for age (Wald 2 = 4.92, df = 1, p = .027). There was no significant interaction between group and gender. These findings support hypotheses 2 and 3 for non-stuttered disfluencies. No other covariates (GFTA, PPVT, TELD receptive and expressive subtests standard scores) were significant in the model. Specifically, regardless of gender, the group effect indicated that CWS produced more nonstuttered disfluencies than CWNS. Further, regardless of talker group, boys produced more non-stuttered disfluencies than girls. The beta coefficients for the group and gender main effects are as follows (with CWS boys, who produced the most non-st.Non-stuttered and total disfluencies were not normally distributed. Specifically, the distribution for each of the dependent variables was skewed to the right (positively skewed) indicating that the mass of each of the distributions was concentrated in the lower end of the disfluency continuum with more "mild" disfluencies for CWS and greater fluency for CWNS. The descriptive indices of normality are presented in Table 3. 3.3. Hypotheses 2 and 3: between-group differences on speech disfluencies Since both the second and the third hypotheses were tested in the same statistical model, results of those analyses are reported together. Again, as described above, generalized linear regression analysis ?a procedure that can be used for various distributions of dependentJ Commun Disord. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 May 01.Tumanova et al.Pagevariables ?was employed to assess between-group differences (CWS vs. CWNS) in the frequency of stuttered, non-stuttered and total disfluencies during children's conversational speech. To test the hypothesis of whether participants' speech-language abilities, age and gender influence the frequency of their speech disfluencies the following covariates were entered into the generalized linear regression model of each dependent variable (stuttered, nonstuttered and total disfluencies): GFTA standard score, PPVT standard score, EVT standard score, TELD receptive subtest standard score, TELD expressive subtest standard score, age, and gender. The model tested main effects of talker group and gender, the talker group x gender interaction and main effects of all covariates. 3.3.1. Stuttered disfluencies--As might be expected based on group classification criteria, analyses indicated a significant main effect of group (Wald 2 = 912.27, df = 1, p < . 0001) for stuttered disfluencies, with CWS exhibiting more stuttered disfluencies than CWNS. There was no interaction between group and gender. None of the covariates in the model were significant, failing to support hypothesis 3 for stuttered disfluencies. The beta coefficients (i.e., estimates of effect size) for the group main effect in the regression model were as follows (with CWS boys, who produced the most stuttered disfluencies, as the reference): = -2.045 for CWNS girls and = -1.973 for CWNS boys, and = -0.100 for CWS girls. Negative beta weights indicate that, relative to CWS boys, all other groups produced fewer stuttered disfluencies. 3.3.2. Non-stuttered disfluencies--In general, although not included as a part of the CWS versus CWNS classification criteria, results of the analysis for non-stuttered disfluencies indicated four significant main effects, one for group (Wald 2 = 12.26, df = 1, p < .0001), one for gender (Wald 2 = 6.05, df = 1, p = .014), one for EVT standard score (Wald 2 = 6.66, df = 1, p = .010) and one for age (Wald 2 = 4.92, df = 1, p = .027). There was no significant interaction between group and gender. These findings support hypotheses 2 and 3 for non-stuttered disfluencies. No other covariates (GFTA, PPVT, TELD receptive and expressive subtests standard scores) were significant in the model. Specifically, regardless of gender, the group effect indicated that CWS produced more nonstuttered disfluencies than CWNS. Further, regardless of talker group, boys produced more non-stuttered disfluencies than girls. The beta coefficients for the group and gender main effects are as follows (with CWS boys, who produced the most non-st.
